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.

So we had a situation come up this weekend during a game, and none of us could point to a place in the rule book that answers this for sure. I also did a search here on the Dakka Dakka forums and did not find a concrete answer.

On turn 3 of the game, a mob of 18 Boyz, 1 Nob, and 1 Warboss disembarked from their Battlewagon and decimated a unit in close combat. I moved them into area terrain using the consolidation move after their victory. During my enemy's turn, the Battlewagon was exploded (result 6: Vehicle - Explodes). The Boyz in area terrain were hit with the blast. Do they get a cover save?

According to Page 21 of the BRB, under the Cover Saves heading, "A position in cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots..." From page 22 of the BRB, "Inside Area Terrain: Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of which direction the shot is coming from..." While a vehicle explodes result may cause flying debris, it is not a shooting attack as far as I can tell in the rules. Similarly, area terrain may not be worried about the direction of the shot, but technically a vehicle explodes has no LOS or direction and is still not a shot.

We were having fun, so I just made my 6+ armor save. But we are both curious about this now, partially because my enemy was a new 'Nid player and we've also been discussing whether you get a cover save from the Soul Leech ability of the Doom of Malan'Tai or a Mawloc deepstriking. Currently we are leaning towards no for both of these as well, since they are not shooting attacks either.

In honesty, no-one knows for sure. There are tons of threads recently about how cover interacts with non-shooting.

yes they get a cover save ... should be noted that cover saves are only ruled out in CC.

The way the cover save rules are written, they only work against shooting. Specifically, you are in cover by being obscured from the point of view of the 'firer'... although that's been contested fairly recently in multiple threads.

So by RAW, no (IMO), you wouldn't get a cover save against an exploding tank... although I think it would make an extremely fluffy house rule.

Tri wrote:yes they get a cover save ... should be noted that cover saves are only ruled out in CC.

insaniak wrote:The way the cover save rules are written, they only work against shooting. Specifically, you are in cover by being obscured from the point of view of the 'firer'...

So by RAW, no, you wouldn't get a cover save against an exploding tank... although I think it would make an extremely fluffy house rule.

See what I mean?

To make games easier do we have to house rule every type of instance with cover saves? How do you guys play?

You don't have to house rule every different type of damage. You could as easily rule that it only works against shooting, or that it works against anything except close combat hits.

House rules can be as simple or as complicated as you want them to be.

tylersm wrote:To make games easier do we have to house rule every type of instance with cover saves? How do you guys play?

personal preference from my reading of the rules is ...
If it cause a wound and is not a close combat attack you can take a cover save if one is available.
... I know its only fluff but the first line of the cover save rule does tell you its using cover to shield against flying debris as well as enemy shots.

We play pretty much RAI whenever possible, so cover saves would apply if the orks were in cover. I hate the rules lawyer types who point at the rulebook, screaming about how "it only talks about shooting!" and ignoring the fact that cover saves represent being in cover from shrapnel as well as bullets. Just roll your saves and get on with the game. It's supposed to be fun, not about manipulating a poorly-written rulebook.

Skarboy wrote: I hate the rules lawyer types who point at the rulebook, screaming about how "it only talks about shooting!" and ignoring the fact that cover saves represent being in cover from shrapnel as well as bullets.

Hyperbole, much?

Just roll your saves and get on with the game. It's supposed to be fun, not about manipulating a poorly-written rulebook.

The fact that someone disagree with your interpretation of the rules doesn't automatically mean they're trying to manipulate the rules. If you think about it, someone could as easily accuse you of trying to manipulate the rules by taking a single line of fluff as taking precedence over the actual rules...

We don't know what was intended here. What we have is what is written in the book, which can be taken a couple of ways. Accepting that some people will interpret it differently to you rather than calling them names and accusing them of trying to make your game less fun is much more productive.

insaniak wrote:

Skarboy wrote: I hate the rules lawyer types who point at the rulebook, screaming about how "it only talks about shooting!" and ignoring the fact that cover saves represent being in cover from shrapnel as well as bullets.

Hyperbole, much?

Just roll your saves and get on with the game. It's supposed to be fun, not about manipulating a poorly-written rulebook.

The fact that someone disagree with your interpretation of the rules doesn't automatically mean they're trying to manipulate the rules. If you think about it, someone could as easily accuse you of trying to manipulate the rules by taking a single line of fluff as taking precedence over the actual rules...

We don't know what was intended here. What we have is what is written in the book, which can be taken a couple of ways. Accepting that some people will interpret it differently to you rather than calling them names and accusing them of trying to make your game less fun is much more productive.

And you pontificate to ME about hyberboles when you take a single statement and magnify into a philosophy about accepting others. Way to go, it'll make a fine ending to a G.I. Joe episode. Learning IS half the battle, after all. The other half, I believe, is crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentation of the women. But I digress.

It was OBVIOUS that I was referring to "rules lawyer types" in GENERAL, not specific to this case. It's not simply about "accepting different views," it's about sportsmanship and having a good time rather than trying to manipulate a rulebook to win a game of toy soldiers. If this case came up, sure, I'd listen to an argument why, for example, my unit in a 2+ cover save, fortified bunker would not get a cover save against an exploding wartrukk, but it wouldn't get far. If they insisted upon it, because "the rules don't say you get one," then, yeah, they would be the douchebag "rules lawyer type" and yeah, I wouldn't want to play against them. That's what I was referring to. Is that the sort of freedom of interpretation you're advocating for? Or would you rather restrict it to more grey areas where you can discuss logically, chill out, and dice it off so you can get back to the fun of the game? Well?

