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.

Is there a reason we're being intentionally obtuse, ignoring RAW, using fluff as proof, and listing things that clearly and specifically deny cover saves along with things that don't as an argument for something that does not deny cover saves somehow denying cover saves?

If you have a cover saving throw to take, you can take it unless it is denied specifically.

Yes.
There is nothing in the rules for allowing cover saves to be taken from non-shooting attacks.

kirsanth wrote:Yes.
There is nothing in the rules for allowing cover saves to be taken from non-shooting attacks.

Other than the saving throw and cover save rules... but feel free to break RAW to satisfy fluffy RAI ideals.
Have fun with that.

dimmy52 wrote:I might be mistaken, but isn't the Mawloc attack just representing the fact that it's burrowing out of the ground to rain death from below? So considering that, what cover, short of standing on a building or impassable terrain, would grant a save against that?

Imagination cover. The cover of your imagination... .

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS OF OUR TIMES.

They are indeed.

'...regardless of what's firing at them...'

Nothing is firing at them, and taking cover saves against vehicle explosions is just silly.

'... is obscured from the point of view of the firer...'

You COULD argue that since the Mawloc is coming out of the ground, he cant see them... but... he is coming up through whatever cover they had.

I think this 'debate' is a bit strange TBH.

kirsanth wrote:Yes.
There is nothing in the rules for allowing cover saves to be taken from non-shooting attacks.

Nor would anyone expect something like that, since it is so clear that it is the case. Cover saves, are against shooting, this is not complicated.

BTW, Hi Kirsanth .

kirsanth is correct.

kirsanth wrote:I want cover saves from Dangerous terrain as well, as the model is obviously in cover.

I will not, however, claim one, any more than vs Gets Hot, Perils of the Warp, or the already mentioned Vehicle explosions.

dangerous terrain and perils each say what types of saves are allowed ie invul only gets hot you get a normal save against ok now for the cover saves pg 21 what counts as cover "cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots " as for the mawlocks attack i need to see the actual rule before i can make an atempt at replying to it but it sounds an awful lot like a shooting attack

Can someone direct me to the rules telling us how you can wound anything with an attack that is not shooting or close combat?

At first glance I can't find anything that allows a non shooting, non CC S6 attack to actually damage anything.

Webbe wrote:At first glance I can't find anything that allows a non shooting, non CC S6 attack to actually damage anything.

Indeed. And that is the bottom of the slippery slope that one ends at when stating "cover is for shooting phase because that's where it is explained". If you make no attempt at inference, you end with an ability that can't be used due to no supporting rule explaining how to use it. I would not use fluff to build inference, but the models in terrain, turbo boost, smoke launcher, and KFF rules are explicit enough to make it clear that it doesn't matter what the line of sight from the initiating model is.

The Mawloc rule doesn't explicitly disallow any saves mentioned in the multiple saves rules, unlike close combat. Albeit kicking armor saves to the side with its AP 2, that still leaves invulnerable saves and cover saves where applicable.

Lets see if I can wrap my head around this...

Shooting - models may take cover saves, because its defined in depth how to get cover saves from shooting (pg 21 BRB)

Assault - models may not take cover saves, because it specifically excludes such saves (pg 39 BRB)

Vehicle Exploding - Suffer wounds and treated just like hits from shooting (pg 67 BRB)

Psychic Damage - I cannot think of anything that creates a wound that doesn't define how the save is taken, if there is a non-shooting psychic attack that doesn't define if you get a cover save or not, but GW/general consensus is you get a cover save, then the argument could be made that the Malwoc blast would.

Malwoc Blast - Since it is not shooting, and is not an assault, and does not say it is treated as shooting or an assault (I should say appears not to say, since I do not have the codex in front of me) models do not get a cover save, because it does not say that a cover save is allowed in its rules.

therefore you do not get a cover save from a Malwoc Blast


edited: apparently i like clicking buttons too much

kirsanth wrote:

Carnuss wrote:OK. Do you take cover saves from exploding vehicles? I'd venture to guess you've rolled a cover save in a game or two.

Never have.

I have to state that I have never taken a cover save from an exploding vehicle, either. I've always only taken armor/invulnerable saves.

I think I agree a bit with Maxus, though it might be an issue that needs better clarification. Vehicle explosion wounds are handled just like shooting, as per the rules, so I guess cover saves would be applicable.

