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.

1. A battle wagon explodes, it contains a mob of boyz and a KFF Big Mek, would the Big Mek and boyz get cover saves from wounds suffered in the explosion? how about other units within 6" of the Big Mek?

2. A battle wagon with KFF Big Mek inside takes a death or glory attack from a meltagun, would the battle wagon get a cover save from this?

Cheers in advance.

1. There is no rules-reason why it shouldn't.
The simplified "reality" of 40K is not defined by real-life physics, nor fluffy arguments. The "reality" of 40K is defined by the rules.

2. See 1.

I would have to say no to both but I cannot back up the first with any clear cut rules (with my codex not here).

The 2nd would be considered a close combat attack(?) and therefore inside the KFF, offering no save.

Where does the rulebook state the cover saves from an exploding vehicle can not be taken? A unit beside an exploding vehicle can take a cover save so why not the one inside if it is under the KFF umbrella?

DOG states that one model in the path may make an attempt to stop the vehicle from running him over. It doesn't say it is a CC attack. If that is the case you can't use a melta gun to DOG.

The way I read it yes to both.

Green is Best! wrote:I would have to say no to both but I cannot back up the first with any clear cut rules (with my codex not here).

The 2nd would be considered a close combat attack(?) and therefore inside the KFF, offering no save.

Nope, you can shoot while making a DOG attack. Id say yes to both, though if you think about it, the explosion comes from inside the KFF field but game wise you can still get the save

Some good replies, personally i belive yes to both.

Anyone trying to explain away the coversave from explosion with fluff and physics should consider the 40k fluff that Ork technology only really works because they belive it should.
Thusly Orks gathered around a KFF belive they should be "ok", all actual benefits are generated by the individual Orks themselves.
My counter fluff with fluff argument

As I was typing my response, it occured to me this is not taking place in the Assault phase so this is not a CC attack. It never occurred to me to even try to get the cover save (from the explosion) for a KFF. I will have to keep in mind for the next time my green menace takes the table.

how about taking a cover save from an exploding vehicle without a KFF. the models ARE placed in a crater are they not ?

Disarray wrote:how about taking a cover save from an exploding vehicle without a KFF. the models ARE placed in a crater are they not ?

They are not in the crater until after the explosion and damage, so no cover saves from a crater that is not there yet.

Ninja'd

You don't get a cover save vs DoG. The MRB p69 says the attack hits automatically apply the attack to the front armor and resolve the effect immediately. There is no mention of any kind of "saving throw" for the vehicle.

There doesnt need to be; there needs to be a line saying the vehicle CANNOT take any saving throws for it to be denied the use.

A DE vehicle with flickerfields can still take an Inv against DoG

The rulebook is pretty clear it gives a mechanical way to resolve DoG. Choose a figure, roll to pen and then, apply effects. In all other parts of the book dealing with damaging a model it always says to take an appropriate save, if available. DoG is not a normal attack as it even specifies that close combat attacks go against the front armor. DoG has its own rules and getting a save from cover is not among them.

The flicker field is an invulnerable save and according to the MRB invulnerable save may be taken even when a save is otherwise disallowed. The question was dealing with cover saves which are not allowed in all situations (this being one of them).

If you TS a guy with a Melta that chooses to DOG is he shooting his weapon? Does a KFF provide an obscured save against a shooting attack? Both answers are pretty clear to me? No where in the DOG section of the BRB does it say that cover saves are not allowed.

Actually the rule doesn't state if the attack is a ranged or close combat attack. It just says that you can use either and that you automatically hit. In fact it may be it's own type of attack since it overrules all sorts of general rules like the amount of attacks that you get and not having to roll to hit or which facing of armor the model attacks. It just says to resolve the hit against the front armor and immediately apply the results.

You could also choose to highlight the word "resolve" instead and get a different meaning.

Here is the rule verbatim:

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

Note that this is all one sentence so it is one continuous action. The "resolve" part is not in reference to hitting or saving from the hit but rather where the attack hits. The "immediately" applies to the damage from said hit. By RAW there is no saving throw given. Although by rule invulnerable saves would apply since they say you use them in all instances except where stated in the rules.

lol I like how you left out the previous sentence that reads and I quote


"The attack can be either be a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single CC attack using any weapons carried, including grenades"



Weird, single shot.....KFF saves from shots.......so your point was what?

Leo - and nothing disallows taking a cover save. Again you must provide a rule saying you cannot take cover saves from a shooting attack (DoG with a melta gun) otherwise I am taking a cover save against it.

Wait, since when did you play orks, nos!?

But yeah, it gets the save if it shoots, it doesn't if it is CC.

-cgmckenzie

I don't play Orks so I had to look up the specific wording for a KFF. According to what I read the KFF doesn't work in an assault. Granted I can't think of a weapon that would normally be considered a ranged weapon to be used during the assault phase but, if there was one then the KFF wouldn't work against it. Since there's no way of knowing how, by RAW, pistols work in close combat (it could be clubbing or point blank shooting) I'll ignore them.
DoG is only used when a vehicle Tank Shocks a unit. The only time, other than tank shock, a model can come within 1" of an enemy model is during an assault. So it seems to me that the situation is more akin to an assault than a shooting attack. And therefore the obscurement save would be denied.
Also what happens if the vehicle is part of a squadron with the rest of the squadron out of the 6" range? Would you still think that you get the obscurement save?
I've got no horse in this race in any event. There are no Ork players in my area that I've encountered so this is all hypothetical to my situation.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
DoG is only used when a vehicle Tank Shocks a unit. The only time, other than tank shock, a model can come within 1" of an enemy model is during an assault. So it seems to me that the situation is more akin to an assault than a shooting attack. And therefore the obscurement save would be denied.

The DoG rules distinguishes between close combat attacks made as part of a DoG attempt and shots made a part of a DoG attemt, as you are told you can make one or the other.
Which one is firing a meltagun more akin to?

It doesn't distinguish so much as allow. To distinguish it would say make a ranged attack that always hits and make a melee attack that always hit. Instead it says make an attack with the allowance that you can use what is normally a ranged attack weapon in this specific instance.

If it's neither a shooting nor a close combat attack, cover would still work against it, as nothing states otherwise. Vehicles can take cover saves against glancing or penetrating hits. Cover saves can not be taken against close combat attacks. So, by your logic, a bw could take a cover save against a walker hitting it with a DCCW, which is obviously nonsense.

I'd also point out that taking saves is part of resolving a hit.

I think this is just one of those rules you'd have to agree upon before the start of the game.

I personnally feel you would not get a cover save against a DoG. Kinda takes away the whole point of performing it. As well as the BRB says "hits automatically".

Hitting automatically has NOTHIGN to do with your ability to make a save.

Absolutely nothing.

There are very few instances of a vehicle having a cover save during DoG anyway.

Jidmah wrote:I'd also point out that taking saves is part of resolving a hit.

That sums up how I feel.

That does not fit in with what you posted earlier. Resolving a hit is not the same as hitting something.

If you're aiming that at me Jid I don't see how its doesn't fit my earlier post. The BRB states the DOG hits automatically. Taking a cover save is part of resolving whether or not you actually hit. So wouldn't that mean you don't get the cover save because whether or not it hits has already been resolved? (Hope that came out like I was thinking it)