GGW question

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.

**Somnicide**

Grotesques Gone Wild - I have a couple of questions about these sexy beasts.

Basically, if dark eldar grotesques roll a 1 at the start of a turn in which they are not escorted they rampage causing 2d6 Str 5 hits to everything in 2d6" (friend or foe) before being removed from play.

1. Do they have to test while mounted up in a raider?

and

2. Does this affect units in combat?
2a. - if so - and the rampage causes a unit to suffer 25% casualties and fall back does the unit they are facing get to sweeping advance (if they won the previous combat)?
2b. - if so and they destroy one of the sides in the combat does the other side get to consolidate?

and

3. Do units get a cover save vs. a rampage?

**lambadomy**

Christ, good questions.

1. I don't see anything that says they don't have to test. It's not an assault or shooting it's just an event that happens on a 1.

2. Nothing says it doesn't, so again I'll say yes. Units in combat can't be targeted by shooting but nothing about this is a shooting attack

2a. Open question. The rules specify units in CC don't take morale and pinning tests from shooting attacks. This isn't any kind of normal attack, shooting or CC. I'd say it doesn't cause them to fall back, just like a shooting attack. If you want to assume they'd have a chance to fall back, then no, I wouldn't expect them to allow a sweeping advance as this is not happening in the assault phase.

2b. No consolidation, but the newly freed unit would be able to move normally as this happens before the movement phase.

3. Beats the hell out of me. I'll agree with Grey Templar - it's not shooting, so no cover. Unfortunately this makes the ruling to 2a still more open, since we're actively saying it's not shooting.

**Grey Templar**

1. I would assume so since the wording doesn't say they don't. distance would be measured from the Hull.

2. Yes for the same reason as above.

2a. Units in CC don't test for Shooting casualities so this doesn't apply.

2b. yes, no, maybe so. discuss with your opponent and hack out what seems fair.

3. Is it defined as shooting? if yes then yes. if no then no.

**kirsanth**

Grey Templar wrote:3. Is it defined as close combat? if yes then no. if no then yes.

Fixed.

**Grey Templar**

that says the exact same thing.

**kirsanth**

Grey Templar wrote:that says the exact same thing.

Not at all.
Close combat attacks deny cover. That is not the same as there are attacks that are neither.
TftD, Deffrolla, DoM spirit leech, etc.

If it is NOT close combat, it does not default to denying cover.

**lambadomy**

Shooting - you get cover saves

close combat - you don't

random other ways that people get hit/take wounds that aren't shooting or CC - rules interpretation of the month, wait for the FAQ.

Edit - yeah, re-read it. Still think there's no reason to get cover saves for something that isn't CC or shooting, but I may be wrong and GW may be consistent about such rulings.

**kirsanth**

lambadomy wrote:it doesn't make any sense to say that if it's defined as shooting, then you don't get a cover save, which is what your "fixed" says.

Read it again.

kirsanth wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:3. Is it defined as close combat? if yes then no. if no then yes.
Fixed.

If it is defined as close combat then no cover.
If it is not defined as close combat, then cover may be used (if available).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

lambadomy wrote:random other ways that people get hit/take wounds that aren't shooting or CC - rules interpretation of the month, wait for the FAQ.

Or, you know. . .post about it on a forum for discussing such things.

"random other ways that people get hit/take wounds that aren't shooting or CC" have no rule denying cover saves. Specific ones may...(No Retreat?) but to say otherwise is awkward at best.

Editing a wrong word.

**lambadomy**

I understand where you're coming from (and re-read my mistake) but I don't agree that cover saves apply to things that are not shooting or cc.

Cover saves are defined as a save you take against shooting if you're in cover. All references to cover are referenced to "from the firer" except for area terrain.

the CC rules specifically exclude cover saves by referencing shooting, saying "Cover does not protect against CC attacks as it does against shooting"

When something isn't CC or Shooting, Cover has no definition. Do units get cover against Deffrollas? If that has been settled I didn't know about it.

**kirsanth**

lambadomy wrote:Cover saves are defined as a save you take against shooting if you're in cover.

No, cover saves are described like that. In the shooting section that is not so odd.

lambadomy wrote:When something isn't CC or Shooting, Cover has no definition.

The definition does not change, and still exists.

lambadomy wrote: Do units get cover against Deffrollas?

What would deny it?

Specifically.