The Mawloc's tunnel bomb doesn't state exactly how to handle the wounds.

Personally, it makes the most sense to me for the attack to not allow cover saves, but that woud be a RaP interpretation.

Maxus wrote:
Malwoc Blast - Since it is not shooting, and is not an assault, and does not say it is treated as shooting or an assault (I should say appears not to say, since I do not have the codex in front of me) models do not get a cover save, because it does not say that a cover save is allowed in its rules.

therefore you do not get a cover save from a Malwoc Blast


edited: apparently i like clicking buttons too much

A cover saving throw is a saving throw. You can take it, as you can take other saving throws, against anything that doesn't deny it if you can get it.
Whether you can gain the save here is indeed quite iffy. Whether you can take a cover saving throw you have been granted, as by a kff, against wounds from an attack that does not deny them is clear.

"Take saving throws: Each wound suffered
may be cancelled by making a saving throw.
Saving throws usually derive from the armour
worn by each model, from being in cover, or
some other piece of wargear or ability."

"Take Saving Throws: Before he removes any models as casualties, the
owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid
the damage by making a saving throw. This could be
because of the target’s armour, some other protective
device or ability, or intervening models or terrain."

"Cover Saves:
A position in cover shields troops against flying debris
and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads
down or crawl amongst the rocks and (hopefully) avoid
harm. Because of this, units in or behind cover receive
a cover saving throw. The great thing about cover
saving throws is that they are not affected by the
Armour Piercing value of the attacking weapon, so
units in cover will normally get a saving throw
regardless of what’s firing at them."

At no point are cover saving throws described as only working against specifically typed 'shooting' attacks in the shooting phase, or otherwise somehow limited beyond other saving throws outside the rules for determining eligibility or specific provisions as in the CC rule.

Gorkamorka wrote:
"Cover Saves:
A position in cover shields troops against flying debris
and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads
down or crawl amongst the rocks and (hopefully) avoid
harm. Because of this, units in or behind cover receive
a cover saving throw. The great thing about cover
saving throws is that they are not affected by the
Armour Piercing value of the attacking weapon, so
units in cover will normally get a saving throw
regardless of what’s firing at them."

At no point are cover saving throws described as only working against specifically typed 'shooting' attacks, or otherwise somehow limited beyond other saving throws outside the rules for determining eligibility or specific provisions as in the CC rule.

While it is not specifically stated, it is strongly implied.

Saldiven wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:
"Cover Saves:
A position in cover shields troops against flying debris
and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads
down or crawl amongst the rocks and (hopefully) avoid
harm. Because of this, units in or behind cover receive
a cover saving throw. The great thing about cover
saving throws is that they are not affected by the
Armour Piercing value of the attacking weapon, so
units in cover will normally get a saving throw
regardless of what’s firing at them."

At no point are cover saving throws described as only working against specifically typed 'shooting' attacks, or otherwise somehow limited beyond other saving throws outside the rules for determining eligibility or specific provisions as in the CC rule.

While it is not specifically stated, it is strongly implied.

That's just fluff. All of the examples for armor piercing are presented as guns as well, though that rule can clearly move between phases as the Maw-loc is evidence of. If you are reaching into fluff for implication, then wouldn't a creature bursting from the ground, in fact, amount to flying debris? As it is the ground bursting that in effect scatters your troops, the creature appearing from the hole it creates is a secondary effect. Fluff arguments always end in sadness, as they can only lead to hypothetical scenarios.

RAI vs RAW - everyone realizes these simply become circular arguments right? Depending on interpretation of either how the rule book reads or what isn't written in the codex, both sides could be right, both could be wrong, etc. etc. THERE IS NO CLEAR ANSWER!

Sorry for the capitalization, but Dakka is just getting crazy with these debates. Next thing you know its 20 pages long and folks are still arguing the same thing.

Since folks like quoting the rule book - look in the beginning section about resolving questions or debates. If you can't decide something (as in in-house rules or whatever), simply dice off for it. 4+ equals no cover save. Then you have an answer until the FAQ comes out.

Saldiven wrote:
While it is not specifically stated, it is strongly implied.

