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.

Ok ok ok, I know it sounds off, but I was playing a game yesterday against some marines and I had an opportunity to hit a combat squad with a deffrolla.

So being the first time I have been left with a still moving wagon with a rolla and no good vehicle targets in range I don't know about what kind of ap it has, neither does my opponent. Okay so I pull out the book, take a look, it says nothing about ap or saves so you get your saves as normal, then I guess out of curiosity he asks about cover saves, so he continues to roll his saves and I take another look at the deffrolla entry and wouldn't you know it? The entry says nothing about cover saves or if the attack is to be counted as close combat (no cover save) or shooting (cover allowed). We agree it's probably not allowed (not that it mattered, his 3+ is better than a cover save) and continued to play.

Later that night I get home and wanted to look deeper into it just so I know whats up. Well after taking a look threw the tank shock section I could find nothing that says you may or may not take cover saves as tank shocking it's self causes no wounds (duh!)

Now I personally would play no cover saves and I doubt anyone would play any differently but I am curious about how dakka thinks of this little RAW quirey. And if there is something I have missed.

COver saves against a deffrolla is an ongoing debate, so you have to draw your own conclusions.

One argument is that the squad would dive for cover and hence get a cover save. The other is that as its not a shooting attack, no cover saves apply. As I said, you have to make your own mind up abou tthat one!
One thing I can say though, is that the deffrolla has no AP and does not ignore armour saves. So if you deffrolla a terminator squad, prepare to be disappointed!

It is not a shooting attack so you cannot take cover saves against it.

No cover saves

liam0404 wrote:COver saves against a deffrolla is an ongoing debate, so you have to draw your own conclusions.

One argument is that the squad would dive for cover and hence get a cover save. The other is that as its not a shooting attack, no cover saves apply. As I said, you have to make your own mind up abou tthat one!
One thing I can say though, is that the deffrolla has no AP and does not ignore armour saves. So if you deffrolla a terminator squad, prepare to be disappointed!

I ran the "diving into cover" idea threw my head but I decided it was a little too "adding realism" to bring that argument to a RAW discussion, though in play I am a very flexible and generous player, if someone wanted to make that argument in game I might let it fly, depending on if I was in a tourny or not, most often I'm not though.

Gwar! wrote:It is not a shooting attack so you cannot take cover saves against it.

Sorry if this sounds like I'm splitting hairs but it's sorta why I made this thread, besides knowing you, you might enjoy it.

To make the distinction to call it "not a shooting attack" you would have to make the jump of also calling it "a close combat attack" wouldn't you? I mean to my knowledge (which may be wrong!) there is no section in the BRB covering just wounds, it only covers wounds from shooting, close combat and difficult terrain. Ignoring difficult terrain which would bring up some more problems I don't see any other way to take a wound that isn't codex specific.

Now I can accept the answer of "it's broken but I play it this way" but I know you like to bring pure RAW to these arguments so I ask how you came to that answer.

Gwar! wrote:It is not a shooting attack so you cannot take cover saves against it.

Terror from the Deep and Spirit Leech are shooting attacks?

Actually, I just perused the rules for saves.

The only times saves are mentioned is in the shooting rules and the assault rules. The shooting rules appear to be the "general" rules, where it discusses all the different saves a squad can get. The assault rules are more specific, and explicitly forbid taking cover saves against close combat wounds. But, it appears cover saves are the default against unspecified wounds.

Where does it say that cover saves only apply to shooting attacks?

Grakmar wrote:Where does it say that cover saves only apply to shooting attacks?

It does not.
I have previously argued in favor of the interpretation that they do only apply to shooting attacks based upon the wording of the rules.

That does not appear to be correct, however--and GW (FAQs) list other non-shooting attacks as allowing cover saves.

Gwar! wrote:It is not a shooting attack so you cannot take cover saves against it.

Exactly. Why is there any debate? A deff rolla is a special attack that occurs as the result of a tank shock move during the movement phase. Furthermore it occurs when the unit is in base contact with the vehicle. This is like saying you can take cover saves from tau flechette launchers if one tank shocks you, which you can't.

juraigamer wrote:

Gwar! wrote:It is not a shooting attack so you cannot take cover saves against it.

Exactly. Why is there any debate? A deff rolla is a special attack that occurs as the result of a tank shock move during the movement phase.

TftD occurs in the movement phase as well, during a deepstrike.
Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack, or DoM could never use Cataclysm.

etc.

kirsanth wrote:

juraigamer wrote:

Gwar! wrote:It is not a shooting attack so you cannot take cover saves against it.

Exactly. Why is there any debate? A deff rolla is a special attack that occurs as the result of a tank shock move during the movement phase.