I'm fine with RAW most of the time. There are gray areas; it's a poorly-written game. But when those happen, common sense, sportsmanship, and intent should rule over "advantage," wouldn't you agree? Especially when one interpretation favors one player greatly over another? Nothing is important enough to get riled up over; it's a damn game. Remember GW's "most important rule": "...the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game" (pg. 2 BRB). That's the rule I play by. If you enjoy it more being sancrosanct, then, hey, more power to you. I don't. The rulebook is simply not well-written enough to be taken as gospel, so you might as well have the attitude of fun. And to me, "rules lawyer types" suck the fun out of the game because they scour the rulebook for loose threads and tug at them. I mean, come on. You know what I'm getting at; you have more sense than this sort of mess.

Skarboy wrote:And you pontificate to ME about hyberboles when you take a single statement and magnify into a philosophy about accepting others.

It was a single statement that appeared to be saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a rules lawyer and worthy of scorn. So yes, I took that as a sign that you weren't particularly open to other's viewpoints.

If they insisted upon it, because "the rules don't say you get one," then, yeah, they would be the douchebag "rules lawyer type" and yeah, I wouldn't want to play against them.

This is exactly what I mean. You're claiming that your viewpoint is the only possible right one, and that anyone who disagree is a rules lawyer. Can you honestly not see the problem with that?

The rules of the game are what they are. Wanting to play by those rules doesn't make someone a rules lawyer. Nor does a different opinion on a rule that can be read multiple ways (which, to be perfectly honest, I don't think this one can be).

To be fair, any contentious rules issue should be able to be diced off so that players can get on with the game. In practice, though, players are often reluctant to do that when they see a given issue as being clear. Your 'screaming rules lawyer' is just as likely to think that you're the one in the wrong for claiming in the middle of a game that something they see as a clear rule is just them somehow trying to twist the rules to gain an advantage.

I'm fine with RAW most of the time. There are gray areas; it's a poorly-written game. But when those happen, common sense, sportsmanship, and intent should rule over "advantage," wouldn't you agree?

To a degree. The moment 'intent' comes into the equation I start to cringe, since it generally just comes down to that player's own opinion of what makes the most sense, rather than any actual knowledge of the intent of the rule... Otherwise, yes, players should be able to resolve issues amicably.

I do take exception, though, to anyone suggesting that their way is the only way to play the game, or putting people down for enjoying the game differently to themselves. It is, as you say, just a game. Part of that 'amicable acceptance' is not calling your opponent names because they prefer to play a given rule as written.

IMO I would say yes because if you go back to the writing of the rule "A position in cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots..." a vehicle blowing up would mean flying debris.

IMO I would say yes because if you go back to the writing of the rule "A position in cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots..." a vehicle blowing up would mean flying debris.

Jarran wrote:IMO I would say yes because if you go back to the writing of the rule "A position in cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots..." a vehicle blowing up would mean flying debris.

That's where the debate comes from, yes.

The fluff says it works against 'flying debris' amongst other things.
The rules say it works against enemy shooting.

So either the rules are as intended, and the fluff is just the writer getting a little carried away...
Or the fluff was the original intention, and the rules simply neglected to mention how the save is supposed to apply to non-shooting damage.

Which is correct is anybody's guess.

I blame Jervis.

i agree with insaniak. by calling other people rule lawyer type can simply turn yourself into "a rule lawyer".

i have this situation recently. there is a player insisit if there is something that is not written in the rule book, then he could use his imagination to play. but i insisit to read the rule and try to find out what it intend to be. and he call me stubborn on the words and sentences, instead of imagination. so he think i am using rule to take advantage of him. but i just want to stick with the rule.

Calling other people rule lawyer as a negative term is awful. you just assume the wrost of that. if any un-settle even occur, the biggest way just dice off it. please do not go personal for that.

I wonder if any tournaments will actually allow players to bring in a 'rule lawyer' and allow them to argue their case before the judge and their peers at the tables beside them, lol

The Dragon wrote:I wonder if any tournaments will actually allow players to bring in a 'rule lawyer' and allow them to argue their case before the judge and their peers at the tables beside them, lol

well because tournament has its own rule lawyer, which is harder than others.

Skarboy wrote: Bunch of stuff

Well, my guard codex says that we can field companies of hundreds of tanks. So, even though the wording in the codex suggests a maximum of 9 leman russes, that is just rules lawyers skewing the true intent of the game. For fun, my russes are 10 points each and I field 200 of them in a 2000 pt game.


If this game was played for fluff or common sense, it would fall apart at every turn.

And yes I used hyperbole in this argument. I'm just going with the flow.

Me and my friends (casual gamers) play it like barrage- the blast comes from the vehicle.

B= Battlewagon
W= Wall
O= Orkses

====================
O O O

BBBBBBB
BBBBBBB

WWWWWW
O O O O O
====================

so the boyz behind the wall do get a save as they duck/dive behind the wall. the boyz out of cover, obviously, have nothing to protect them!

So in area terrain, we play Yes, you do get a cover save. This is our interpretation of RAI, and makes fairly logical sense. RAW, I'll leave up to the Rules lawyers on dakka to work out.

insaniak wrote:I do take exception, though, to anyone suggesting that their way is the only way to play the game, or putting people down for enjoying the game differently to themselves. It is, as you say, just a game. Part of that 'amicable acceptance' is not calling your opponent names because they prefer to play a given rule as written.

That's cool, man. And I apologize if I came off as rough on this subject. In general, I agree with you and I definitely agree there are different ways to enjoy the game, as well as many gray areas in the rule that have 2 (or more) legitimate and non-self-serving interpretations. You seem like the sort that knows the rules well and seeks clarification, so I'd be totally cool with a rules discussion with someone like you because I think it would stay civil and be for the benefit of the game.