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.

Boss Grabnutz wrote:the point is moot nothing in the squig lists it as a shooting attack. Ergo, no save.

The really strong devil's advocate to this point is that, if the Bomb Squig is not resolved as a shooting attack, how is it resolved? There are no rules for damaging vehicle outside of a shooting or assault.

So you can't say that Bomb Squigs ignore one part of the shooting rules because they're not a shooting attack but then they DO follow the rules for rolling for armor penetration and damage found in the rules for...shooting.

It doesn't work. If you ARE using the shooting rules to resolve a Bomb Squig's attacks against a vehicle, under what pretense would you not follow the normal rules for cover saves?

I think then "...50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted" It is the bombsquig which causes the hit - not the tankbuster, ork dex is clear on that - so working out cover from something that has run up to ones facing and detonated, might be a challenge to be obscured then.
'will run straight into the nearest enemy vehicle and detonate causing a S8 hit'

I'm curious just how you're going to count a vehicle as obscured when no part of the rule involves drawing LoS to the target, since you determine whether or not a vehicle is 50% obscured when checking LoS. It's not like with infantry where merely being in a terrain piece grants cover, you have to check, from the perspective of the firing unit, if the target is obscured. When it says it ignores intervening terrain, and that you don't check LoS against the target, what exactly is going to be granting that obscured status?

Things like smoke launchers or a KFF that automatically grant obscured status would give a cover save, even though conceptually it's really odd that something strapped with explosives diving under the vehicles tracks is going to miss because of a little smoke, it's also really odd that something the size of a dog is going to somehow leap up and detonate against a skimmer (come to think of it, it doesn't really make sense that skimmers can be automatically assaulted yet can dodge ramming attempts either...).

Check LOS is part of the steps for shooting, and is NOT ignored by the bomb squigs "firing" rules. It simply states you dont NEED LOS to fire.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Check LOS is part of the steps for shooting, and is NOT ignored by the bomb squigs "firing" rules. It simply states you dont NEED LOS to fire.

Do you also measure the range when firing hunter killer missiles? Measuring range is a part of shooting too. You draw LoS for things that require LoS (specifically selecting a target, something squigs don't do: you roll a d6, on a one it hits your closest vehicle, on a 2+ it hits the enemies closest vehicle, regardless of LoS or terrain in both cases). LoS is also traced from the head of firing model, and in the case of squigs there isn't a firing model, and so nothing to draw LoS from either.

I don't play Orks, by the way, but this seems pretty clear cut: no part of the squig attack involves LoS in any way, hence it's impossible for its target to be obscured by intervening terrain.

You draw LOS unless told not to, as it is part of the shooting rules.

You SHOULD check range for HKs: measure range then check it is less than the range of the weapon, which it really should be unless you table is a CTC.

While it does not NEED LOS, nothing states you DONT check for LOS as per the normal shooting rules so you DO check LOS. You shoudl also recehck the rules for bomb squigs - you do nominate a "firing" model within the unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You draw LOS unless told not to, as it is part of the shooting rules.

Reread the shooting rules. Checking LoS is part of nominating a target. Bomb squigs don't target the same thing the rest of the squad is shooting at, unless they happen to be shooting at the closest vehicle, and so don't involve checking LoS (since they don't require it).

You SHOULD check range for HKs: measure range then check it is less than the range of the weapon, which it really should be unless you table is a CTC.

Hunter killer missiles have infinite range. A chimera on my roof could target a rhino on the moon with one, assuming there was no LoS blocking terrain between the two, and LoS was checked with a powerful enough telescope.

You shoudl also recehck the rules for bomb squigs - you do nominate a "firing" model within the unit.

Huh, so you do. As I said, I don't play Orks, so I don't know the codex as well as I should.

Bomb squigs are *forced* to nominate a specific target, that does not mean that you are exempt from the other component which is checking LOS just because your target is restricted.

For example you must still declare that you are assaulting unit X, which you shot at, even though you have no choice but to assault that target unit if you want to assault that turn. In other words compunction to target a unit does not remove the requirement to nominate a target AND fulfill any of the other requirements of targetting - such as checing line of sight.

Re HKs: I see you missed my point here. Yes, I am *fully* away of HKs range. Does it mean you still, in theory, have to measure range and check it is less than "unlimited"? YES - while it is not a good use of your time, you still, in theory , have to do it.

While Bsquigs have no choice in the target, they still have to declare their target AND they have to check LOS from the firing model to the declared target.

In summary: Yes, they dont care about LOS in terms of whther they can fire, and have no choice in the target they fire against. This does NOT exempt them from the relevant parts of the shooting rules, however, so they still follow them - meaning that, despite not caring about LOS, they can still generate coversaves if there is sufficient LOS blockage between them and the target unit.

Just to chip in,

It says "instead of shooting..." not "instead of shooting normally..." or "can fire a special weapon" it says "instead of shooting".

this infers that we are no longer shooting, we are following the special rules as detailed in the Bomb Squig entry and that allows and automatic hit, no mention of saves, if the range is met.

i can declare a waaagh in the shooting phase - this is not a shooting attack. A Big Mek can repair a Trukk in the shooting phase - that is not a shooting attack. Non shooting actions can occur in the shooting phase at which point we preform the action as detailed in the action's codex entry.

not shooting, no cover, and this is in the spirit of what is really meant to be happening...

Since a couple people seem to be hung up on the "realistic" aspect of cover saves here consider:

A vehicle gets a cover save from a weapon that "hits" it if its obscured and makes its roll. In other words the shot hits the tree in the way instead.

A vehicle "hit" by a bomb squig if its obscured and makes its roll has the bomb squig explode on the tree in the way instead. Same thing.




Sliggoth

arkapello wrote:not shooting

Still irrelevant.

Arkapello - it we';re not "shooting", as you say, then you have no way to resolve damage as that, as Yak KEEPS pointing out, requires you to look at the shooting rules.

So if you insist on it not being shooting, so you dont get cover, then it also does no damage. I'll take that.

Oh i'm fine with being wrong, as i said earlier in the thread i think, i suppose the argument was that its like a "special attack" which some models do have and might not be classed strictly as shooting - just an attack that automatically causes damage on a vehicle. I'm not discussing it further though i have nothing else to back it up.

In game i wouldn't try deniy a cover save on the points i made really, just interesting to debate meaning, plus its Orks so it would probably be blowing up my own wagon anyway...

arkapello wrote:Just to chip in,

It says "instead of shooting..." not "instead of shooting normally..." or "can fire a special weapon" it says "instead of shooting".

this infers that we are no longer shooting, we are following the special rules as detailed in the Bomb Squig entry and that allows and automatic hit, no mention of saves, if the range is met.

i can declare a waaagh in the shooting phase - this is not a shooting attack. A Big Mek can repair a Trukk in the shooting phase - that is not a shooting attack. Non shooting actions can occur in the shooting phase at which point we preform the action as detailed in the action's codex entry.

not shooting, no cover, and this is in the spirit of what is really meant to be happening...

Again, what rules are you using to resolve the damage against the vehicle? Because the only rules for doing that are the shooting rules...