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.

I'm confused... if a model has a cover save to take, such as from a kff, what prevents it from taking a cover save against a wound that does not disallow cover saves again?

A cover save is a normal save, and can be taken against wounds just like any other as long as you have one to take and the wounds don't disallow it (as CC does).

Gorkamorka wrote:I'm confused... if a model has a cover save to take, such as from a kff, what prevents it from taking a cover save against a wound that does not disallow cover saves again?

A cover save is a normal save, and can be taken against wounds just like any other as long as you have one to take and the wounds don't disallow it (as CC does).

Because it is NOT a normal save, it's a conditional save.

The cover save is conferred by special conditions, either from a special rule or from its position relative to the attacker, rather than normal conditions such as having a Svx+ or a Ivy+.

In other words, normal would be the model's default rules listed in its profile (Sv and Iv). Much like the model's normal Strength is that listed in its profile rather than the result of its Strength being modified by Furious Charge or a Powerfist.

Gwar! wrote:
A cover save is a normal save, and can be taken against wounds just like any other as long as you have one to take and the wounds don't disallow it (as CC does).

Because it is NOT a normal save, it's a conditional save.

Unnecessarily rude and unhelpful post removed.

Gorkamorka:

The text defines the terms "normal" and "normally" as the general cases of rules, yes.

You could easily argue that cover is a 'normal' save by other readings of 'normal'. You could easily argue that black is actually white. In both cases the facility of the argument has no bearing on its validity.

So it's not actually specifically supported by RAW and is just your personal interpretation? There is no text that states that cover should not be included as a normal saving throw, or defining 'normal' in a way that specifically supports that assertion? Glad we cleared that up.

Gorkamorka:

You mean my personal opinion of page 1, The Rules, where it points out that the rules proceed from the basic or normal to the special rules.

The normal and special cases of the dice are covered on page 2.

The normal cases for modeling, units, and measuring distances are covered on page 3.

Etc, ad nauseum.

Notice that 'normal' and 'normally' are interchangeable within the text of the rules. You know, if you subscribe to something called the English language. You may have heard of it, but no doubt in your curious solipsism you decided it was just other people's personal interpretations of those funny marks you keep seeing everywhere.

Glad we cleared that up.

Nurglitch wrote:Gorkamorka:

You mean my personal opinion of page 1, The Rules, where it points out that the rules proceed from the basic or normal to the special rules.

The normal and special cases of the dice are covered on page 2.

The normal cases for modeling, units, and measuring distances are covered on page 3.

Etc, ad nauseum.

Notice that 'normal' and 'normally' are interchangeable within the text of the rules. You know, if you subscribe to something called the English language. You may have heard of it, but no doubt in your curious solipsism you decided it was just other people's personal interpretations of those funny marks you keep seeing everywhere.

Glad we cleared that up.

I legitimately want to believe that there is a RAW argument for this, as it would make sense. Provide quotes please, as on those pages I'm not seeing 'normal' being defined in a way that would extend outside a specific case and would prevent you from assuming all the rules in the saving throws section are normal saving throws.

Models With More Than One Save, The Shooting Phase, The Rulebook, p.24 wrote:Sometimes, a model will have a normal armour save and a separate invulnerable save.

Invulnerable Saves, The Shooting Phase, The Rulebook, p.20 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the models suffers a wound.

So an Armour save is normal, and the Invulnerable save is special. Invulnerable save is special because you always get one!

Now that Armour saves as the normal case for saves is established beyond reasonable doubt, i.e.: it is reasonably clear, what else might be relevant?

What counts as Cover?, Cover Saves, The Shooting Phase, The Rulebook, p.21 wrote:Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots.

Cover only protects from incoming shots. Wounds from Gets Hot! are specifically not incoming shots. Indeed, they are notable for preventing outgoing shots.

Intervening Models, Cover Saves, The Shooting Phase, The Rulebook, p.21 wrote:Scenic rocks and other decorative elements that players might have placed on the base of their models are always ignored from the point of view of determining cover (you cannot take your cover with you!).

So cover is not a normal save, and models self-inflicting wounds fail to meet the conditions for cover saves, namely that they are (1) suffering shots (2) from other models. Gets Hot! involves no shots, and no other models.

Nurglitch wrote:

Models With More Than One Save, The Shooting Phase, The Rulebook, p.24 wrote:Sometimes, a model will have a normal armour save and a separate invulnerable save.

Invulnerable Saves, The Shooting Phase, The Rulebook, p.20 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the models suffers a wound.

So an Armour save is normal, and the Invulnerable save is special. Invulnerable save is special because you always get one!

Now that Armour saves as the normal case for saves is established beyond reasonable doubt, i.e.: it is reasonably clear, what else might be relevant?