Editing to add:
The fact that rules are writting in one section of the book does not mean they do not exist when referencing the other sections.
The whole book is full of rules, and they need to be cross-referenced.

**Somnicide**

3. Is it defined as close combat? if yes then no. if no then yes.

Fixed.

**ChrisCP**

Somnicide wrote:
This is just wrong. You don't get cover from an exploding vehicle and that isn't defined as close combat.

Really, where are the rules you're using? I can't find any that deny taking a save from the explosion, nothing in the BRB update either!

Basically, Cover Saves are covered in the 'Taking saving throws' section on page 20 - so unless forbidden (ie CC) one can take a save against a wound when one is inflicted.
Page 67 even goes on to directly state the hits embarked passengers suffer are "treated just like hits from shooting." On what grounds would you deny them a cover save?

**Mannahnin**

Correct. The default state is that you get cover from wounds. Certain types of wounds explicitly deny cover saves, and close combat attacks are one such.

1. It would appear so.
2. Again, appears so.
2b. No, because units in cc auto-pass/don't take misc morale tests.
2c. I don't think so, but it's debatable.
3. Yes, as above.

**lambadomy**

it directly states that the embarked passengers treat the hits just like from shooting.

it doesn't say anything about people outside the vehicle.

This has been covered many times before, it's just an unknown:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/318113.page

The problem here is that if kirsanth wants a place in the rulebook that says "no, you don't get a cover save", it can't be provided. Unfortunately, there's also no place that says you do get a cover save from anything other than shooting, and all the cover save rules are in the shooting section and reference shooting. Are the rules permissive, or restrictive?

I really just don't think things like this are covered in the rules at all, and are open questions. If something is a shooting attack, go ahead and take cover saves, as it is one of the three described save types in the shooting section. If something is a close combat attack, take armor or invulnerable saves, but not cover, because they specifically grant armor and invulnerable saves. The fact that they mention that you can't take cover saves from close combat is NOT implicit allowance to take cover saves from every other random non-shooting non-cc event that causes wounds.

This comes up almost every time there's a new thing that causes wounds outside of shooting or assault, and often gets argued for differently depending on if the attack "feels" like it's a shooting or an assault. Or if the vehicle explodes in the shooting phase vs the assault phase. Or all sorts of other weirdness.

**ChrisCP**

If somthing has Range d6 str3 and ap-, what does it have the features of? Shooting!

More to the point, your argument means one is not given permission to use armour or invuln saves against these attacks either...

**yakface**

Somnicide wrote:Grotesques Gone Wild - I have a couple of questions about these sexy beasts.

Basically, if dark eldar grotesques roll a 1 at the start of a turn in which they are not escorted they rampage causing 2d6 Str 5 hits to everything in 2d6" (friend or foe) before being removed from play.

1. Do they have to test while mounted up in a raider?

1) Not explicitly covered in the rules but since nothing specifies that they don't take the test while embarked they probably should (with range measured from the hull of the vehicle).

2. Does this affect units in combat?
2a. - if so - and the rampage causes a unit to suffer 25% casualties and fall back does the unit they are facing get to sweeping advance (if they won the previous combat)?
2b. - if so and they destroy one of the sides in the combat does the other side get to consolidate?

2) Yes, as the rules don't specify that locked units are exempt.
2A) No, units locked in combats don't take morale checks for suffering 25% casualties.
2B) No, as consolidation is something that only occurs specifically when the rules say it happens, that being in the assault phase during combat resolution. Combats that end in wacky ways don't meet this criteria and therefore do not trigger consolidation.

3. Do units get a cover save vs. a rampage?

3) Well technically hits/wounds caused outside of shooting or close combat have no rules to allow them to be resolved...but assuming you're using the main rules for resolving hits/wounds/casualty removal from the shooting section of the rulebook (where its found), that does include cover saves. But exactly how/when you apply the rules for 'firing' models to a situation like this is certainly a major grey area.

And of course, if you want to use a third party resolution, all these questions are covered in the INAT FAQ.

**ChrisCP**

And I think it might deny Invuln savesin CC too unless one is denied armour "Remember that even if the rules for a weapon or attack states that no armour save is allowed, an invulnerable save may still be made." Page 39 that's the only permission to use an invuln in CC - according to your reasoning.

**lambadomy**

My argument is simply "the rules are not clear".

