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.

We bumped into a situation the other night. We had a vehicle explode far enough to cause damage to some units hiding in cover. One side said that the unit in cover got a cover save, the other side disagreed. It was argued that cover saves are trigged by a shooting attack that targets the units in cover. Since the vehicle exploding is not a shooting attack and it is not specifically targeting the unit in cover, the no cover save side of the argument made a good point. The pro cover side argued that the explosion was the result of a shooting attack and thusly a cover save was triggered. Both sides made pretty good points.

We couldn't find anything about cover saves from the vehicle explosion in the rulebook. It ended up going to a D6 roll off. The situation was handled well enough and no one was bitter, but what are the rules on the situation?

The rules as written are as clear as you describe there.

On the one hand, you can only take cover saves against shooting. On the other, it is the Shooting Phase and it was caused by shooting.

So, yeah, that's about right.

Note that the situation is clear regarding cover saves if they blow it up in assault (that is, No Cover Saves), but alas the shooting ones are muddy.

Gwar! wrote:On the one hand, you can only take cover saves against shooting.

Now hang on where does it say that gwar? Cover saves are described as part of the shooting rules but then so are armour saves and invulnerable saves. Only place that you are told cover does not work is against wounds suffered in close combat (and it blowing up is close combat). Add to that all models suffer a str3 AP- hit and you cannot have AP in close combat.

So I'm all for models taking cover saves though at D6" you've got to be fairly close so i can only see area terrain, wargear or special rules working.

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:On the one hand, you can only take cover saves against shooting.

Now hang on where does it say that gwar? Cover saves are described as part of the shooting rules but then so are armour saves and incurable saves.

That's the point. You can only take invulnerable saves in the movement phase because that is the only kind of save they say you can take (Dangerous terrain, page 14).

You can take Armour, Invul and Cover saves in the shooting phase because the rules say you can take them. (Pages 20 and 21)

You can take Armour and Invul saves in the assault phase because those are the only kind of saves the rules say you can take. (Page 39)

As such, taking a cover save outside of the shooting phase is not permitted.

Also, Incurable saves?

Gwar! wrote:Also, Incurable saves?

blasted spell checker ... I'm sure auto-correcting. Doesn't help I'm a Dyslexic sod with sticky keys (no before make up a joke it was hot chocolate).

I'm at camp right now so I can't give you the page but the section that deals with the explosion does specify that it counts as shooting. The section for troops inside a vehicle doesn't but it uses the same formatting for the damage so one could assume that it is a ranged attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:
You can take Armour and Invul saves in the assault phase because those are the only kind of saves the rules say you can take. (Page 39)

As such, taking a cover save outside of the shooting phase is not permitted.

Doesn't it tell you that you can take saves as described in the shooting section but cover saves may not be taken against close combat attacks?

BrockRitcey wrote:I'm at camp right now so I can't give you the page but the section that deals with the explosion does specify that it counts as shooting. The section for troops inside a vehicle doesn't but it uses the same formatting for the damage so one could assume that it is a ranged attack.

...

You have that completely backwards.

Page 61, Vehicle Damage Table:

Flaming debris is scattered D6" from the vehicle, and models in range suffer a Strength 3, AP- hit

Page 67, Effects of Damage Results on Passengers

The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP- hits equal to the number of models embarked, treated just like hits from shooting.

Not being mean, but you should wait until you have the rules and be able to check them before posting.

BrockRitcey wrote:Doesn't it tell you that you can take saves as described in the shooting section but cover saves may not be taken against close combat attacks?

It says "Otherwise, the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for Shooting. ... models do not get cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat, and for obvious reasons cannot go to ground."

Again, it's not 100% clear because the rules for the explosion are very vague.

It's good to know that the rules aren't clear on this.

With that said, how would you guys have played the situation? We didn't have a huge rules debate, we just agreed to disagree and rolled off. Should a house rule be implemented?

Either way, thanks for the input guys. I like to think I know the rules well enough that things like this shouldn't happen. This is my first time ever having the game "break" on me

Since you asked how "I" would play it...

It looks like, as stated by Gwar, they wouldn't get a save. As such, if my opponent wants to deny my cover save, I would let them (as it is RaW). Personally, I wouldn't deny my opponent a cover save, since I (personally) see it as a technicality in the rules. But, as that is a personal view, it is just a house rule.

Yes, this issue goes back to the fact models within range of the explosion suffer a S3 AP- hit...and then what are we supposed to do with that hit? Roll to wound? But there are no rules for rolling to wound on hits caused outside of the normal process for shooting or assaults (and really the assault casualty rules mainly just reference back to the shooting rules).

So at the end of the day, if you want to actually convert that 'hit' to anything resembling a dead model, then you have to follow the rules for resolving casualties via shooting. And if you do that, then you end up in the cover save section and run into the whole fact that you have no 'firing' model to determine where cover is (or isn't) applied.

