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.

Cover only works if the obscuring terrain is between the model firing the weapon and the model taking the wound, you cannot have obscuring terrain between 1 model and himself, there is also the fact that nobody arguing for the cover save has addressed that cover cannot be claimed if firing at the model from within 2" of the terrain; is a model less than 2" from himself? I would be worried if he wasn't.

Disarray wrote:wait a minute, are those arguing that you get a cover save, ALSO saying that when a transport explodes, leaving a crater (that grants a 4+ cover save) the unit that is deployed there, can use that 4+ cover save against the wounds from the explosion?

In this case the squad is taking damage as the transport explodes, but before the crater is placed. However, an argument could be made for a vehicle in area terrain.

Avatar 720 wrote:Cover only works if the obscuring terrain is between the model firing the weapon and the model taking the wound, you cannot have obscuring terrain between 1 model and himself, there is also the fact that nobody arguing for the cover save has addressed that cover cannot be claimed if firing at the model from within 2" of the terrain; is a model less than 2" from himself? I would be worried if he wasn't.

The argument clearly breaks down for models that are trying to claim cover saves from intervening terrain. It is area terrain that is trouble. Unfortunately, rules on what saves are allows in area terrain are unclear. I personally tend to think saves shouldn't be allows in many situations, but there is vagueness in the rules that divides opinion.

a1elbow wrote:It is area terrain that is trouble. Unfortunately, rules on what saves are allows in area terrain are unclear. I personally tend to think saves shouldn't be allows in many situations, but there is vagueness in the rules that divides opinion.

Vague? The Shooting rules tell us how and when AP denies you an Armor save and how to figure out cover saves (and which weapons deny you those). The rules for Dangerous Terrain and Close Combat both explicitly forbid cover saves (and the former armor saves too). That's not vague at all - IMO it's clear proof that you're always told you can't use a certain save if it's not allowed.

BRB page 22, left hand side under 'Exceptions', 4th bullet point.
'Firing out of area terrain: Models that are inside area terrain firing out will position themselves with good fields of vision. Therefore they may fire through up to 2" of the area terrain they are occupying without that terrain conferring a cover save to the target...'
Since the firing model is the target, and you are within 2" of yourself, you can not receive a cover save from that area terrain.

ToBeWilly wrote:BRB page 22, left hand side under 'Exceptions', 4th bullet point.
'Firing out of area terrain: Models that are inside area terrain firing out will position themselves with good fields of vision. Therefore they may fire through up to 2" of the area terrain they are occupying without that terrain conferring a cover save to the target...'
Since the firing model is the target, and you are within 2" of yourself, you can not receive a cover save from that area terrain.

You aren't firing, you're suffering a wound.

DarknessEternal wrote:

ToBeWilly wrote:BRB page 22, left hand side under 'Exceptions', 4th bullet point.
'Firing out of area terrain: Models that are inside area terrain firing out will position themselves with good fields of vision. Therefore they may fire through up to 2" of the area terrain they are occupying without that terrain conferring a cover save to the target...'
Since the firing model is the target, and you are within 2" of yourself, you can not receive a cover save from that area terrain.

You aren't firing, you're suffering a wound.

...from firing your weapon!

ToBeWilly wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

ToBeWilly wrote:BRB page 22, left hand side under 'Exceptions', 4th bullet point.
'Firing out of area terrain: Models that are inside area terrain firing out will position themselves with good fields of vision. Therefore they may fire through up to 2" of the area terrain they are occupying without that terrain conferring a cover save to the target...'
Since the firing model is the target, and you are within 2" of yourself, you can not receive a cover save from that area terrain.

You aren't firing, you're suffering a wound.

Where did the wound come from? It came from you rolling a 1 on the dice to shot your weapon. If you didn't fire, you wouldn't have a wound!

But that wound has is not part of a shooting attack - you did not fire the plasma gun at yourself.

Scott-S6 wrote:

ToBeWilly wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

ToBeWilly wrote:BRB page 22, left hand side under 'Exceptions', 4th bullet point.
'Firing out of area terrain: Models that are inside area terrain firing out will position themselves with good fields of vision. Therefore they may fire through up to 2" of the area terrain they are occupying without that terrain conferring a cover save to the target...'
Since the firing model is the target, and you are within 2" of yourself, you can not receive a cover save from that area terrain.

