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.

Two questions.

If a Battlewagon with a mekk w/kff on board, tank shocks a unit who elects to use a melta gun to death or glory, does the BW get a 4+ save from the kff? Assuming the death or glory succeeds, does the BW deffrolla still get the d6 s10 attacks? Or does it stop 1 inch in front of the model?

As they're not in close combat, I'd say they get the 4+ save from the KFF. And if they Death or Glory and succeed, you're actually giving them 2d6 Str 10 hits, actually. Check the Deff Rolla rules on the Battlewagon entry.

I assumed death or glory stopped the tank from tank shocking. The tank is blown up and stops 1 inch in front of the model. I was under the impression that you get the addition d6 attacks only if the death or glory fails

Nope. Page 55--"If the unit elects to make a DoG attack, it takes a further d6 Str 10 attacks in addition to the usual effects."(The first d6 Str 10 attacks) Emphasis mine.

As far as the Deffrolla, it is the act of tank shocking that causes it, and Death or Glory! just makes it that much worse as per the rule for Deffrollas.
It doesn't have to fail, "If a unit elects to make a death or glory attack"

As far as the cover save with Death or Glory, it simply stated it automatically hits, and in the FAQ it says it can't count as obscured for moving flat out. I don't see any reason you wouldn't get it.

I just spent the last few minutes going over all ther pertinant rules, and I would have to say based purely on RAW the battlewagon does not get a cover save. The reason for this is actually under the death or glory rules on page 69

Whatever for it takes, the attack hits automatically, so resolve the hit against the vehicle's front armour (using the front armor even if the model uses a close combat attack), and immediately apply any damage results.

The emphasis in the statement is mine. Now Immediately is the word of importance there. As it does not say roll a save (if you have one) against the DoG attack, it does not allow a cover save, or a save of any type, to be taken against a death or glory attack. Remember 40k is a permissive ruleset, so you have to be given permission to be able to perform an action, and it does not give permision to take a save against the DoG attack.

Actually it goes the other way. Cover saves are a standard assumption against ranged attacks. Therefore the death or glory rule would have to disallow it or it can be used.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Actually it goes the other way. Cover saves are a standard assumption against ranged attacks. Therefore the death or glory rule would have to disallow it or it can be used.

The problem with saying that is that shooting attacks only happen on the owning players turn. You are not making a range attack, you are making a Death or glory attack using the stats for any weapon the model is carrying. Saying it's a ranged attack is a misnomer because you only ever get one attack, regardless of a weapons ranged profile is. One other thing is, Death or Glory! is broken down step by step like shooting is. Shooting allows a cover save because it is listed in the steps for it, Death or glory! says nothing about cover saves so I'd be inclined to rule no saves. (Bear in mind I have been known to be wrong before )

DakkaDakka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
Not true.

See Inquisitorial Mystics.
Codex Daemonhunters.

As I said I've been wrong before , but in the instance you point out you have express permission to make a shooting attack outside of your phase, death or glory says nothing of following the shooting rules to attack the vehicle.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Doom of Malan'tai's leech allows a cover save in the opponent's turn, and is not a shooting attack.

Yes the Doom's spirit leech indeed gives cover saves, only because the FAQ gave the cover saves to units. Until that point it didn't give cover saves though. Remember the point you made though, it's not a shooting attack though it does activate on your opponents turn.

The other hitch to all this is the FAQ itself which has the following question;

Q: Does a skimmer that is moving flat out whilst performing a tank shock get the 4+ obscured save against the Death or Glory! Attack? (p71)
A: No.

I realize that flat out obscured saves are different than KFF obscured saves, but I have to wonder if they mean no obscured whatsoever on a DoG by that ruling because obscured saves gained any way are still obscured saves?

mutter mutter Cruddace and his illogical rulings...

page 69: The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades.

Ok so this is a single shot using the weapon profile of one of your ranged weapons... sounds like a shooting attack to me.

page 62: If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it

Doesn't say anything about only happening during the shooting phase. If you're obscured and you take a glancing or penetrating hit from a shooting attack, you get to take a cover save.

Unless I see otherwise, KFF works against a shooting attack on DoG.

The problem is the DoG attack does not differentiate between being an assault swing or a shooting attack. It just specifies which weapons can be used to perform it.

Also, the rule on pg 62 you are quoting is taken ENTIRELY out of context, the way it reads here is you can take a save against every damage result.

mrfantastical wrote:

page 69: The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades.

Ok so this is a single shot using the weapon profile of one of your ranged weapons... sounds like a shooting attack to me.

page 62: If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it

Doesn't say anything about only happening during the shooting phase. If you're obscured and you take a glancing or penetrating hit from a shooting attack, you get to take a cover save.

Unless I see otherwise, KFF works against a shooting attack on DoG.

