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.

Kirsanth: Well, that might be true. Looking at the rules for AP (and armor piercing), they are all only in the shooting section, pages 20 and 27. In the section on Close Combat Weapons there is no use of AP anywhere, only that armor saves may not be taken or counts as a power weapon.
This is actually quite internally consistent too, as the only shooting weapon type that functions as a close combat weapon (a pistol) specifically disregards its Str and AP in favor of the user's strength (and lack of AP).

Also, as to the cover thing, my point at least is that there are only two types of attacks: Shooting and Melee. Vehicle explosions count as shooting attacks, as do Psychic Shooting Attacks, and anything that has an AP value. Likewise anything that counts as a power weapon or does not specify an AP is a melee attack (such as dangerous terrain tests). It is possible that others are arguing for a 3rd type of damage allocation, but I am not.

@Kir: And a pistol is not defined as a pistol in CC. It counts as a CC weapon. Otherwise when a 'zerker furious charged, he would get 3 Str 5 CC attacks and one Str 4 for the pistol and it would ignore 5+ armor. I don't know anyone that plays that way.

kirsanth wrote:Also, there is page 39 under Taking Saves.
"Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting." Oddly, people use that as justification for taking cover saves from things other than for shooting.

Actually, the real justification we are using is that after 5 pages, you still have not clearly shown why cover saves only apply from shooting attacks.

kirsanth wrote:At the risk of sounding repetative, it does not say they are allowed - and THAT is what is required. Saying "it does not say I can't" only works if something says "I can".

All the rules for allowing cover saves (with the rules being quoted) require the attack to be a shooting attack for cover saves to apply.

Gorkamorka wrote:

imweasel wrote:
No, the restrictions on taking cover saving throws are restricted to shooting attacks. 40k is a permissive rules set. You need to have permission to take cover saves outside of shooting.

Vehicular explosions are resolved as shooting? Rules and page please.

The mawloc's ds attack is 'almost universally clearly typed as such in the rules'? Rules and page please that define what kind of attack this is.

There are many attacks that are 'not defined' and are left up to the players to determine what kind of attack it really represents.

The saving throw rules give you permission to take a saving throw against wounds. They have to be denied to not apply. A cover saving throw is a saving throw. Nowhere in the cover rules is a shooting attacks only restriction placed on saving throws granted by cover, anywhere. You are fabricating it. In fact, no restrictions are placed on it at all until other rules later in the book.

In the rules for vehicle damage effects, on page 67.

The mawlocs ds attack is not a shooting attack. It has no type, and it doesn't need one. That does not mean that things that are shooting attacks are not labeled as such or that we should apply labels to unlabeled attacks as you claim.

If you'd read the thread you'd know all of this. All of these points have been covered.

Special note for this part:

Gorkamorka wrote:
The saving throw rules give you permission to take a saving throw against wounds. They have to be denied to not apply. A cover saving throw is a saving throw. Nowhere in the cover rules is a shooting attacks only restriction placed on saving throws granted by cover, anywhere. You are fabricating it. In fact, no restrictions are placed on it at all until other rules later in the book.

There are rules for allowing the cover save.

kirsanth wrote:Page 21.

"against flying debris and enemy shots"

"not affected by the Armor Piercing"

"protecting it from enemy shots"

"obscured from the point of view of the firer"

"may shoot over"

"check the firers' line of sight"

"from the firer's view"

There is more, and other pages.

kirsanth wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:The rules state that cover is a saving throw, with no caveats preventing you from taking it against anything that doesn't say otherwise if you have it.

So. . . it does not say you can't?

Not quite.
Nothing allows it.

To continue, since the rules on the page defining cover do not . . . cover it, let's move on. I am still leaving out most of the sentence, or I would need to post multiple pages of rules. People should be able to read them well enough in any case.

Page 22:

"models can always shoot, and be shot at . . . without receiving a cover save"

"are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from"

"Firing through units or area terrain"

"If a model fires through"

"Firing out of area terrain"

"Therefor they may fire through"

"in order to be able to shoot at all"

"If only one model is shooting, it will be easy to tell how many models in the target unit are in cover"

And again from page 21, since it really sums the issue up since it is describing "Cover Saves":
"so units in cover will normally get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them"

The point is, nothing says you CAN take a cover save from anything other than shooting attacks -- even if one is entitled a cover save.

Saying "it does not say I cannot" only works when something else says you can.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, apologies for my . . . terse reply earlier.