You aren't firing, you're suffering a wound.

Where did the wound come from? It came from you rolling a 1 on the dice to shot your weapon. If you didn't fire, you wouldn't have a wound!

But that wound has is not part of a shooting attack - you did not fire the plasma gun at yourself.

Sorry for the edit.
It is part of a shooting attack. You did fire the Plasma Gun. The result of which is the firing model taking a Wound.

Did you select the plasma gunner as a target? Did you roll to wound the plasma gunner? Did you use the AP of the weapon?

It is not a shooting attack. The plasma gunner is not a "target". The section you quoted does not apply.

The wound was triggered by something that happened during a shooting attack. It is not, however, a shooting attack.

Scott-S6 wrote:Did you select the plasma gunner as a target? Did you roll to wound the plasma gunner? Did you use the AP of the weapon?

It is not a shooting attack. The plasma gunner is not a "target". The section you quoted does not apply.

The wound was triggered by something that happened during a shooting attack. It is not, however, a shooting attack.

This. Also note that one could argue that, if it IS a shooting attack, you rolled a 1 to hit, and thus miss anyway, resulting in the "shooting attack" of Gets Hot missing you.

I would never go for this, personally. This is more cheese than SW, BA, and GK combined.

Sadly, with GW's amazingly awesome writing, the simplest of things (like this) become fodder for rules lawyers to try to abuse.

Anybody who chooses to argue in favor of cover saves for "Gets Hot" must be a very very bad loser... being one myself I feel it is fair to say that trying to claim a cover save in this instance is one of the most unsporting arguments I've ever heard.

some people have no shame....

Scott-S6 wrote:Did you select the plasma gunner as a target? Did you roll to wound the plasma gunner? Did you use the AP of the weapon?

It is not a shooting attack. The plasma gunner is not a "target". The section you quoted does not apply.

The wound was triggered by something that happened during a shooting attack. It is not, however, a shooting attack.

If it is not a shooting attack, then how can you claim a cover save. A shooting attack is the only attack that you can claim a cover save.
BRB page 21, under heading 'Cover Saves'
'A position in cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shot...so units in cover will normally get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them.'
Bold mine.

Then it goes on to describe what counts as cover. 'What counts as Cover? Cover is anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots...'
Bold mine.

ToBeWilly wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Did you select the plasma gunner as a target? Did you roll to wound the plasma gunner? Did you use the AP of the weapon?

It is not a shooting attack. The plasma gunner is not a "target". The section you quoted does not apply.

The wound was triggered by something that happened during a shooting attack. It is not, however, a shooting attack.

If it is not a shooting attack, then how can you claim a cover save. A shooting attack is the only attack that you can claim a cover save.
BRB page 21, under heading 'Cover Saves'
'A position in cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shot...so units in cover will normally get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them.'
Bold mine.

Then it goes on to describe what counts as cover. 'What counts as Cover? Cover is anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots...'
Bold mine.

Wrongness yours.

Spirit Leech allows cover saves, and it is not a shooting attack, because you Spirit Leech and can still use Cataclysm, which IS a shooting attack. And it's not an MC or is allowed to shoot two guns, so it clearly isn't a shooting attack (Spirit Leech). Yet you can cover save from it. So, try again. Please. God, I want someone to prove this wrong. Yours just isn't the right argument, Willy.

I don't know what 'Spirit Leech' or ' Cataclysm' is. Sounds like special attackes with their own special rules. Their specific rules will trump BRB general rules anyway. So, they don't apply. My points still stands.

ToBeWilly wrote:I don't know what 'Spirit Leech' or ' Cataclysm' is. Sounds like special attackes with their own special rules. Their specific rules will trump BRB general rules anyway. So, they don't apply. My points still stands.

It really doesn't.