I disagree that an armor save is RAW conclusively shown as the normal baseline for all saving throws here, especially in context as defining the difference between the two saves while referencing the armor rules for how to take saves. Saying an invulnerable save is not a 'normal armor save' is quite different than 'armor saves are normal saving throws' or 'invulnerable saves are not normal saving throws'. Extending this jump to also include cover is a stretch, at best.

Nurglitch wrote:

What counts as Cover?, Cover Saves, The Shooting Phase, The Rulebook, p.21 wrote:Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots.

Cover only protects from incoming shots. Wounds from Gets Hot! are specifically not incoming shots. Indeed, they are notable for preventing outgoing shots.

Intervening Models, Cover Saves, The Shooting Phase, The Rulebook, p.21 wrote:Scenic rocks and other decorative elements that players might have placed on the base of their models are always ignored from the point of view of determining cover (you cannot take your cover with you!).

So cover is not a normal save, and models self-inflicting wounds fail to meet the conditions for cover saves, namely that they are (1) suffering shots (2) from other models. Gets Hot! involves no shots, and no other models.

These arguments are laughable, however.
The first includes a quite obvious 'or' that you have ignored. The second has nothing to do with taking saves you have, only determining whether a model can gain a cover save in a specific situation.

Ok, so because you don't agree they are laughable?

Hell of a Debate Tactic you have there buddy!

Gorkamorka wrote:These arguments are laughable, however.
The first includes a quite obvious 'or' that you have ignored.

It says 'or protecting it from incoming shots'.

Incoming.

As 'gets hot!' isn't an 'incoming shot' this pretty much wraps the cover save argument up, doesn't it?

Albatross wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:These arguments are laughable, however.
The first includes a quite obvious 'or' that you have ignored.

It says 'or protecting it from incoming shots'.

Incoming.

As 'gets hot!' isn't an 'incoming shot' this pretty much wraps the cover save argument up, doesn't it?

Not that I believe you should get a cover save, but in all seriousness, a gets hot shot surely isn't "outgoing" ? One could even say its approaching the user, hence being a incoming shot ;P

Okay I'll stop being silly now ;P

Note: I don't have the rulebook with me, so if something says specifically its not a incoming shot, then don't mind my rambling

I think technically by RaW it is difficult to argue that you wouldn't get the save for being in area terrain but could not get it from any other type of cover.

However it is pertty obvious the rule is that you don't get a cover save only your armour or invulnerable save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It says 'or protecting it from incoming shots'.

Incoming.

As 'gets hot!' isn't an 'incoming shot' this pretty much wraps the cover save argument up, doesn't it?

There is an or in there. The first part mearly states:

Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target

So the cover is hiding the target and hence he gets the cover save from area terrain. I'm not arguing this is actually the rules as it clearly isn't but under strict RaW you get a cover save from get hot from area terrain or anything that bestows a cover save not reliant on LoS blocking.

I am fully aware that there was an 'or' in there. There's also the word 'hiding'.
A model can not 'hide' from itself in area terrain. The wound generated by 'gets hot' originates from the model itself. And there is no 'target', as the model has not been 'targeted'.

I'd be happy to give a cover save on one condition.

You pose the model with said plasmagun, in a bush. Not the whole model. Just the gun. The branches might block it. Honest.

-----

Honestly, you'd only get a cover save if you held the gun with trees, a wall or perhaps a small mountain. Literally speaking, if the gun overheats enough to cause injury, the only thing you've got to stop it from melting your hands, is your armour.

I am fully aware that there was an 'or' in there. There's also the word 'hiding'.
A model can not 'hide' from itself in area terrain. The wound generated by 'gets hot' originates from the model itself. And there is no 'target', as the model has not been 'targeted'.

Whilst this is all true and I wouldn't ever ask for or let anyone take a cover save from "gets hot". It defines later what counts in cover area terrain counts as cover even if not blocking or hiding the model at all. Just like some special rules/equipment (i.e. KFF) grant a cover save. A cover save can be taken against woudning its by the game mechanics and there is no reason to beleive they are not covered by the term "normal saves".

Do models normally get a cover save, or does it take a special case for them to apply?

Being in a particular place/area of the gaming table takes special consideration.

It seems that models like Lictors would consider cover normal. Precious few others.

/shrug

Do models normally get a cover save, or does it take a special case for them to apply?

Being in a particular place/area of the gaming table takes special consideration.

It seems that models like Lictors would consider cover normal. Precious few others.

If you are in cover than a cover save is a normal save. What about armour saves? You only "normally" get them in the special case that you have armour. So by your definition (which has no grounding in RaW) would only Daemons and 'Nids get the armour/invulnerable save? Since they are the only one that would get it normally without having to wear armour?