The above is exactly what I was going to post. There is certainly no restriction in the rules only allowing cover savers to apply in any given phase or turn. And the DoG rules clearly allow the DoG attack to be either a close combat attack or a shot with a shooting weapon, the latter of which obviously allows a cover save if applicable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

calypso2ts wrote:The problem is the DoG attack does not differentiate between being an assault swing or a shooting attack. It just specifies which weapons can be used to perform it.

No, that's not correct. It's worth taking a peek at the rule before you post things like that. "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades."

calypso2ts wrote:Also, the rule on pg 62 you are quoting is taken ENTIRELY out of context, the way it reads here is you can take a save against every damage result.

It's not out of context at all. That's the rule saying if a vehicle is obscured it gets a cover save. There's no limitation in there saying it only works in the shooting phase, or anything similar.

Part of the problem with a skimmer getting its 4+ save versus a death or glory is that the the skimmer only gets a save if it moved fast in its last movement phase. Being in the process of moving fast in the current phase wont work, the moving fast rule hasnt kicked in yet....so the FAQ is actually going quite clearly with the RAW.

Now as to cover saves for the vehicle from the dog attack, it would seem to basically come down to the type of attack being used by the dog model. If its a PF then its not going to be a ranged/ firing attack so obscurement wont apply. By the same token, if the model is using a melta weapon then the attack WILL be a ranged attack so obscurement will apply.



Sliggoth

Mannahnin wrote:

No, that's not correct. It's worth taking a peek at the rule before you post things like that. "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades."

Thanks for implying that I did not look at the rule and draw that conclusion. A model is allowed to make a specific single attack. This attack comes from Death or Glory and is resolved when the unit is attacked via tank shock. It is convenient for our abstraction of what is occurring to say it is 'shot from a weapon,' however, the attack is a Death or Glory attack that uses part of a CCW or ranged weapon profile. The differences for this special attack are outlined in DoG which differentiates itself from being a shooting attack because 'the attack always hits' and 'only one attack is ever resolved in this case.'

If you would like to discuss why this interpretation is incorrect I would be glad to hear it. The snippet of the DoG rule you posted, however, does not necessarily contradict the argument.

Mannahnin wrote:

It's not out of context at all. That's the rule saying if a vehicle is obscured it gets a cover save. There's no limitation in there saying it only works in the shooting phase, or anything similar.

This has been discussed to death before, but the fact it has been discussed to death means it should at least be mentioned it is found in the shooting rules specifically and that there are the normal caveats as applied to CC attacks.

calypso2ts wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

No, that's not correct. It's worth taking a peek at the rule before you post things like that. "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades."

Thanks for implying that I did not look at the rule and draw that conclusion.

I'm sorry, but I concluded that you hadn't read the rule because the sentence I quoted above clearly seems to show that the model makes either a shooting or a close combat attack.

calypso2ts wrote:A model is allowed to make a specific single attack. This attack comes from Death or Glory and is resolved when the unit is attacked via tank shock.

Yup. Right with you here. DoG gives the model specific, unusual permission to make a close combat or shooting attack outside the usual sequence of events.

calypso2ts wrote:It is convenient for our abstraction of what is occurring to say it is 'shot from a weapon,' however, the attack is a Death or Glory attack that uses part of a CCW or ranged weapon profile.

It's not only convenient for our abstraction, it's directly informative of what set of rules to use when resolving said attack. Death or Glory lets the model make either a shooting or close combat attack, under a specific set of circumstances and with certain specific limitations (1 attack or shot). There is no reason to make up new, additional restrictions other than those explicitly given in the text.

calypso2ts wrote:The differences for this special attack are outlined in DoG which differentiates itself from being a shooting attack because 'the attack always hits' and 'only one attack is ever resolved in this case.'

No, I'm sorry, I disagree entirely that this somehow makes it not a shooting attack. I think the language in the DoG rules, using the word "shot", is specifically indicating that it IS a shooting attack, and as such it must follow all such rules except where explicitly overridden. As in "the attack hits automatically" and "Even if the weapon used is Assault 3, for example, or the model is normally allowed more than one attack, only one attack is ever resolved in this case." These sentences create specific and explicit exceptions within the larger framework of a shooting or close combat attack; whichever has been selected by the player.

calypso2ts wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:It's not out of context at all. That's the rule saying if a vehicle is obscured it gets a cover save. There's no limitation in there saying it only works in the shooting phase, or anything similar.

This has been discussed to death before, but the fact it has been discussed to death means it should at least be mentioned it is found in the shooting rules specifically and that there are the normal caveats as applied to CC attacks.

Whether a rule is found in the shooting chapter doesn't mean that it only applies in that phase. Or are you arguing that (e.g.) models can only draw Line of Sight in the shooting phase? Think about it before you answer; there are other rules which require LOS to be drawn at other times. Close combat attacks don't allow cover saves because the assault rules on page 39 say so.

There's just a couple of things I'm hesistant to agree on here. I'll say this, there's a case that it can go either way, but both sides have an equally strong argument.