Spirit Leech automatically activates at the start of every shooting phase. All units within 6" take leadership on 3d6 and for each point they fail by, take a wound with no armor saves. The same creature has a psychic shooting attack named Cataclysm, which has special rules that aren't relevant to this discussion (it only discusses how it works and effects to the monster afterward).

The creature that uses these abilities is the Doom of Malan'Tai, from the Tyranid Codex. Spirit Leech is never called a shooting attack but Cataclysm is. the unit type is infantry, and it has no rule stating it can use two shooting attacks. But everyone agrees you can use both in the same turn (since you only fire one gun), and GW's FAQ confirms you can take cover save form this attack. Much to everyone's relief.

So, by your logic, GW's FAQ is wrong, since "you can only take cover saves from shooting attacks" and Spirit is NOT a shooting attack. Therefore, no cover saves should be allowed. Yet they are.

So, sorry. Your point is wrong. At least, from my point of view. There's probably another example that you know, but I can't think of it.

Spirit Leech is activated duriong the shooting phase, surely that makes it a shooting attack and hence the cover save.
Cataclysm is specifically a psychic shooting attack, hence why IMO they are both used in the shooting phase.

You shouldnt get a cover save against GH!, you are holding the gun when it gets hot and burns you. The whole idea of GH! is that the model firing the weapon doesnt know it is going to overheat (otherwise would they really pull the trigger??!!) and gets burned in the process.
Also, the fact that the model must be more than 2" apart from where the attach is coming from in area terrain means a model isnt going to get a cover save from itself.

TheRedArmy wrote:

ToBeWilly wrote:I don't know what 'Spirit Leech' or ' Cataclysm' is. Sounds like special attackes with their own special rules. Their specific rules will trump BRB general rules anyway. So, they don't apply. My points still stands.

It really doesn't.

Spirit Leech automatically activates at the start of every shooting phase. All units within 6" take leadership on 3d6 and for each point they fail by, take a wound with no armor saves. The same creature has a psychic shooting attack named Cataclysm, which has special rules that aren't relevant to this discussion (it only discusses how it works and effects to the monster afterward).

The creature that uses these abilities is the Doom of Malan'Tai, from the Tyranid Codex. Spirit Leech is never called a shooting attack but Cataclysm is. the unit type is infantry, and it has no rule stating it can use two shooting attacks. But everyone agrees you can use both in the same turn (since you only fire one gun), and GW's FAQ confirms you can take cover save form this attack. Much to everyone's relief.

So, by your logic, GW's FAQ is wrong, since "you can only take cover saves from shooting attacks" and Spirit is NOT a shooting attack. Therefore, no cover saves should be allowed. Yet they are.

So, sorry. Your point is wrong. At least, from my point of view. There's probably another example that you know, but I can't think of it.

Specific rule for a specific ability. Does not apply.

I'm not sure if the Tyranid codex is the best thing to base stuff off; what happens if a Pyrovore explodes, do people hit by that get a cover save? It doesn't say it's a shooting attack and the FAQ doesn't say anything. Similarly so with spore mine explosions, would they give a cover save? They aren't mentioned as shooting attacks...

The Tyranid codex is rife with badly written rules, surely that makes it a terrible thing to base an argument off.

Avatar 720 wrote:I'm not sure if the Tyranid codex is the best thing to base stuff off; what happens if a Pyrovore explodes, do people hit by that get a cover save? It doesn't say it's a shooting attack and the FAQ doesn't say anything. Similarly so with spore mine explosions, would they give a cover save? They aren't mentioned as shooting attacks...

The Tyranid codex is rife with badly written rules, surely that makes it a terrible thing to base an argument off.

While true, the specific example I provided is clear-cut. If you can provide a decent argument for why it isn't clear-cut, please provide it. Otherwise, stop making generalizations that don't apply to what I wrote. Sorry if I sound rude, I'm not trying to be.

Revenent Reiko wrote:Spirit Leech is activated duriong the shooting phase, surely that makes it a shooting attack and hence the cover save.
Cataclysm is specifically a psychic shooting attack, hence why IMO they are both used in the shooting phase.

