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.

GW will publish the FAQ in which they classify Spirit Leech as a pyschic power and thus unable to affect embarked units. Gwar will complain. Life will go on.

Most likely conclusion. But not a given, they could follow the INAT, rule with the RaW or come up with something else none of us even considered (and then remove it 2 weeks later ).

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 20, Take Saving Throws, first paragraph.

Cover Saves can't be taken in close combat, but only because you're explicitly denied it. I've seen you argue that you get cover saves from Gets Hot wounds, I'm not sure why you're arguing this position.

Because get's hot is a wound caused by someone shooting a weapon.

As absolutely insane as I am sure it sounds, I consider that a wound from a shooting attack.

I actually print out the INAT FAQ's and I always ask the TO before hand how he will rule. I never ask a player how he plays it. That's pointless. why would a meq army agree to that when you are giving him an out.

I don't think they should get cover saves either, but I will live with it. It still kills alot of people even with the cover saves. My doom has been used in over 20 games, and only once did he not get his points back even with cover saves.

That one time, the player did the right thing and ran away from him. he had to give up some shooting that turn, but he was able to then pop him.

I lost that game btw. Thats the counter, move away and blast him.

Mannahnin wrote:No, to something even more carefully considered by the group of extremely experienced players and TOs who comprise the INAT FAQ Council.

Unlikely.

"Extremely experienced players and TOs"? Really doesn't count for much, consider that GW writes the rules, and those aforementioned persons do not. When the rules are unclear, experience doesn't give any more credibility to *your* RAP/assumptions of RAI, than the next guy.

So when INAT does make, (and it does.) arbitrary rulings, it gives me more reason to ignore it. When clear RAW is violated and impregnated by anyone, I ignore it. Point and case; I am playing with my opponent...and will play by agreed up rules for times that it is unclear. At tournaments, I have agreed to be playing according to the TO's rules...aka, another person's thoughts on RAI/RAW.

Gwar! wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 20, Take Saving Throws, first paragraph.

Cover Saves can't be taken in close combat, but only because you're explicitly denied it. I've seen you argue that you get cover saves from Gets Hot wounds, I'm not sure why you're arguing this position.

Because get's hot is a wound caused by someone shooting a weapon.

As absolutely insane as I am sure it sounds, I consider that a wound from a shooting attack.

RAW it is a wound caused by Gets Hot! but I understand where you are coming from.

Gwar! wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 20, Take Saving Throws, first paragraph.

Cover Saves can't be taken in close combat, but only because you're explicitly denied it. I've seen you argue that you get cover saves from Gets Hot wounds, I'm not sure why you're arguing this position.

Because get's hot is a wound caused by someone shooting a weapon.

As absolutely insane as I am sure it sounds, I consider that a wound from a shooting attack.

I disagree. We have always played Gets Hot! Sans-cover saves. The cover save is in the game to represent obstacles that may impair vision or deflect a round. I don’t believe that holding a grenade while it blows up falls into either of those categories.

Gwar! wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 20, Take Saving Throws, first paragraph.

Cover Saves can't be taken in close combat, but only because you're explicitly denied it. I've seen you argue that you get cover saves from Gets Hot wounds, I'm not sure why you're arguing this position.

Because get's hot is a wound caused by someone shooting a weapon.

As absolutely insane as I am sure it sounds, I consider that a wound from a shooting attack.

By this standard can a Runic Priest use his Runic Staff to negate a Perils of the Warp roll? What about using his Wolf Tooth Necklace or Runic Armor? Perils of the Warp, afterall, is a wound caused by attempting to use a psychic power just as a Gets Hot! wound is caused by an attempt to shoot a plasma weapon.

Che-Vito wrote:
When clear RAW is violated and impregnated by anyone, I ignore it.

Um, what?

Arschbombe wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
When clear RAW is violated and impregnated by anyone, I ignore it.

Um, what?

He is obviously one of them conservative types, who want the RaW to be married for many years before becoming impregnated and to not enjoy it one bit!

Brother Ramses wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 20, Take Saving Throws, first paragraph.