Some of the things I'll note make me wonder, is it really a shooting attack or not. While it has the rules saying that even if a weapon is assault 3 that it only ever gets a single shot, if it were truly a shooting attack you would have all 3 shots instead of one. Second is in how the following is (should?) be read, "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades." Now that's a loaded sentence, because when it says "a shot" it is implied you make a shooting attack, but does it specifically say shooting attack? It may just be splitting hairs on my part, but shot can be used to mean multiple things. For example, if I take a cheap shot at someone I could be hitting them from the blindside with a fist. I made a close combat attack that is "a shot." In my opinion you can't read much into the word a shot because it has so many meanings.

Next reason I'd say no to allowing an obscured save is that death or glory follows a step by step model, irregardless of what type of attack is made.

1. Tank moves into contact with enemy unit, performing a tank shock.
2. Unit that is tank shocked must pass a morale test.
3. If the leadership test fails, fall back. If test passes move on to step 4.
4. Unit moves minimum distance, while maintaining coherency, away from vehicle. Death or Glory may be chosen at this point, if so step 5.
5. DoG Model chooses one attack to make on the vehicle; The attack can be either "a shot" from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades.
6. Attack automatically hits.
7. Roll for armor penetration against front armour.
8. Immediately apply damaged results if any.
9. If damaged results do not stop vehicle, remove model from table as casualty.

Now if we follow the rules for death or glory, we can see that it has changed the rules now. If it was a shooting attack the line should read, The attack can either be a shooting attack from a weapon carried by a model (In this case follow the steps for shooting attacks page 15), or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades. Now it does say a close combat attack, so that is clear, but where it all boils down to, is does "a shot" mean a shooting attack?

You would be much better of determining if it is and must be a close combat attack--as those are the only ones that disallow cover saves.

There is not a restriction on cover saves to apply only to shooting.

Per the Ork codex the only time a KFF does not come into play is during an assault. Since you want to say that a DoG attack is it's own special type of attack then the KFF does function and the vehicle does get a save (in fact by your reasoning it would get to use it's KFF vs a powerfist used during DoG).
So either a DoG is a special form of attack and the KFF works against all varients of the DoG attack or DoG uses the standard rules for shooting/assaulting in which case the KFF works against ranged weapons and not against melee weapons. I think it is the latter case.

Edit- as to your "shot" quandry I would think you use the most common form of the word as used throughout the rules and codices. Otherwise why limit yourself to "cheap shot" why not "shot of whiskey"? Meaning the figure must consume a small glass of whiskey and then allocate results from there. Or, how about "shotgun" which has numerous meanings by itself. You are needlessly complicating an otherwise simply understood phrase. In 40K unless specifically stated otherwise "shoot in any of its tenses" refers to a shooting attack as described in the rules.

Clearly the KFF grants a save to a DoG if it takes the form of a shooting attack.

I have to agree with the above poster, because:

1) Either the DoG attack you make with your gun really is a shooting attack, so KFF save still applies

2) Or, as written in the Ork Codex:
"Vechiles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets. The force field has no effect in assault". And as you said DoG attack is neither a shooting or assault attack:

calypso2ts wrote:a Death or Glory attack that uses part of a CCW or ranged weapon profile. The differences for this special attack are outlined in DoG which differentiates itself from being a shooting attack because 'the attack always hits' and 'only one attack is ever resolved in this case.'

By your very own argument the Ork vechile would get a save anyway. As one of the above posters said, it would even get a save against a supposedly CC weapon.

Whether we get a save against a powerfist is debatable, but against what would normally be a shooting attack, I see nothing either RAW or RAI that could possibly deny us a cover save beyond all reasonable doubt.

And in addition to that, you should let Orks have their semi-legal rules! Go pick on one of the hopelessly overpowered armies like BA before getting started on the poor boyz!

This is why you're only good bet is not to get defrolla'd in the first place. But that darn big mek with KFF can protect
a little too well when my opponent is rolling hot. Just ask my poor meltagun grey hunter, his pack and the wolf guard
guard leader with them. OUCH

As far as I can tell, the Battlewagon with Mekk and KFF would get a cover save unless you hit it with grenade, meltabomb
Power Fist or Chainfist.

NTFH wrote:As far as I can tell, the Battlewagon with Mekk and KFF would get a cover save unless you hit it with grenade, meltabomb
Power Fist or Chainfist.

You mean "any close combat attack." Your list of things are the things a space marine would typically use, but other armies have a lot of other options.

Just as a comparison (or add fuel to the fire). The most recent FAQ disallows cover saves from Death or Glory attacks for skimmmers who move 'flat out' and perform a tank shock. It would normally get a cover (obscured) save against shooting attacks (as does a KFF provide).

So, why does one provides the cover save against shooting weapons in DoG and not the other?

As already been stated the cover save comes after moving flat out. Not while moving flat out.