I completely agree with you that they can be interpreted to also deny armor saves, but not invulnerable.

I play that you get cover saves from exploding vehicles

I just don't think the rules actually cover it, and there's a dozen other examples of things that aren't shooting and aren't assault, and GW rules differently on them.

In the case of the exploding vehicle, you can say "well, it has the profile of a shooting attack, and it feels like shooting (range, etc). So it's a shooting attack, you get cover.

The grotesques...they don't even have guns unless you happen to have bought one for them. So from a feel perspective, it would definitely be a CC attack. Does having an AP number automatically make something shooting?

Anyway, this comes up all the time for every new non-shooting, non-assault event.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278107.page

quoting from that thread, on an INAT decision

yakface wrote:

TYR.51B.03 and TYR.58B.02 state that cover saves may be taken against Terror From The Deep and Spirit Leech.

The wording on the former states that a unit "suffers a number of S6, AP2 equal to the number of models [under the marker]" and the latter states that a unit "suffers a single wound for each point they failed by, no armor saves allowed."

I'd like to note that the same wording applies to the Tervigon's "Brood Progenitor" rule. The same wording is also used in the wording for the Deffrolla, and possibly a number of other non-shooting attacks in the game.

In other words, a battlewagon with a deffrolla attempts to run over a tervigon in range of a venomthrope. The tervigon takes 6 S10 hits, but gets cover saves from the venomthrope. It dies, and the termagant broods in range of it may take cover saves from the psychic backlash of their parent's death by being in woods. Alternatively, a unit may take cover saves from a vehicle's explosion while embarked on said vehicle. I'm not going to pull RAI on you, but it's looking rather silly.

I would specifically disallow cover from any attack unless it is a shooting weapon, Psychic Shooting Attack, or states specifically that it allows cover saves, because doing otherwise opens the door for potential abuses. Plus, it's not like being inside a vehicle won't completely protect you from the entire rest of the Tyranid army, anyway.

Okay, sorry for the long response to this one, but I feel like it is needed to explain our position.

The first thing to remember is that the rules for 40K only have the steps for converting a hit into a wound, a wound into a save and unsaved wounds into casualties in the normal steps for the shooting phase and partial rules in the Assault phase section (in that they refer back to the shooting phase rules in some places).

That means, by the pure RAW anytime a hit or wound is inflicted on a model by a special rule outside of these two normal processes, the rules do not tell us how to resolve it AT ALL.

Now, being smart people gamers tend to figure out that based on how GW has laid out the rulebook we are simply expected to understand that we default back to the 'core' rules for these processes (i.e. those laid out in the 'shooting phase' section) and so when a model takes a hit, it means we roll to wound based on the Strength of the hit and then we take an armor/invulnerable save (unless specified otherwise), and if the model doesn't save it loses a wound from its profile and it this takes it to 0 wounds, it is removed from play as a casualty.

But it is important to always remember that these are very common CONVENTIONS used by players in lieu of clear rules telling us how to resolve specialty hits or wounds (those caused outside of shooting or assaults).

So when we get to the areas of casualty removal and cover saves, how to play these types of specialty wounds starts to become really murky. If we're defaulting back to the main shooting rules for these processes, then are we always able to assign the wound to any model in the unit regardless of which model was hit? And when exactly can cover saves be taken? And if these questions have answers, where are those answers coming from since they aren't in the rules themselves?

Ultimately the problem is this: When it comes to these types of 'specialty attacks' GW has written its rules with context unfortunately in mind rather than consistency. In other words, they seem to expect players to read what context with which the rule takes place in and based on that, make a judgement on exactly which casualty rules to apply.

For example, while it might seem really easy to simply lay a ground rule that states 'any wounds caused outside of shooting attacks don't get cover saves', but the problem is there are attacks that occur outside of the shooting phase that are pretty clearly similar to a shooting attack that don't specify one way or another how to resolve them if you don't consider them a shooting attack. I'm talking about such things as Ork Big Bomms dropped by Deff Koptas, or the Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack.

If you don't play that these things are treated like shooting attacks, then all of a sudden you have a bunch of questions with no answers like: 'what armor value do they hit vehicles on?' and 'Can only the models hit by the blast be removed as casualties?', etc.

And then on the flip side you have things like the Tyranid Acid Blood and Toxic Miasma which state that no cover saves are allowed even though these attacks occur in the assault phase...so by comparison where does this leave the Mawloc's emergence attack blast...cover or no cover save?