You shouldnt get a cover save against GH!, you are holding the gun when it gets hot and burns you. The whole idea of GH! is that the model firing the weapon doesnt know it is going to overheat (otherwise would they really pull the trigger??!!) and gets burned in the process.
Also, the fact that the model must be more than 2" apart from where the attach is coming from in area terrain means a model isnt going to get a cover save from itself.

Psychic Leech is not a shooting attack. Otherwise you could not do both in the same turn, since it has no rule and the rulebook provides no rule for firing two weapons in the same turn - in fact the rulebook forbids it unless you're able to (such as by being a MC). The Doom has no rule allowing it to shoot twice. But you can use both. If you have a decent reason why, citing rules, provide it. Otherwise don't argue the point. Sorry if I sound rude.

ToBeWilly wrote:

TheRedArmy wrote:

ToBeWilly wrote:I don't know what 'Spirit Leech' or ' Cataclysm' is. Sounds like special attackes with their own special rules. Their specific rules will trump BRB general rules anyway. So, they don't apply. My points still stands.

It really doesn't.

Spirit Leech automatically activates at the start of every shooting phase. All units within 6" take leadership on 3d6 and for each point they fail by, take a wound with no armor saves. The same creature has a psychic shooting attack named Cataclysm, which has special rules that aren't relevant to this discussion (it only discusses how it works and effects to the monster afterward).

The creature that uses these abilities is the Doom of Malan'Tai, from the Tyranid Codex. Spirit Leech is never called a shooting attack but Cataclysm is. the unit type is infantry, and it has no rule stating it can use two shooting attacks. But everyone agrees you can use both in the same turn (since you only fire one gun), and GW's FAQ confirms you can take cover save form this attack. Much to everyone's relief.

So, by your logic, GW's FAQ is wrong, since "you can only take cover saves from shooting attacks" and Spirit is NOT a shooting attack. Therefore, no cover saves should be allowed. Yet they are.

So, sorry. Your point is wrong. At least, from my point of view. There's probably another example that you know, but I can't think of it.

Specific rule for a specific ability. Does not apply.

If you're going to ignore my arguments without offering anything yourself, I'm not going to argue with you. No-one has offered a valid reason why you shouldn't get a cover save other than poor writing by GW. While mine is specific, it pertains to the issue at save and offers an example of why what you said is incorrect. You have offered little to counter my argument or provide an example of a non-shooting attack that disallows a cover save, cite a page that says you can only take cover saves against shooting attacks (you cited fluff, rather than actual rules - "shots" isn't a recognized game term, since not everything "shoots" - another Tyranid power named "Paroxysm" does not cause wounds but is a shooting attack), or do something else that pertains to my argument, I'm going to assume you don't want to address solid arguments and ignore you.

OP - your friend is being ridiculous. If he persists, don't play with him. Get's Hot is not intended to have a cover save. Tell him to chill and start playing to have fun rather than to WAAC.

EDIT: For clarification

TheRedArmy wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:Spirit Leech is activated duriong the shooting phase, surely that makes it a shooting attack and hence the cover save.
Cataclysm is specifically a psychic shooting attack, hence why IMO they are both used in the shooting phase.

You shouldnt get a cover save against GH!, you are holding the gun when it gets hot and burns you. The whole idea of GH! is that the model firing the weapon doesnt know it is going to overheat (otherwise would they really pull the trigger??!!) and gets burned in the process.
Also, the fact that the model must be more than 2" apart from where the attach is coming from in area terrain means a model isnt going to get a cover save from itself.

Psychic Leech is not a shooting attack. Otherwise you could not do both in the same turn, since it has no rule and the rulebook provides no rule for firing two weapons in the same turn - in fact the rulebook forbids it unless you're able to (such as by being a MC). The Doom has no rule allowing it to shoot twice. But you can use both. If you have a decent reason why, citing rules, provide it. Otherwise don't argue the point. Sorry if I sound rude.


OP - your friend is being ridiculous. If he persists, don't play with him. Get's Hot is not intended to have a cover save. Tell him to chill and start playing to have fun rather than to WAAC

No its not rude, i understand. i dont own the 'Nid codex, it was just my take on the use of the two attacks and a logical (as far as i can see it) explanation of the cover save for Psychic Leech.
and i totally agree with your last point too

While true, the specific example I provided is clear-cut. If you can provide a decent argument for why it isn't clear-cut, please provide it. Otherwise, stop making generalizations that don't apply to what I wrote. Sorry if I sound rude, I'm not trying to be.