Models normally have an armor save, even if it is -.

Being in cover is not a normal situation, it is a special case.

Wearing armor is not required for an armor save, it is not even related to one, actually; perhaps it is related to improving one, but not having one.

Editing to add:
"Normal" is not defined by RAW, it is implied. So based on what you are . . . asking(?) the rules have no basis in RaW. Which is something of a contradiction.

"Normal" is not defined by RAW, it is implied.

You are right normal is not defined and you have selected a definition of it that excludes cover saves, hence why your argument has no basis in RaW as you have selected a very specific interpretation that is not intuitive to make your definition.

A normal save relates to any save the model would normally be allowed to take in the given situation (i.e. the wearing of power or being in cover). The codexes specifically mention the armour and the benefits it bestows in terms of armour saves. So getting your 2+ save for being a Terminator is based on the condition of having Terminator armour likewise getting a 3+ for power armour. The reason I mention Terminator armour is because it can be bought as an option and is therefore the special case of the model selecting that option rather than his basic wargear...

What the armor save is, is irrelevant. The model would have an armor save, regarless of the special situations presented.

The actual reason that I infer that cover is not normal, is that (barring models like Lictors) it is not listed in a profile. It takes a special situation to apply.
Outside of special in-game situations, there is no cover save. And even so, it is not normally listed as a save. It is a situational save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:A normal save relates to any save the model would normally be allowed to take in the given situation (i.e. the wearing of power or being in cover).

Interestingly, you are assuming then, that all saves are normal, with no RaW backing. If every save is always normal, the word "normal" in that context has no use, meaning, or point.

Interestingly, you are assuming then, that all saves are normal, with no RaW backing. If every save is always normal, the word "normal" in that context has no use, meaning, or point.

Nowhere in RaW does it indicate that any save is or is not normal, hence you either accept that they are all normal or none are normal. I'm assuming that all are normal simply because it doesn't state anywhere that any are not. You are arbitrarily making up a rule that some are normal and others are not.

Try writing the sentence without the word normal and see how much sense it makes.

For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply).

Take out the normal and it just doesn't read well. The normal is clearly there to indicate that all normal saves that apply still apply. I don't possibly see how you could construe it to meaning anything else.

FlingitNow wrote:Nowhere in RaW does it indicate that any save is or is not normal, hence you either accept that they are all normal or none are normal. I'm assuming that all are normal simply because it doesn't state anywhere that any are not. You are arbitrarily making up a rule that some are normal and others are not.

What I have said is no more arbitrary than what you said. What I struggle with, is not your point -- I understand that. But your assumption that everyone else is adding or making up rules.

FlingitNow wrote:Try writing the sentence without the word normal and see how much sense it makes.

For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply).

Take out the normal and it just doesn't read well. The normal is clearly there to indicate that all normal saves that apply still apply. I don't possibly see how you could construe it to meaning anything else.

For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (saves apply). This makes as much sense to me, as without the parenthetical the sentence implies no saves are allowed. Having it read "All saves apply" or heck, even "Armor saves apply" would have definitively bypassed this whole issue.

Adding "normal" really demands that the word be used. Models do not "normally" get cover saves. They get cover saves situationally. This situations are not uncommon, or rather, they should not be, but they are not the "normal" save given to a model.

Again, I realize you disagree, but saying "models that get cover saves normally get cover saves" is adding a special condition. All models get armor saves listed in all situations, even if it is "-". Those saves are situationally denied use, but the save still exists.

What I have said is no more arbitrary than what you said. What I struggle with, is not your point -- I understand that. But your assumption that everyone else is adding or making up rules.

Yes what you've done is entirely arbitrary you've definede what is normal and what isn't arbitrarily ruling out cover saves. I've simply taken that as nothing in the rules states what is normal and what is not that normal means verything that is normally allowed...

Adding "normal" really demands that the word be used. Models do not "normally" get cover saves. They get cover saves situationally. This situations are not uncommon, or rather, they should not be, but they are not the "normal" save given to a model.

A model in cover normally gets a cover save just as a model in armour normall gets an armour save.

Having it read "All saves apply" or heck, even "Armor saves apply" would have definitively bypassed this whole issue.

Though neither wording would suffice one would state cover svaes apply which was clearly not their intention the other would rule out invulnerable saves which again is not their intention.

Normal just mean what saves you'd normally get in a given situation. They clearly expected that common sense would dictate that cover saves do not apply. But you situation saves rule is nowhere in the rule book.

I agree with kirsanth on this one, though surely there's a facepalm picture that truly encompasses the scope of literacy fail in this thread.

Go argue this on Warseer or something.