And even worse for us writing the INAT is the fact that we aren't trying to write a FAQ to reinvent the wheel, in that we hope and try to find with rulings that already generally match how most people already play the game with the goal of making sure there are naturally as few rules arguments at the tournament as possible without even having to reference the FAQ.

And you can rest assured that there are a good chunk of players out there that expect cover saves to be taken against exploding vehicles, Mawloc emergence attacks, Swooping Hawk Grenade Packs, Ork Big Bomms, etc, etc, etc, unfortunately just as there are some who would expect not to get cover saves in these cases.

Our belief and hope is that currently the former outweigh the latter in which case we've made the right ruling.

But what this ultimately comes down to is the context from which the attack is generated. Players expect to take cover saves against a Swooping Hawk attack because the context of the attack is that it is a grenade attack, which only makes 'sense' to get a cover save against.

Whereas with the Tervigon, these wounds are inflicted psychically by a friendly creature as a penalty for it dying, so I think you'll find that naturally people would not expect to get cover saves against these wounds.

But unfortunately because GW has failed to create a base-standard for how non-shooting, non-assault hits/wounds are resolved, and worse they are incredibly inconsistent with when they clarify if a unit does or does not get a cove save against such attacks, we are left as players and the INAT council, making individual judgement calls against each specific rule.

Which is likely what we will continue to do unless GW comes out with something major as a guideline in one of their FAQs.

So if cover saves against Tervigon wounds become a legitimate question that people start really asking about then we'll rule on it in the INAT and likely rule against allowing cover saves simply because it is highly unlikely that a majority of players would expect to get cover saves in that situation.

Whew, that was long! Hopefully that clarified our position a bit on the matter even if it isn't the answer you were particularly looking for.

Thanks again for all your feedback!

**Somnicide**

Wow, okay, so I get a cover save provided by the vehicle that I am in blowing up which is in turn causing the wounds?

**lambadomy**

Somnicide: imagine your dudes are in area terrain/forest 5 inches deep and they get hit by a 6 inch vehicle explodes

Why would they not get cover?

**Somnicide**

No, I get that, but what if the transport is in a forest and explodes - do the guys inside get a cover save from the damage done by the explosion?

Also, at what point does the wreck become terrain - do they get the cover save from their own vehicle exploding? That seems the implication of the inat ruling.

**Mannahnin**

You get a cover save from a dude 2" away from you in the same wood who's shooting at you.

To determine cover from an exploding vehicle, I take a model's eye view from the vehicle to the unit in question. If half or more of that unit's models obscured from the vantage of the vehicle, then they'll get cover from the explosion.

A unit inside an exploding vehicle would not get cover from it because there's no terrain or units or anything else to obscure them between them and the vehicle. I agree it's a little vague when the vehicle itself is parked in a wood; so both units are technically inside the wood; but this interpretation fits better by my lights. Being inside the vehicle means they can't be targeted by enemies, but conversely they aren't actually benefitting from cover until they get out of the vehicle. Which doesn't happen until after the explosion is resolved.

**kirsanth**

Unless they have something that grants them cover saves, regardless.

**Somnicide**

like a unit with an eldar warlock and that power would still get the cover. hmm could you go to ground for a +1?

**kirsanth**

No.

Page 24, main rules under "Maximum save."

**lambadomy**

Sorry, I think I'm missing something or I've confused something. Since the INAT ruling I'm referencing is specifically not about vehicles exploding, I don't think you should apply it to vehicles exploding in any way. My whole point in quoting yakface there is to point out that these types of issues come up in the game all the time, and that players tend to look at them on a case by case basis because some are "obviously" shooting and others aren't and the rules are not clear in any case.

Exploded vehicles do not automatically become cover granting terrain - only wrecks do. For exploded vehicles, you replace them with an "area of difficult terrain" or "a crater" or nothing if you don't have anything to represent either.

The INAT rulings referenced are old, I don't even think they exist anymore in the current INAT. I shouldn't have quoted that part.

**Mannahnin**

Craters are in the list of things that give a 4+ cover save on page 21. Most people I've faced play the crater/difficult ground left behind by an exploded vehicle as granting cover; although obviously it doesn't block LOS the way a wreck does, and isn't Dangerous Terrain like a wreck is.