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.

kirsanth wrote:

Blast rules specify that the cover saves are based upon where the unit is in relation to the center of the blast marker. Irreleveant.

Deffrollas do not specify they are CC attacks (they are during Movement so not even implied)
Deffrollas do not specify they ignore cover saves, the text is simply not there.

Deffrollas deal wounds outside of shooting or close combat.

If no cover saves are allowed, RAW allows nothing to stop or allow the wounds for the same reason.

I was talking about the blast from a vehicle explodes, for people outside a vehicle, not an actual blast weapon. Sorry about the confusion. That was the only other place I could find where you have an attack that isn't expressly a shooting attack or a close combat attack although they do give it a shooting profile.


I agree with you that people would be able to take cover saves vs the rolla. There is a hole in the raw and if a person is going to apply the standard save rules then there would be no reason to disallow the cover saves.


I just noticed this, you could totally get a cover save vs a ram.

Some people in this thread are mixing up cover and concealment. Its a very common problem, because many people arent clear on the difference.

Concealment is the LOS issue; concealment is if the target cannot be clearly seen, the concealing object could be a thin sheet of paper that merely blocks LOS. If they cant clearly see you, then they are more likely to miss.

Cover on the other hand is some object that provides some more physical protection, such as a bunker, a tree trunk or sandbag wall. This is sometimes termed pyhsical cover in the real world. So cover is often something quite solid, and could quite possibly block a tank ram or deff rolla type attack (tank traps made from steel girders come to mind).

Concealment on the other hand is more akin to hiding behind a bush, which would offer no real physical cover at all from attacks.

Sliggoth

It's a tank shock. Do you get cover saves vs a tank shock? No so therefore no save.

Van wrote:It's a tank shock. Do you get cover saves vs a tank shock? No so therefore no save.

So by that logic you don't get armour or invul saves either because you can't take those against a tank shock.

I feel cover saves don't seem to make sense unless the attack in question would ignore your armour (or you don't have an armour save). The defftrolla does not specify it ignores armour - I therefore don't thnk you should get a cover save from it. As for the people saying it would take time to grind trees down etc, the battlewagon in question has to test for dangerous terrain while moving through such cover(deffrtolla re-rolls failed tests). That seems to me to convey that the deffrolla has already ran over obstacles in it's path to hit the target.

liam0404 wrote:I feel cover saves don't seem to make sense unless the attack in question would ignore your armour (or you don't have an armour save). The defftrolla does not specify it ignores armour - I therefore don't thnk you should get a cover save from it. As for the people saying it would take time to grind trees down etc, the battlewagon in question has to test for dangerous terrain while moving through such cover(deffrtolla re-rolls failed tests). That seems to me to convey that the deffrolla has already ran over obstacles in it's path to hit the target.

You know, there is such thing as a cover save simply being better than your armor save.

Ask a Guard player if he's got 30 Shoota Boyz (with S4 AP6 weapons) firing at his Guardsmen (5+ armor), and he's in cover (4+), would he rather take his 5+ armor save or his 4+ cover save? I think you'll be entirely unsurprised by the answer.

Agreed - but the example you cite is a shooting attack, not a deffrolla attack. I should have worded my example above a bit better, but the principle is the same. Honestly, YMMV, but the things that players claim cover saves for takes the p**s more often than not. I've seen players take a cover save for a "Gets hot" plasma gun malfunction.

Now come on, lets be serious - would any player in their riight mind allow this? I know fluff does not = rules, but consider this - a model fires a plasma gun - by the time it's overheated, he's been incinerated. He shoudln't have time to "run away" from the gun.

Likewise with the Deffrolla. That massive spiky mass is bearing down, crushing everything in it's path - and moving at considerable speed yes? Is it REALLY feasible to get a cover save from such an attack? Like I said, I think people who claim saves for these sorts of attacks are doing nothing more than taking the p**s with the rules.

As far as I see it, the Battlewagon has already made a dangerous terrain test to close the distance - therefore it has already "bypassed" the cover in question.

Not necessarily! Since you like to reconcile rules with fluff, let me give you two counterexamples.

First, the plasma. It's entirely possible that the soldier realized his plasma gun was overheating and threw it into a ditch a couple feet away, thus affording him a cover save from the resulting blast. There's no fluffy reference for how quickly those guns go from overheating to overheated, so it's feasible.

Second, the Deff Rolla. Who's to say that, since you're in difficult terrain (thus the cover) you, being a particularly savvy Guardsman, couldn't leap into a crevice and allow the Deff Rolla to pass over you without squishing you?

Ditches and crevices, man.

Cover saves from Gets Hot! and Deff Rollas.

I would 100% dispute this with you in any friendly/tournament game. I suppose your fluff has merit as well, but I think that it's stretching the spirit of the rule beyond the intended limit. By your explanation, I should be able to take cover saves from the following things:

-Failed Dangerous terrain tests (Damn i've broken my leg on this rock - oh wait I rolled a 4+)
-Doom of Malantai - (Argh my soul... oh wait I rolled a 4+)
-Wound from a bosspole (don't hit me boss, I only have a 6+ save... Oh wait I rolled a 4+)
-Perils of the warp (oh dear, the warp is about to tear me apart - oh wait I rolled a 4+... and another one, good thing that warp-shielding shrub had my back)

Do you see what I mean? If you open the door for one where does it stop?

That's my point exactly.

For all of your examples (including your first two, with the plasma and the Deff Rolla), you're telling us why they can't work using fluff.

I gave you fluffy counterexamples.

But the bottom line is that fluff /= rules.