This makes the rules unclear an impossible to follow 'as written'. That means you have to come to some conclusion on your own. IMHO, since the casualty removal rules include the rules for cover saves, I think you apply cover saves whenever it makes sense to do so (swapping out 'firing model' with 'exploding vehicle' in this case). That's also the stance we've gone with in the INAT FAQ and also the way GW has ruled in at least one case (with the Doom of Malan'tai...his attack is NOT a shooting attack yet they ruled that a cover save does indeed apply).

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!

Har har har!

Since the RaW is unclear, I'd interpret that attack as a shooting attack.

If you think about it, the debris are "shooting" off of the vehicle, and into models that are in area terrain (presumably), where the trees would block a few shards. A lot of models (such as Orks) have guns that basically shoot debris and shrapnel, and you get cover saves against those. Of course, fluff =/= RaW, but still.

I would give the unit a cover save, since the explodes result says to treat the hits just like hits from shooting.

thats how i would play it.

DeathReaper wrote:I would give the unit a cover save, since the explodes result says to treat the hits just like hits from shooting.

thats how i would play it.

It doesn't though... Did you even read the thread?

Page 61:
Flaming debris is scattered D6" from the vehicle, and models in range suffer a Strength 3, AP- hit

That's everything. Nothing about being treated like shooting at all...

DeathReaper wrote:I would give the unit a cover save, since the explodes result says to treat the hits just like hits from shooting.

thats how i would play it.

Cool, so if "hits" are all "hits from shooting," that means I get to take cover saves against power weapons if I'm in area terrain, right?

my apologies i was reading P.67 effects of damage on passengers where the models embarked suffer a str 4 hit treated just like shooting.

with that being said I would play the explosion as if it were a shooting attack, since there are generally three ways a model can be wounded:
Failing a dangerous terrain test.
Shooting attack.
Close Combat hits.

I would treat the explosion as shooting, since models on-board the transport treat the hits this way.

SaintHazard wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:I would give the unit a cover save, since the explodes result says to treat the hits just like hits from shooting.

thats how i would play it.

Cool, so if "hits" are all "hits from shooting," that means I get to take cover saves against power weapons if I'm in area terrain, right?

What are you talking about?


Edit: Ok, got it Saint.

I'm talking about what you said. If "hits" are "hits from shooting," then I get to take cover saves against CC attacks that deny me armor saves.

Because the units outside the vehicle do not take a hit that acts like a hit from shooting. You were saying they did. But you corrected yourself, so it's all good.

Around here we have played it that they get the cover save in that situation. I think this is one of the rules that is just not clearly defined and yourgroup will have to decide for themselves what you are going to do and then keep it consistent.

Will not happen all that often in any regard, but making a house "determination" locally on how any particular grey area in the rules will be interpreted, and doing so in advance helps keep everyone on the same page.

So, in terms of the passengers:

A vehicle gets destroyed while in area terrain. The passengers each get a S4 AP- hit that behaves as if it was from shooting. Does this mean that the passengers (who are now in the area terrain) can take a cover save?

Grakmar wrote:So, in terms of the passengers:

A vehicle gets destroyed while in area terrain. The passengers each get a S4 AP- hit that behaves as if it was from shooting. Does this mean that the passengers (who are now in the area terrain) can take a cover save?

No, because they aren't in the terrain until after the hits have been resolved and the survivors are placed in the resulting "crater".

Even if they were in area terrain before the vehicle exploded, they weren't in area terrain - the vehicle was.

They were embarked in a vehicle.

Well you know there are some rules and/or wargear that give you a cover save even without cover. A unit with Stealth that goes to ground has a 5+ cover save (Eldar pathfinders would have a 4+) but then most people have better armour saves so it shouldn't come up.

The orks with the KFF would have a better cover save though.

Funnily enough, Orks inside a Battlewagon that explodes get the KFF save.

Gwar! wrote:Funnily enough, Orks inside a Battlewagon that explodes get the KFF save.

... No don't think so, they haven't been placed yet so no way of knowing if they're within 6" of the big mek.

All you have to do is determine if the unit is within 6" of the big mek. Since the mek is attached to the boyz you know he is within 2" of them.

A more detailed answer is; "well!). If the
players need to measure a range involving the
embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is
measured to or from the vehicle’s hull." page 66 brb.
and
"The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP– hits equal
to the number of models embarked, treated just like hits
from shooting." page 67

Resulting in 'Check if unit is range from str4 shooting, vehicles still in place so measure range from ~! oh the hull !~ yep, yep, all good cover saves thank~you!'

Or does it....? (felt bad giving out answers - must plant seed of doubt)

As far as I'm aware, only shooting attacks have an AP value. The explosion has an AP value, ergo, it is a shooting attack (originating from the exploding vehicle).

Since the wounds taken from the vehicle exploding are S3 AP- and close combat attacks do not have an AP value, doesn't that value of AP- force the wounds to be from a shooting attack technically?

Except that there's no rule that says that, you're just looking at the correlation between "shooting attacks" and "AP values."

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are necessarily squares.

All shooting attacks have an AP value, but not all hits with an AP value are necessarily shooting attacks.