TftD occurs in the movement phase as well, during a deepstrike.
Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack, or DoM could never use Cataclysm.

etc.

RaW, you don't get Cover saves against either of them...

Gwar! wrote:RaW, you don't get Cover saves against either of them...

I knew you were going to say that.

See what I mean about the debate?!?!

You get cover saves from Vehicle explosions. Skimmers get a juke save from Deff Rollas.
I say you'd get a cover save from cover you are in.

I thought cover saves from explosions was pretty questionable?

And skimmers getting a save isn't a cover save, it's just part of being a skimmer.

I think that it's hard to imagine why they'd get cover saves. Even fluff arguments don't work that well, as you can just call the d6 for hits part of the squad diving for cover. Or say that units in cover have nowhere to run too...

Besides, wouldn't any unit hit be a deffrolla have a hard time claiming a cover save anyway?

One argument which was raised was that unless a deffrolla took a dangerous terrain test (i.e. when moving through cover) then no cover saves would apply (as there was no cover to hide behind).

That one sort of made sense. I genuinely think it's one of those things which you need to house rule.

Me personally, I feel the deffrolla falls into a special "vehicle attack" category, also shared by "vehicles explodes" results. My basis for this argument, is that it's neither a close combat attack or a shooting attack - it therefore has to fall into some other category. The hits cause by "vehicle explodes!" don't allow cover, and I don't feel that they should apply for the deffrolla either. However, if an opponent asked for it during a friendly game, i'd allow it.

Polonius wrote:Besides, wouldn't any unit hit be a deffrolla have a hard time claiming a cover save anyway?

A unit in area terrain would be able to claim a cover save.

forkbanger wrote:

Polonius wrote:Besides, wouldn't any unit hit be a deffrolla have a hard time claiming a cover save anyway?

A unit in area terrain would be able to claim a cover save.

Unless the deff rolla went into the area terrain. Wouldn't the rule about shooting through 2" of area terrain deny the unit hiding a cover save?

Re-reading the rules, the cover saves rules, while written from a "shooting" perspective, never restrict themselves to shooting. In fact, only the explicit language in the assault chapter seems to disallow cover in assault.

I think I'm changing my mind on this issue. Sure, why the hell not. It's just going to be kind of tricky.

Polonius wrote:Unless the deff rolla went into the area terrain. Wouldn't the rule about shooting through 2" of area terrain deny the unit hiding a cover save?

Re-reading the rules, the cover saves rules, while written from a "shooting" perspective, never restrict themselves to shooting. In fact, only the explicit language in the assault chapter seems to disallow cover in assault.

I think I'm changing my mind on this issue. Sure, why the hell not. It's just going to be kind of tricky.

You're specifically not allowed cover saves versus assaults. The rest of the time, you seem to be fine- the Doom, Mawlocs, whatever. You seem to need area terrain to claim the save most of the time, as some cover saves depend on having a firer and target, and the line of sight between them.

forkbanger wrote:

Polonius wrote:Unless the deff rolla went into the area terrain. Wouldn't the rule about shooting through 2" of area terrain deny the unit hiding a cover save?

Re-reading the rules, the cover saves rules, while written from a "shooting" perspective, never restrict themselves to shooting. In fact, only the explicit language in the assault chapter seems to disallow cover in assault.

I think I'm changing my mind on this issue. Sure, why the hell not. It's just going to be kind of tricky.

You're specifically not allowed cover saves versus assaults. The rest of the time, you seem to be fine- the Doom, Mawlocs, whatever. You seem to need area terrain to claim the save most of the time, as some cover saves depend on having a firer and target, and the line of sight between them.

Except for the fact that the cover save rules only show up in the shooting phase rules against shooting attacks.

Non Shooting attacks do not follow those rules, so you cannot use them to claim cover saves.

By that argument, no unit can take a wound in the movement phase, as the only time it describes the wounding process is in shooting (and by reference assault).

Just because a section is in one part of the rules doesn't mean it only applies then, particularly when the rules are written with multiple uses in mind.

I'm not a fan of cover saves outside of shooting, as I think that the consistently shooting based language of the cover save section shows the thought pretty well. but it's hard to ignore that the Saving throw section opens by stating both armor and cover as types of saves, and the words "from a shooting attack" never follow any statements about what models receive a cover save.

Polonius wrote:By that argument, no unit can take a wound in the movement phase, as the only time it describes the wounding process is in shooting (and by reference assault).

You would be correct. There is only one way that you can actually take wounds in the movement phase and that is through Dangerous Terrain, which references the shooting rules also. (RaW of course, but that hasn't stopped GW making silly rules that don't technically work, like the Mawlocs rule.)

Even then, the rules for Dangerous Terrain only provide for models suffering a wound, not being removed from the game.