1 Clear cut example out of 3 isn't great. I also didn't reply to what YOU wrote, it was a general reply; I would have quoted you otherwise. As for the generlisation, it still stands, the Tyranid codex is a mess of badly written rules, one rule GW decided to have a half-arsed attempt at clearing up does not make the book decent; if you got served a meal in a restaurant that was absolutely horrible apart from a single french fry which was okay, would that make the whole meal okay?

A rotten apple that has a tiny healthy bit on it is still rotten, that one healthy bit bit does not make it fresh in the same way that 1 reasonably worded rule in a codex full of crap ones does not make the codex well-worded.

Avatar 720 wrote:1 Clear cut example out of 3 isn't great. I also didn't reply to what YOU wrote, it was a general reply; I would have quoted you otherwise. As for the generlisation, it still stands, the Tyranid codex is a mess of badly written rules, one rule GW decided to have a half-arsed attempt at clearing up does not make the book decent; if you got served a meal in a restaurant that was absolutely horrible apart from a single french fry which was okay, would that make the whole meal okay?

A rotten apple that has a tiny healthy bit on it is still rotten, that one healthy bit bit does not make it fresh in the same way that 1 reasonably worded rule in a codex full of crap ones does not make the codex well-worded.

Fair enough on most of it. You do make a solid point. I hate that Tyranids are virtually impossible to be competitive now, and that virtually every ruling went against them with the FAQ.

I don't understand your first sentence, though. What do you mean by 1 out of 3?

EDIT: I was a little rough on my previous post. I apologize to everyone I addressed.

By 1 out of 3 I mean the Pyrovore and the Spore Mine. If the Pyrovore's Volatile special rule is activated by him dying to an ID shot, he explodes and causes damage, but this explosion isn't listed as being a shooting attack etc. so do people get cover save? The spore mine also explodes, and similarly isn't listed as being a shooting attack, so do we get cover saves?

Avatar 720 wrote:By 1 out of 3 I mean the Pyrovore and the Spore Mine. If the Pyrovore's Volatile special rule is activated by him dying to an ID shot, he explodes and causes damage, but this explosion isn't listed as being a shooting attack etc. so do people get cover save? The spore mine also explodes, and similarly isn't listed as being a shooting attack, so do we get cover saves?

You're right. Those two are bad and hard to know. I don't see why you wouldn't for either, but that's me.

Like I said, there's no rule disallowing cover saves for non-shooting attacks, and even an FAQ entry showing one that does. Therefore, it makes sense that Get's Hot allows one.

Which makes no sense. Like I said, I would never allow this, and never play with anyone who argued that they could.

Don'cha love GW?

P.S. That laugh is a sad laugh of sadness.

Smashotron wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:No. See page 31 of the rulebook under the heading Gets Hot!

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

What constitutes "Normal Saves"? Under "Taking Saving Throws" on page 20 that includes Armour Saves, Invulnerable Saves and Cover Saves. On the next page, an exception for Cover Saves is "Inside Area Terrain" where, "Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from. This represents their increased chance of diving into or behind a piece of covering terrain." Regardless of direction.

XxRVNGRDxX wrote:BRB pg 21 says under the heading WHEN ARE MODELS IN COVER?:
"When any part of the target model's body is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover." So what you are saying is, the model can't see even see himself. Such ashame...Maybe he doesn't even exist.

BRB pg 22 says under the heading EXCEPTIONS:
"OWN UNIT - In the same way as they can trace LOS through members of their own squad, models can always shoot, and be shot at, through members of their own unit without confering or receiving a cover save." Is this model part of his unit, why yes he is! So he can shoot himself, and not give himself a cover save.

So thats two exceptions to the rules of cover saves. Then its followed up by a reasoning/exception on Area terrian. The BRB contradicts itself multiple times, and not just on this issue. We will just house rule it from here on out. Many people have been posed this quesiton. It's not necessarily as cut and dry as some of us think. Sorry for starting a little tif between dakkaites.