Cover Saves can't be taken in close combat, but only because you're explicitly denied it. I've seen you argue that you get cover saves from Gets Hot wounds, I'm not sure why you're arguing this position.

Because get's hot is a wound caused by someone shooting a weapon.

As absolutely insane as I am sure it sounds, I consider that a wound from a shooting attack.

By this standard can a Runic Priest use his Runic Staff to negate a Perils of the Warp roll? What about using his Wolf Tooth Necklace or Runic Armor? Perils of the Warp, afterall, is a wound caused by attempting to use a psychic power just as a Gets Hot! wound is caused by an attempt to shoot a plasma weapon.

Why?

The psyker suffers 1 wound
with no armour or cover saves allowed. Invulnerable
saves are allowed, but the power of the Warp is so
great that successful saves must be re-rolled

that seems to be a good explanation of the situation... "Gets hot" is just a simple wound caused by a minor explosion like many other things in the game which allow armor saves...

The point being is that the wound is caused by the Gets Hot rule, not by a shooting attack. Cover saves would not apply.

I was pointing out that a Perils of the Warp rule is what causes the wound, not the psychic power. So therefore such items that prevent wounds from psychic powers, such as a WTN for example, would not negate a Perils of the Warp wound.

Che-Vito wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:No, to something even more carefully considered by the group of extremely experienced players and TOs who comprise the INAT FAQ Council.

Unlikely.

"Extremely experienced players and TOs"? Really doesn't count for much, consider that GW writes the rules, and those aforementioned persons do not. When the rules are unclear, experience doesn't give any more credibility to *your* RAP/assumptions of RAI, than the next guy.

So when INAT does make, (and it does.) arbitrary rulings, it gives me more reason to ignore it. When clear RAW is violated and impregnated by anyone, I ignore it. Point and case; I am playing with my opponent...and will play by agreed up rules for times that it is unclear. At tournaments, I have agreed to be playing according to the TO's rules...aka, another person's thoughts on RAI/RAW.

Actually, experience does give more credibility. A person who has the perspective brought by experience with multiple iterations of the rules, and with playing and using the rules heavily in a competitive environment (stress-testing them), is better equipped to understand GW's rules, to understand the consequences of given rulings, and to maintain consistency when doing so, enabling better, more intuitive comprehension of the FAQ by the users. When you have a council of several experienced people, you reduce the impact of individuals' bias.

Every time you play the game you have to accept/work with someone else's perspective on what constitutes RAW/RAI/RAP. The other player, if no one else.

Any FAQ compiled by any person or group will have rulings that any given other person or group disagrees with. It is impossible for it to be otherwise.

I concede that the Tyranid portion of the FAQ seems to have been rushed a bit, and that some of its rulings may be altered the next time the Council takes a look at it. But I reject completely the canard that their rulings are "arbitrary". That's a dishonest or ignorant misrepresentation.

Consider all this Cover Save talk, I want to interject with a slightly off-topic query:

Can models (outside a vehicle but within the blast) take a cover save from a vehicle's explosion?

Smashotron wrote:Consider all this Cover Save talk, I want to interject with a slightly off-topic query:

Can models (outside a vehicle but within the blast) take a cover save from a vehicle's explosion?

If they have cover, I don't see why not.

Well based on the logic presented here, they would not due to the fact that the wounds are not due to a Shooting Attack, the same way Doom apparently wound not allow Cover Saves.

I play that for any situation not expressly prohibited (like close combat) where a model/unit has cover and is wounded, they may use their cover save.

I don't seen how Doom's power not being a Psychic power makes a difference. It still essentially acts like a template weapon around the model. No other template attacks are able to attack anything inside a transport open or closed topped. I don't see how this power is any different, Psychic or otherwise.

jtw1n wrote:I don't seen how Doom's power not being a Psychic power makes a difference.

It makes a huge, huge difference.

Spirit Leech is not a template attack. It's not even shooting. It's not a psychic power. It's just a special rule that one model has. Comparing it to template weapons and psychic shooting attacks doesn't get you anywhere.

Well, I think that's covered all the usual DoM points. As per usual, until GW get around to FAQ'ing it, discuss it with your opponent.