Assaulting a vehicle in area cover

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dashofpepper**

Forum searching hasn't gotten me anywhere on this one so here goes...

If a vehicle is inside an area terrain of forest, and I assault and destroy the vehicle, it scatters flaming debris D6". I'm in cover (the forest). Do I get cover saves from the flying debris? The rulebook doesn't seem to be clear, and I can't get an agreement between anyone at my local store.

**tomlowbridge**

i'd say yes because the rules don't state you don't get a cover save and it isn't a template weapon.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Yes, you do, why wouldn't you?

**Dashofpepper**

You're assaulting a vehicle. It explodes and peppers you with shrapnel. You don't normally get cover saves from things in close combat...armor and invulnerable.

So I would think that if you get cover saves from an exploding vehicle that you just assaulted (and are not 2" away through terrain from) then you might not.

**SlaveToDorkness**

When assaulting a (non-WSkilled) vehicle you are never considered "locked in assault".

**Lordhat**

However, normally you DO need at least 2" between you and the origin of the hit to claim a coversave. I would say that precludes models in base contact from claiming one.

**Centurian99**

Lordhat wrote:However, normally you DO need at least 2" between you and the origin of the hit to claim a coversave. I would say that precludes models in base contact from claiming one.

Huh? Where's that rule?

**Lordhat**

Sorry confused firing OUT of area terrain with firing THROUGH area terrain.

**AffliKtion**

Lordhat wrote:Sorry confused firing OUT of area terrain with firing THROUGH area terrain.

I don't think you quite understand the question.

Both the assaulting unit and the vehicle are in area terrain. The unit assaults, gets vehicle - Explosion results.

Does the unit get a cover save?

I could see it happening, as the assaulting unit dives behind a tree while the thing explodes. Explosion = blast type weaponry, even though its not explicit, you could treat it as a blast and anything in area terrain gets a cover save from blasts.

Could really go both ways though. Do a roll off and call it fair.

**The Defenestrator**

Lordhat wrote: Sorry confused firing OUT of area terrain with firing THROUGH area terrain.

here's the rule you were thinking about:

page 22 wrote:Therefore [units] may fire through up to 2" of the area terrain without that terrain conferring a cover save to the target.

Don't be confused, this rule does not negate the cover save of someone 2" away, also in the same area terrain.

page 22 wrote:target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot came from.

You're in area terrain, you get a cover save against all wounds, unless they specifically state you do not (such as from template weapons, in close combat, etc.) Therefore, you do indeed get cover from an exploding vehicle.

For the record, I'm familiar with this part of the rules because a recent opponent absolutely refused to accept that I had a cover save. His tactical marines and my bloodletters were 1" apart across the empty bottom floor of a ruin, and he was adamant I didn't have a cover save. He was more than willling to accept that I had to go at I1 when I charged the following round, as I did not having frags.....

When somone pries open the hatch of a tank and lobs a grenade inside, his buddies are likely going to scatter. ".....IT'S GONNA BLOW!"

**moonfire**

if more than helf of your squad is in cover you get the safe, otherwise you don't, and because you just assaulted the vehicule I bet that from the vihecules point of view nearly none of your squads members is in cover so you wont get the cover save

**Alerian**

It's even better with Orks.

Drive up in your BW with a KFF mek and Nobs inside. Then have the Nobs hop out and assault a vehicle (preferably a LR or Mono) while still within 6" of the BW...all get their 5+ cover and 4+ FNP save from the resulting explosion

**coredump**

moonfire wrote:if more than helf of your squad is in cover you get the safe, otherwise you don't, and because you just assaulted the vehicule I bet that from the vihecules point of view nearly none of your squads members is in cover so you wont get the cover save

Um... they are in area terrain, so they are all in cover.

**The Defenestrator**

Alerian wrote:drive up in your BW with a KFF mek and Nobs inside. Then have the Nobs hop out and assault a vehicle (preferably a LR or Mono) while still within 6" of the BW...all get their 5+ cover and 4+ FNP save from the resulting explosion

Or just deff roll the land raider, never bother disembarking, and go assault something else 23-28" away next turn

(for the record, despite being a hotly contested point, I don't know anyone who doesn't allow deffrolls on tanks. I'm also not an ork player.)

**Dashofpepper**

Defenseestrator, your quotes on cover saves earlier are in regard to shooting attacks.

You do get cover saves from incoming wounds during the shooting phase...but this is the assault phase, and the explosion happened during the assault.

Tentatively, I'd say that if I shot and blew up the tank during the shooting phase, my nearby boyz (1" away) would get cover saves as they are within area terrain. Therefore (the tentative part) since I created the same result during the assault phase, the same rule applies. The explosion isn't an assault modifier, nor count towards combat resolution since the vehicle and the boyz aren't engaged in close combat assault (tank has no WS).

That's not always the case though....so now what happens if its a Defiler, or a Dreadnought? Its in a forest, and I'm in the same forest, and I assault it and explode it. Again...cover saves or not? I was hoping for something definitive from the rules.