The "Own Unit" exception applies to instances where the squad is being fired upon or fired onto. The squad never grants itself a Cover Save. But that it's not the argument. The debate is the fact that the whole unit was in Area Terrain, thus gained the benefit of a Cover Save. You can't quote the wrong rules to make a case.


Warhammer 40,000 is not about how you interpret how a model will react or how they would act. It is all very clear in black & white. I suffer a wound, and a normal save applies. I have multiple saves. One is a 5+ Armor Save due to Flak armour, the other is a 3+ Cover Save due to being in Area Terrain (and Harker's Stealth). There is no restriction in "Gets Hot!" that denies me that Cover Save. If anything, the Exception for Area Terrain clearly states the model is diving or ducking behind cover.

This post nails it. There's nothing in the rules that somehow lock cover saves into a situation where they can only be granted by enemy shooting - the rules just state when you can't have them, which is in CC.

There's way too much "Well here's some real life!" and "Punch your friend for beeing a cheesebeard because he made you angry!" in this thread. YMDC doesn't give a damn about how gamers think things would happen in real life, what your personal opinion without reading the rules is, whether you think your friend is being a jerk or not, or really anything that isn't an attempt to use the relevant rules to attempt to formulate an answer to the question.

Ultimately, the problem is with the phrase "Normal Saves". Most see the words normal save as the armor save thats in your stat line or the invulnerable save in their unit entry/wargear. If it said "may take armor saves, invulnerable saves, and cover saves" none of us would have this issue. It seems a split at the moment and its open to each gamers interpretation.

I won't stop gaming against that player, we will just have to house rule it in the future. If its that much of a big deal down the road then We will have to find a way to make it fair for both parties. In the end, I was just curious. I appreciate everyones feedback. Either way, Smashotron and myself still had a fun game had between friends, and thats all that matters.

XxRVNGRDxX wrote:I won't stop gaming against that player, we will just have to house rule it in the future. If its that much of a big deal down the road then We will have to find a way to make it fair for both parties. In the end, I was just curious. I appreciate everyones feedback. Either way, Smashotron and myself still had a fun game had between friends, and thats all that matters.

True enough. If you can enjoy it and work it out, by all means. Remember, it's plastic soldiers. No need to get upset!

TheRedArmy wrote:

XxRVNGRDxX wrote:I won't stop gaming against that player, we will just have to house rule it in the future. If its that much of a big deal down the road then We will have to find a way to make it fair for both parties. In the end, I was just curious. I appreciate everyones feedback. Either way, Smashotron and myself still had a fun game had between friends, and thats all that matters.

True enough. If you can enjoy it and work it out, by all means. Remember, it's plastic soldiers. No need to get upset!

Truer words have never been spoken!

Well, you know...

Disarray wrote:wait a minute, are those arguing that you get a cover save, ALSO saying that when a transport explodes, leaving a crater (that grants a 4+ cover save) the unit that is deployed there, can use that 4+ cover save against the wounds from the explosion?

No. The unit in question isn't placed on the table (and thus in cover) until after wounds and saves are resolved.

Plasma guns wouldn't get cover from inside a vehicle because they aren't treated as in cover.

Plasma guns behind a barricade aren't treated as in cover because there isn't a line of sight from the shooter to the target over terrain; there is no shooter other than the model in question.

Plasma guns in area terrain get normal saves. If we debate "normal saves" to exclude cover saves, we have to look at invulnerable saves as well, which then certainly aren't "normal."

The only argument I see against cover saves from overheats in area terrain is real world application, not rules, but to remove cover saves you also remove invulns, which is equally real world broken.

Let them have their cover, sais I.

Ceruleus wrote:Plasma guns in area terrain get normal saves. If we debate "normal saves" to exclude cover saves, we have to look at invulnerable saves as well, which then certainly aren't "normal."

Exactly so. And the rules actually tell us of several cases where cover saves aren't allowed... Close combat, Dangerous Terrain and No Retreat.