You continue to quote the incorrect rules, as if the rules surrounding being in cover or gaining a cover saving throw somehow apply to the saving throw itself or taking it.

I understand more then.
You think that other than explicit permission to take a cover save (from KFF or a Venomthrope, for example) that it is ok to take a cover save without being in cover/obscured?
Which is to say, the rules I posted are the rules for cover saves. How is that incorrect?

Which is to say, the rules I posted are the rules for cover saves. How is that incorrect?

The rules you posted relate to when you are in cover (or when you GAIN a cover save) when you actually TAKE the cover save is "covered" in the section on save throws and that states you take them against wounds and is not specific on how you receive those wounds...

So you can take the save without it being granted?

That is the part of this issue that I am missing.

kirsanth wrote:So you can take the save without it being granted?

That is the part of this issue that I am missing.

Doesn't the KFF do that? (Since the OP said that this entire thread was based upon the KFF and not upon normal "cover saves".)

That was one part of the question. A secondary question, even.

kirsanth wrote:That was one part of the question. A secondary question, even.

Oooookay. But still, doesn't the KFF expressly grant it?

kirsanth wrote:
So you can take the save without it being granted?

That is the part of this issue that I am missing.
...
That was one part of the question. A secondary question, even.

I'm extremely confused about what is confusing you.

If you don't have a cover saving throw you can't take a cover saving throw against wounds.
If you have a cover saving throw you can take a cover saving throw against wounds unless it is denied.

The KFF grants units the saving throw all the time (outside of CC).

The rules for gaining a cover saving throw by being in cover in most other instances are vague or revolve around shooting mechanics. This is true.
That doesn't mean that cover saving throws only apply in shooting situations.

Gorkamorka wrote:The rules for gaining a cover saving throw by being in cover in most other instances are vague or revolve around shooting mechanics. This is true.
That doesn't mean that cover saving throws only apply in shooting situations.

So is this coming down to another 'example' list of when you can take cover save?

It's not 'inclusive'?

That's a big can of worms folks are opening, sorta like PotMS for lr's...

So you can take the save without it being granted?

It is granted in the saves section it says you can take saves against wounds received. Why is this difficult to ubnderstand.

A cover save is a type of save therefore you can take it against wounds received. How you aquire a cover save is another matter but if you are entitled to a cover save you can take it against any wounds received unless specified otherwise (like in the case of Assault or Perils of the Warp).

Whether you receive a cover save from area terrain against a non-shooting attack is muddy at best. You would certainly receive it from a KFF at all times (and other custom wargear).

Area terrain does say that you are "in cover, regardless of the direction of the shot" to me that doesn't narrow it down to just shooting as it says you are in cover but the implication could be that it only counts to shooting. However as Saves specifically say you can take them against any wounds and cover saves never states that you can't I'd go with specific > vague. It would certainly seem bizarre to allow a KFF save and not a save for area terrain.

I think the issue here is gaining a cover save vs a specific shooting attack vs having a cover save granted by a special rule (Venomthrope, KFF, Stormcaller)

All mechanics for gaining a cover save based on normal rules in the BRB function only when there is a defined shooting attack. The Mawlocs ability is not defined as a shooting or a CC attack, it is simply hits on the unit(s) that are touching the blast template.

Because it is not a shooting attack (or a CC attack) you would not be able to get a cover save from terrain or intervening units because nothing is "fired" or "shot." However, if you had a cover save granted by Venomthrope, KFF, Stormcaller, etc then you would be able to take the save, becuase the save was not granted by the BRB, which fails to allow saves vs non-shooting attacks; rather it was granted by a special rule with a more encompassing definition.

RAW: its not a shooting attack, it is just hits on the unit. Cover saves in normal circumstances only apply vs. shooting attacks
HYWPI: the strength of the attack is not in its statline, its in the ability to move units off objectives, auto-destroy them if they are in a tight position, or push them out of cover to be assaultable by the rest of your army. I will allow cover saves from terrain because I dont really care how many of your terminators I kill with this attack, they are getting eaten either way.

Demogerg

Has it about right I think. I'd certainly let someone take and area terrain save against me if I was using a Mawloc.

I disagree that it is not a shooting attack, or at least that it does not follow the mechanics for shooting type attacks. However, it is entirely possible that GW accidentally created a 3rd type of damage allocation that was neither shooting nor melee based.