**coredump**

Well, since the explosion has a range, and the hit has an AP value.... it sure seems like a ranged attack. (not CC) So in that case, cover would apply.

**Dashofpepper**

I think that's a pretty good argument as to why its ranged.

**Alerian**

The Defenestrator wrote:
Alerian wrote:drive up in your BW with a KFF mek and Nobs inside. Then have the Nobs hop out and assault a vehicle (preferably a LR or Mono) while still within 6" of the BW...all get their 5+ cover and 4+ FNP save from the resulting explosion

Or just deff roll the land raider, never bother disembarking, and go assault something else 23-28" away next turn

(for the record, despite being a hotly contested point, I don't know anyone who doesn't allow deffrolls on tanks. I'm also not an ork player.)

Well, since both the INAT FAQ and John Spencer have both ruled that Deffrollas may not be used to ram, there is no one in my local meta that allows them to.

**moonfire**

coredump wrote:
moonfire wrote:if more than helf of your squad is in cover you get the safe, otherwise you don't, and because you just assaulted the vehicule I bet that from the vihecules point of view nearly none of your squads members is in cover so you wont get the cover save
Um... they are in area terrain, so they are all in cover.

only if more than halve of your squad is fully or partially invicible form the tank his point of view otherwise you don't

in 4th you where right in 5th you aren't

**coredump**

I assume you mean invisible?

And you need to go re-read the section about area terrain. When half the unit is in area terrain, they get the cover bonus. Period.

**SlaveToDorkness**

LoL

"my squad is Invincible from your vehicle! Hahahahaha!"

Yes, Area Terrain provides cover regardless of the proximity or direction of fire/debris.

**Dashofpepper**

Right...so what about when they ARE locked in close combat?

Scenario 1:

Defiler is in area terrain and gets assaulted and killed by a squad of Ork Boyz. It explodes, and does so 6". Since a Defiler has a weapon skill, the Boyz were locked in close combat with it. Do they get a cover save from the ensuing explosion?

Scenario 2:

Boyz and Space marines are in cover fighting. A vehicle 3" away is exploded. It explodes into range of the close combat. Do they get hit?

**coredump**

It is not a CC attack. It should allow for cover saves.

**cervidal**

Alerian wrote:

Well, since both the INAT FAQ and John Spencer have both ruled that Deffrollas may not be used to ram, there is no one in my local meta that allows them to.

And since neither is a truly quotable source (one being one group's opinion and the other admitting that he has often come up with off the cuff answers, as well as no gathered, documented source of reference from him) you've every right to tell them to bugger off if they aren't running the tournies.

**Drunkspleen**

cervidal wrote:
Alerian wrote:

Well, since both the INAT FAQ and John Spencer have both ruled that Deffrollas may not be used to ram, there is no one in my local meta that allows them to.

And since neither is a truly quotable source (one being one group's opinion and the other admitting that he has often come up with off the cuff answers, as well as no gathered, documented source of reference from him) you've every right to tell them to bugger off if they aren't running the tournies.

And they have every right to tell you to bugger off when you attempt to deff rolla their tanks if you aren't running the tournies.

THERE IS NO ANSWER TO THIS RULES DILEMMA IN THE RAW.

Apologies for the OT but I'm sick of seeing this sort of thing oversimplified.

**coredump**

the other admitting that he has often come up with off the cuff answers,

I don't recall him saying that. Using RAI is not the same as 'off the cuff'.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Here's another monkeywrench for this thread....

What if a squad was assaulting a vehicle, it blows up and rolls high enogh to hit a squad that is behind the assaulting squad....

does the assaulting squad provide cover for being an intervening squad?

How do you determine what LOS is blocked/ what is in cover since there's no specific weapon its coming from?

**cervidal**

coredump wrote:I don't recall him saying that. Using RAI is not the same as 'off the cuff'.

He has fully admitted to changing his mind after having had supporting documentation from codices and passages from the main rule book pointed out to him. Not doing the research is as off the cuff as it gets.

**coredump**

Then you should do more research before making such off the cuff comments.

Just because someone changes their mind, doesn't mean they didn't do research initially. The INAT FAQ has had a number of changes after people pointed out some information. Or do you think the INAT FAQ is also some 'off the cuff' thing with no research associated with it?

And, if I recall, he has only changed his answer twice. Not bad actually.

**cervidal**

coredump wrote:

And, if I recall, he has only changed his answer twice. Not bad actually.

Prove it. There is no documentation to show this on any apprieciable scale aisde from a couple of employee to gamer e-mails, which aren't reputable sources. We have no documented proof of any consistancy or inconsistancy, except for whatever he has posted on these forums, which included admission that he has made decisions without fully considering all available, relevant source materal.

Of the handful of rules clarification sources folks try to use outside of the off-the-site FAQs, the INAT is the closest to a reputable source, though their methodology is suspect. John Spencer answers, whether you respect his opinion or not (and I do), are not viable sources of FAQ material, except to make the always-nebulous RAI argument.