Hardly. The second provision makes perfect sense, as the only weapons with armor piercing values are ranged. The first provision is vague at best, ignorable fluff at worst, could easily refer to nearly any non-cc attack (including the 'flying debris' of exploding vehicles you claim don't allow cover), and also states that cover helps troops unspecifically 'avoid harm'. It's hardly clear or strong evidence for either side, and guessing through implication and intention isn't what we're doing here.

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.

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.

Using fluff for an argument is lose-lose. Nowhere in the Mawloc's rules does it state it ignores cover saves unlike other attacks that mention it if they do.

Player 1: You don't get cover saves from this special ability.
Player 2: Show me the rule that says I can't.

Since you can't provide anything that discounts cover saves, they get to take them.

Let's take this another step, this time using fluff; the mawloc's template represents the fury of a big bug coming up from the ground. I don't know about what you think but something that large would shake the ground coming up and give the targets plenty of notice that the ground is not safe. Now, if you're standing on a patch of ground that's shaking and your buddy 10 feet away is standing nice and calm and not noticing anything, what would you do? I'd jump over next to him thus the whole "move any surviving models at least 1" away".

Also note the section entitled "When are models in Cover" The first sentence lets you know when cover saves apply. "When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer" Emphasis mine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:Using fluff for an argument is lose-lose. Nowhere in the Mawloc's rules does it state it ignores cover saves unlike other attacks that mention it if they do.

You mean the shooting attacks which normally allow cover saves to be taken? You wonder why those shooting attacks mention when cover saves cannot be taken against them?

Because cover saves are allowed against shooting attacks. So shooting attacks that deny them need to specify such.

Meh. Circular logic. There is no rule that specifically states cover saves can only be taken during shooting. There is no rule that specifically states the mawloc ability ignores cover.

I just won't play anyone that wants to field one of these because there'd be no point in fielding the tau agains something so cheap and ridiculous; 170 pts for something that has a reasonable chance to destroy any unit it comes under. I play for fun not to just take my models off the table when someone wants to abuse the rules (or lack thereof).

Mattbranb wrote:
Sorry for the capitalization, but Dakka is just getting crazy with these debates. Next thing you know its 20 pages long and folks are still arguing the same thing.

But...but....

If we stop now, that would just be un-Dakka-like.

agnosto wrote:Meh. Circular logic.

No, it is not. It is based upon rules. Circular logic would be something like assuming that it works, and using that assumption to prove that it works. I am basing my logic on the text. Cover saves are allowed when the model is in cover from the point of view of the firing unit.

kirsanth wrote: note the section entitled "When are models in Cover" The first sentence lets you know when cover saves apply. "When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer" Emphasis mine.

agnosto wrote:Meh. Circular logic. There is no rule that specifically states cover saves can only be taken during shooting. There is no rule that specifically states the mawloc ability ignores cover.

I just won't play anyone that wants to field one of these because there'd be no point in fielding the tau agains something so cheap and ridiculous; 170 pts for something that has a reasonable chance to destroy any unit it comes under. I play for fun not to just take my models off the table when someone wants to abuse the rules (or lack thereof).

There is also no rule that states that cover saves can be taken against anything that isn't a shooting attack.

Leaves aren't going to protect you from gettin' ate.

Leaves get ate.

kirsanth wrote: note the section entitled "When are models in Cover" The first sentence lets you know when cover saves apply. "When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer" Emphasis mine.

The KFF . . . covers that part for you.

kirsanth wrote:The KFF . . . covers that part for you.

So I can take a kff granted cover saving throw against non-'shooting' wounds, because the only rules you are quoting are specifically for gaining the save against shooting and not for taking it, which is covered in the saving throw rules? That's my entire point.

I'm confused at how getting ate is a shooting attack..

No cover saves.

I'd say a KFF could be used a unit inside a transport suffering an explosion, as explosions are treated as shooting hits as per page 67.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:I'd say a KFF could be used a unit inside a transport suffering an explosion, as explosions are treated as shooting hits as per page 67.

GAK!

Thank you for that.

I will ammend that part where I said no cover versus vehicle explosions.

Karon wrote:I'm confused at how getting ate is a shooting attack..

No cover saves.

If there were any restrictsions on the saves applied to the attack, it would be stated, and there is no indication that the Mawloc is eating you. It only puts one wound on the target, right? Does that mean that he didn't like what he ate with multi-wound targets and spits them out?

Where are the eating rules, anyway? Are they located in close combat where cover is prohibited? If so, why is there an AP rating on the attack?