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.

Nurgleboy77 wrote: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?

if the explosion is treated as a blast, then no they do not get a cover save.

AffliKtion wrote:

Nurgleboy77 wrote: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?

if the explosion is treated as a blast, then no they do not get a cover save.

How do you figure that?

I figure an exploding vehicle can be comparable to a blast. The rulebook does not make any reference to the type of wound coming from the explosion. Therefore no cover save is taken. But this is if you agree upon that it is treated as a blast, or RAI. The person I am quoting also didn't say anything about area terrain, so i'm assuming its a vehicle with a squad next to it, with a squad behind that squad.

How would you get a cover save from a radius 'attack'?

Prove it.

Right, like you have bothered to 'prove' anything you have said.

We have no documented proof of any consistancy or inconsistancy,

Yet you have, somehow, gained the insight that he is answering questions 'off the cuff' and 'not doing the research'

which included admission that he has made decisions without fully considering all available, relevant source materal.

Lets look at what he *actually* said

JohnOSpencer
I try to be consistent, and we even have an internal database to help with that.
I have change sides on certain arguments due to new information being pointed out.
I do occasionally make mistakes (twice I can think of on rules emails)

Yes, he has admitted to changing his mind on certain arguments. And somehow you jump from there to "off the cuff" and "not doing the research"
Now, lets see what Yakface said about the INAT FAQ

YakfacePlease note that several rulings (some rather major) have been changed or reversed since the 2.0 version due to feedback.

Gee... after feedback, they changed their mind. Damn that Yakface and his 'off the cuff' rulings.

It is quite believable, that one can *do* research, deliberate, and come to a conclusion; that may still change upon introduction of new information.

AffliKtion wrote:I figure an exploding vehicle can be comparable to a blast. The rulebook does not make any reference to the type of wound coming from the explosion. Therefore no cover save is taken. But this is if you agree upon that it is treated as a blast, or RAI. The person I am quoting also didn't say anything about area terrain, so i'm assuming its a vehicle with a squad next to it, with a squad behind that squad.

How would you get a cover save from a radius 'attack'?

If you're treating it as a blast, I'd say that the its coming from the center of the circle...so there's your point of origin for determining cover/etc.

Centurian99 wrote:

AffliKtion wrote:I figure an exploding vehicle can be comparable to a blast. The rulebook does not make any reference to the type of wound coming from the explosion. Therefore no cover save is taken. But this is if you agree upon that it is treated as a blast, or RAI. The person I am quoting also didn't say anything about area terrain, so i'm assuming its a vehicle with a squad next to it, with a squad behind that squad.

How would you get a cover save from a radius 'attack'?

If you're treating it as a blast, I'd say that the its coming from the center of the circle...so there's your point of origin for determining cover/etc.

That makes sense for small shrapnel, but when I think of a vehicle exploding, I see huge chunks of debris ripping through anything nearby at high velocity, and if the ammunition/fuel ignite, then its more than just shrapnel, its an explosion that engulfs the area. You can't take a cover save from superheated material completely dousing the radius.

But going back to the rule, it says all models in or partially covered by the radius of the explosion take a hit, nothing about cover, so it could go either way.

But if you're in cover, shouldn't you ALWAYS get a cover save unless it specifically says that no cover saves are allowed?

Dashofpepper wrote:But if you're in cover, shouldn't you ALWAYS get a cover save unless it specifically says that no cover saves are allowed?

Yes but were not talking about in area terrain or cover. were simply saying a vehicle is in the open being chopped up and exploded by a unit, with another unit directly behind it, and discussing if the back unit gets a cover save from the explosion.

As a member of 4 different forums I tend to follow rules debates.
Most debates on any matter that goes more than a page or three will generally have an e-mail answer from John Spencer.
From my view I have seen John change a ruling once, and for good reason.
The other rulings have been consistant and reasonable.
I have not agreed with all of them...but that is how it should be.
I do not agreed with the baseless charge that he makes his decisions "off the cuff"
In fact you're misquoting and taking his statement out of context.
INAT is a well thought out and detailed look at the rules for their tourney, but has no standing in the rules (except for the logic)
John is the "Answer Guy" for GW and although the company has not stated what standing he has, I think you will find that his answers will be backed by FAQ's down the line.
My opinion only, of course.

Yes but we're not talking about in area terrain or cover. we're simply saying a vehicle is in the open being chopped up and exploded by a unit, with another unit directly behind it, and discussing if the back unit gets a cover save from the explosion.

Yes, but the squad assaulting provides cover for the back squad so they ARE "in cover".

A word on the John Spencer bit. He's the man GW put forward as their "Official" rules guy, how much more "Official" do you need?!

As it is not a SHOOTING attack, you do not get cover saves from it.

You do not get cover saves from "All non CC" wounds. You only get it from shooting wounds.

Eric

You do not get cover saves from "All non CC" wounds. You only get it from shooting wounds.

A rule to support this please?

From the BRB.

Under "Cover Saves":
"...so units in cover will normally get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them."

Next page, under "Exceptions":
"Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from."

I couldn't find any cover save rules that discussed taking damage that wasn't shooting or firing. Not to say they don't exist. I just couldn't spot them.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:

Yes but we're not talking about in area terrain or cover. we're simply saying a vehicle is in the open being chopped up and exploded by a unit, with another unit directly behind it, and discussing if the back unit gets a cover save from the explosion.

Yes, but the squad assaulting provides cover for the back squad so they ARE "in cover".

A word on the John Spencer bit. He's the man GW put forward as their "Official" rules guy, how much more "Official" do you need?!

He's by no means official. He just happens to be a GWUS employee assigned to keeping customers happy by writing responses to rules questions.

GWUS has NOTHING to do with creation of the rules. It's a sales/manufacturing organization.