I think once you start playing that models can in fact take wounds and be removed as casualties during the movement phase (which we kind of need to do given the increasing number of ways they happen), we have to decide what rules to incorporate.

I think the best approach is to do what they did for assaulting: include all the rules, and then strike out what they didn't want (in this case, cover saves).

If we attempt to read GW's mind as little as possible, I think saying "wounds in movement are handled just like wounds from shooting," patches the problem with the least additional rules.

This is one problem with trying to read intent: do dangerous terrain and assault phase wounds not get cover saves because GW singles them out, or because GW through they were the only ways to take wounds outside of shooting?

In other words, are shooting wounds special (in that they can take cover saves) or are they the baseline (in that the rules specifically point out the special cases that dont' get cover).

Wow I did not expect such a big debate from this, And with so many good points this is turning out to be more difficult than I expected.

First off just to clear any problems, it should be assumed that the unit being hit with the deffrolla is in difficult area terrain I don't think the argument for gaining a cover save stands up without that assumption.

also to gwar's last point, wouldn't that mean the deffrolla doesn't work as it happens in the movement phase? Doesn't the deffrolla entry in the codex allow wounds to be taken in the movement phase? And by your reasoning then would it be to far a jump to say then that no armor or invulnerable saves could be taken as there is no explanation of taking them in the movement section other than a dangerous terrain test which the deffrolla is obviously not?

I personally just can't see it working that way myself, but on the other hand I can't decide how to make a definitive choice on how it should properly be handled. On one hand nothing is stopping a unit within area terrain from taking there cover save as other than the cover save rule being in the shooting section there is nothing saying it cannot be taken from wounds other than shooting, or even in another phase were as the assault rules are the rules that seem to stop a cover save from being taken . On the other hand it isn't happening in the shooting phase (this seems to be it's own argument in it's own right) and well it isn't a shooting attack, and has no shooting profile of any sort.

*Currently massaging beard...

The point is, there are only rules for actually handling wounds, casualties, etc. in the shooting phase. Assault incorporates them, but outside of that... there's no "default" way to handle wounds.

So, what this means is, by RAW, the question isn't about cover saves, because there's no mechanism to even assign the wounds!

Now, that's clearly not going to work out. So, we need a way to handle those wounds. That's the crux of the debate. Not how to follow the RAW, but how to best break the RAW.

we always (house rule it) play it like so......

If a unit just moves out of the way, they get cover but must take a dangerous terrain check. here we simply try to balance it against CC vrs shooting for cover so the dnagerous terrain check represents units in cover not moving fast enough. (1 d6 deff rolla hits still apply as well)

If the unit does a death or glory shooting attack they get cover and 2d6 hits apply (as per normal deff rolla rules) so the attack is based as shooting

If the unit does a CC death or glory no cover applies as the defending unit chose CC rather than shooting to defend. (2d6 deff rolla attacks as per deff rolla rules) so the attack is based as CC

So in general we let the defender decide what type of attack it is based on how they choose to react.

Note we only allow cover if the unit actually is in cover or within 2 inches of cover the battlewagon drove through to hit them.

Polonius wrote:The point is, there are only rules for actually handling wounds, casualties, etc. in the shooting phase. Assault incorporates them, but outside of that... there's no "default" way to handle wounds.

So, what this means is, by RAW, the question isn't about cover saves, because there's no mechanism to even assign the wounds!

Now, that's clearly not going to work out. So, we need a way to handle those wounds. That's the crux of the debate. Not how to follow the RAW, but how to best break the RAW.

I take your argument of not having mechanism to assign the wounds and ask: does the deffrolla entry surpass this problem in the BRB as it gives you an easy rule set to follow to assign these wounds? If not why? If so then because the deffrolla does not state you cannot take cover saves, as the assault rules do, then can you take them? Or can you take no saves as there is no way to make a save that is not from dangerous terrain in the movement phase?

In my mind it is quite clear that there is a way to assign wounds in the movement phase, as per the codex, the question is how to handle the saves as there is no save explanation in the rolla entry or the movement phase entry.

Except there isn't. What happens when a unit takes d6 Strength 10 hits?

If you can answer using only the codex, I'll agree with you.

You can't. I can say, "ok, my unit takes... 4 S 10 hits. Are you done moving?"

The only way hits turn into wounds is via the mechanics outlined in the shooting section.

Good point, I did not think of that before. I was completely unaware of that little problem, now that you point it out that really changes the whole thing all together.

I guess it comes right down to a house rule, no if ands or buts. I will just have to talk with the people I play with to come to a conclusion of how we shall play it in the future.

Most people's gut reaction would be no to cover saves. Unless they want to claim them, of course...