So let's examine what the rules let you do, and if the rules allow it, someone claiming that cover save is not just "taking the piss" as you so colorfully described it. Because see, I could just as easily argue that exact point against you if you're disputing my claiming a 4+ cover save against a bosspole using fluff.

Ok fluff-debate aside, you're now claiming that you'd get a cover save from a bosspole wound? Ridiculous.

You're not far away from portraying yourself as TFG here. I think its a dreadful shame that players like yourself would exploit such ambiguous rules in such a fashion. clutching at those sorts of straws betrays some tactical ineptitude, if you require such factors in order to win a game of 40k

Alright, first off, lay off the personal attacks. It's entirely uncalled for.

Second, pay attention.

I was using an example. I have never claimed a cover save from a bosspole, nor would I, because that's stupid.

My bottom line is that if you decide you're going to try to us fluff to contradict RAW, you're effectively cheating. And I don't throw that word around easily, but that's what you're doing.

Now this could have been a polite discussion - that's what I was trying to do - but now you've pissed me off, and it's a countdown until some mod locks this ridiculous BS.

So back the feth off and be civil or shut your goddamn mouth.

I merely questioned your skills at the game based on your interpretation of some ambiguous rules, nothing more.

Secondly, I am not a cheat. In my opinion, claiming a cover save from a deffrolla is cheating.

Trying to apply fluff to RAW is fine, because that allows you to reconcile the RAW in a logical manner.

But attempting to change RAW based on what the fluff should, in your mind, entail, is cheating.

That's what you're attempting to do if you say, "Well, cover saves should be allowed to be taken against a Deff Rolla based on RAW, but I don't think that makes sense from a fluff standpoint, so we're going to ignore this rule."

Unless your opponent agrees (some will, some won't) changing a rule to suit your own needs, regardless of what you use as a justification, is cheating. I'm alright with giving my opponents cover saves against my Deff Rollas in area terrain, because RAW don't explicitly state that you cannot do so, while they do in other situations.

Note also that I say this as an Ork player who never encounters Deff Rollas in the opposition.

Unless you can tell me where it says explicitly in the rulebook that cover saves can be taken from non shooting attacks, I'm going to continue thinking you're wrong.

40k is inclusive, not exclusive in its rules. Therefore if the rulebook says nothing about your theory, its incorrect as per RAW.

No, not quite. GW's rules are more exclusive than they are inclusive. They usually don't explicitly say, "Oh, and you can take cover saves." On the contrary, they give situations where you cannot do X or use Y, not where you can.

For example, take the Necron Warscythe. It explicitly states that no saves can be taken against it.

If GW's rules were inclusive, you could deduce that because the Necron Warscythe does not allow any saves whatsoever, than your humble chainsword, which does not have a clause specifically allowing saves, also does not allow saves of any kind. But we know that that is not true, because GW's rules are exclusive.

That's a ridiculous argument. Chainswords are ordinary, as no EXPLICIT special rules are provided. Power weapons EXPLICITLY. State they ignore armour saves.

You're tripping yourself up here. So by your logic, bolters ignore cover saves. Why? Because the rulebook doesn't say they cant. Don't you think you should backtrack before you expose how poor your knowledge of our game is? I'm actually cringing for you.

Why are you using my argument as your own, and applying your argument to me?

Listen.

If GW's rules were inclusive, which YOU are arguing (not ME, YOU), bolters would ignore cover, chainswords would ignore armor, and Deff Rollas would ignore cover saves.

You need to go grab a dictionary. Look up "include" and "exclude."

These words don't mean what you apparently think they mean.

And what did I say about keeping a civil tone?

Seriously, be polite or shut the feth up. I'm doing my best to keep a civil tone here, the least you can do is do the same.

Hmmm, so by a weapon saying its rules override the normal rules, you're saying that's not inclusive? As in the rule is not included? I think my definition is spot on.

my argument is valid, in that the ability to take a cover save from non shooting attacks is NOT INCLUDED (I.e it is excluded) in the rulebook.

So by that logic, the deffoll doesn't confer a cover save, as the rulebook does not INCLUDE that type of scenario.

Oh, and I've not once told you to "shut the feth up", I'm merely pointing out your failure to understand the rules.

liam0404 wrote:Oh, and I've not once told you to "shut the feth up", I'm merely pointing out your failure to understand the rules.

I quote:

liam0404 wrote:You're not far away from portraying yourself as TFG here. I think its a dreadful shame that players like yourself would exploit such ambiguous rules in such a fashion. clutching at those sorts of straws betrays some tactical ineptitude, if you require such factors in order to win a game of 40k

liam0404 wrote:Don't you think you should backtrack before you expose how poor your knowledge of our game is? I'm actually cringing for you.

These, little child, are what we call "personal attacks."

liam0404 wrote:Hmmm, so by a weapon saying its rules override the normal rules, you're saying that's not inclusive? As in the rule is not included? I think my definition is spot on.

my argument is valid, in that the ability to take a cover save from non shooting attacks is NOT INCLUDED (I.e it is excluded) in the rulebook.

So by that logic, the deffoll doesn't confer a cover save, as the rulebook does not INCLUDE that type of scenario.

Overriding normal rules is an exclusion, not an inclusion. Again, dictionary. You need one.

And with that said I'm done with this conversation.

If you need to resort to personal attacks to make yourself feel good, or to make a point, you really don't have much ground to stand on, regardless of the merit of your argument. And if this conversation continues in its current trend, it's only going to get worse. Consider me no longer a part of this thread.

Temporary close while I review the thread as it has been reported.