However, I do agree that if you have a cover save (for whatever reason) you may take it unless specifically disallowed from it, just as you can take an armor or invulnerable save unless specifically denied it.

the rules for the Mawloc template never state you may NOT take cover saves, models in cover get covers saves per the BRB so I think its pretty RAW and reasonable if you are directly in cover, you get a cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
there are other attacks that happen during the movement phase.

slave snares

swooping hawk grenades

bib bombs from deffkoptas

harpy spore mine thingy

deffrolla


you get cover saves from them.

They have an attack profile, they dont happen in the shooting phase so "they are not shooting attacks" by the same logic people are claiming the mawloc template is not a shooting attack.

you get a cover save from the mawloc template.

the rules never state you may not take a cover save= cover save allowed.

I disagree that it is not a shooting attack, or at least that it does not follow the mechanics for shooting type attacks. However, it is entirely possible that GW accidentally created a 3rd type of damage allocation that was neither shooting nor melee based.

Yeah denying it s shooting attack begs the question of whether it can do any damage at all, if you are not using the shooting mechanics what mechanics are you using for determining the damage? If you are using the assault mechanics then why the AP as that is meaningless and everything gets it's armour save. I'm not sure how else you can do damage without using either set of mechanics.

It generally says when to take cover saves. It specifically says when not to. Specific > general? Fling has an excellent point as well. It doesn't give permission in the book to use this magical third type of attack, so I guess you can't use it at all? CC attacks don't have/use AP (we've proven that much). Shooting attacks all have AP. This is either a shooting attack and does damage, or is a third type of attack and does no damage since there aren't rules for it.

To wit:
Q. Is a vehicle hit by a Vengeful Tornado result
literally hit on its side armour, and therefore
does it get the ‘Obscured’ cover save if Njal
cannot see one of its sides?
A. No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack
and therefore allows no cover save.

Wait, if we're going to let other books' FAQs spill over then I take a Summoned Greater Daemon as my HQ and Summoned Less Daemons as my mandatory troops from my CSM codex.

This has been . . . covered.

Guy, guys...

All of this is a Moot Point, because Terror from the Deep doesn't actually do anything!

A Cookie for whoever points out why first

kirsanth wrote:To wit:
Q. Is a vehicle hit by a Vengeful Tornado result
literally hit on its side armour, and therefore
does it get the ‘Obscured’ cover save if Njal
cannot see one of its sides?
A. No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack
and therefore allows no cover save.

Case and point.

its not some mystical third type of attack that has never been encounted before, its simply hits with a strength and AP value equal to the number of models under or touching the large blast template.

also, you get cover only from Shooting Attacks (or the aforementioned KFF, Venomthrope, Storm Caller), and this attack has its own complete description on how it is performed with no reference to being a shooting attack whatsoever.

"the rules for the Mawloc template never state you may NOT take cover saves" Backwards and circular logic. You must be allowed a cover save to take a cover save. the normal BRB rules for cover saves only function against shooting attacks, which this is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:Guy, guys...

All of this is a Moot Point, because Terror from the Deep doesn't actually do anything!

A Cookie for whoever points out why first

because you cannot place a model on top of another model as the "marker" for deep striking.

kirsanth wrote:To wit:
Q. Is a vehicle hit by a Vengeful Tornado result
literally hit on its side armour, and therefore
does it get the ‘Obscured’ cover save if Njal
cannot see one of its sides?
A. No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack
and therefore allows no cover save.

You'll also note that the ability does not have an AP characteristic which leads us back to the conclusion that only those attacks that have an AP are shooting attacks...

round and round we go....


A better argument would have been to use Chain Lightening which does have an AP value. Still, the people at GW that write FAQs are on crack anyway because it takes place "at the end of the shooting phase"; keywork, shooting.

Meh. I can't believe people are still arguing this.
Back to lurking...

Demogerg wrote:because you cannot place a model on top of another model as the "marker" for deep striking.

Nope, that's not it. And you can actually.

That is an assumption.

It never states anywhere that ONLY shooting attacks have AP. Only ones have them listed, but that is NOT a bona fide rule.

Also, as I pointed out, pistols techincally have an AP and are CC. The Str and AP is ignored as they count as a "normal close combat weapon" but the AP on them does not "magically" disappear. There is a rule saying it just does not apply, as they are a normal CCW.

You can shoot a pistol....and it doesn't have an AP value in CC, it just confers an additional attack on an assault.

Please, someone show me one example of a close combat or other attack that has an AP.

I think we can safely file this under "needs an FAQ." Until then I'll be d6ing it I suppose :/