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) Does a Grey Knight armed with a Nemesis warding stave locked in close combat get the 2++ save versus The Tyranid Doom's Life Leech power?

2) Are models out of LoS but not in a transport immune to the Doom's Life Leech power?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
1) Does a Grey Knight armed with a Nemesis warding stave locked in close combat get the 2++ save versus The Tyranid Doom's Life Leech power?

Yes.

2) Are models out of LoS but not in a transport immune to the Doom's Life Leech power?

Debateable - RAW no, I believe it is intended to work outside of LoS.

1) No. It grants an invuln save against "wounds caused in close combat". Doom wounds are not caused in close combat.

2) It's unclear. Spririt Leech isn't a shooting attack, as far as I can see. You just take a leadership test in the shooting phase, and suffer wounds for each point of failure. That would suggest that being out of line of sight doesn't help. On the other hand, the FAQ says that cover saves can be taken against it. This suggests that being out of line of sight would make you immune. So I think it's up to your group to decide. Personally, I'd say units out of line of sight can't be harmed.

I think GW could really help everyone out by releasng an online glossary specifically defining terms (i.e. shooting attack, wounds caused in close combat).

rigeld2 - I'd like to know why you said yes to the first question. Thanks mate.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
rigeld2 - I'd like to know why you said yes to the first question. Thanks mate.

GK FAQ:

Q: Can the save granted by a Nemesis warding stave be taken against
all Wounds suffered whilst the wielder is engaged in close combat and
not only against Wounds caused by close combat attacks? (p54)
A: Yes.

Hmm... this is tricky.

I guess the arguments would go like this

A warding stave grants a 2++ to wounds caused in close combat.

FOR 2++
The Grey Knight is locked in close combat, therefore all wounds dealt to him are considered to be dealt in close combat. The Grey Knight FAQ supports this in a way by saying that save can "be taken against all WOunds suffered whilst the weilder is engaged in close combat and not only attacks caused by close combat attacks".

AGAINST 2++
Engaged in close combat doesn't necessarily mean locked in close combat. Wounds dealt in close combat are all wounds dealt in the assault phase. This is a wound dealt in the shooting phase.

 DexKivuli wrote:
AGAINST 2++
Engaged in close combat doesn't necessarily mean locked in close combat. Wounds dealt in close combat are all wounds dealt in the assault phase. This is a wound dealt in the shooting phase.

The FAQ proves this wrong - even if they aren't caused by close combat attacks, he gets the save.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DexKivuli wrote:
AGAINST 2++
Engaged in close combat doesn't necessarily mean locked in close combat. Wounds dealt in close combat are all wounds dealt in the assault phase. This is a wound dealt in the shooting phase.

The FAQ proves this wrong - even if they aren't caused by close combat attacks, he gets the save.

Fair enough... I hear what you're saying. But I interpreted that part of the FAQ as relating to other wounds dealt as part of close combat, but not necessaril just close combat attacks (e.g. overwatch shots, Tau failsafe detonators).

But I can see what you're saying, and I'd hapily go with your interpretation. I was just explaining how I understood it prior to this thread.

 DexKivuli wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DexKivuli wrote:
AGAINST 2++
Engaged in close combat doesn't necessarily mean locked in close combat. Wounds dealt in close combat are all wounds dealt in the assault phase. This is a wound dealt in the shooting phase.

The FAQ proves this wrong - even if they aren't caused by close combat attacks, he gets the save.

Fair enough... I hear what you're saying. But I interpreted that part of the FAQ as relating to other wounds dealt as part of close combat, but not necessaril just close combat attacks (e.g. overwatch shots, Tau failsafe detonators).

But I can see what you're saying, and I'd hapily go with your interpretation. I was just explaining how I understood it prior to this thread.

Except Overwatch is resolved before the model is engaged.

the FAQ is pretty clear....I'd like to know your reasoning behind interpreting anything other than "all Wounds" get a 2++ save as long as the model is engaged in close combat. I see no workaround or loophole in that sentence.

Also, how does Engaged in Combat differ from Locked in Combat? As far as I can see, "Enganged" and "Locked" are used freely to mean the same thing in 40k terms. Meaning the model is in base to base contact with an enemy model.

The Warding stave gives its save against any wounds while in close combat, not against wounds caused by melee attacks.

Think of the field as triggering by the close proximity of the enemy. Thats why even a stray battlecannon can scatter onto him and it will protect him.

overlordweasel wrote:
the FAQ is pretty clear....I'd like to know your reasoning behind interpreting anything other than "all Wounds" get a 2++ save as long as the model is engaged in close combat. I see no workaround or loophole in that sentence.

Also, how does Engaged in Combat differ from Locked in Combat? As far as I can see, "Enganged" and "Locked" are used freely to mean the same thing in 40k terms. Meaning the model is in base to base contact with an enemy model.

Locked in Combat means that one or more models from the unit are in base to base contact with an enemy unit.
Engaged in Combat means the model is able to strike blows in close combat, in other words in base contact with an enemy model or within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model.

I play GK and Tyranids, and from personal experience it's a yes and a no.

The 2++ becomes active as soon as the model is in assault (immediately after overwatch is resolved and the model is then moved into combat). The 2++ is not limited to only being taken against melee attacks. As per the FAQ, it is any attack, regardless of which phase the attack is made in, so this will include stray templates, beams, psychic powers, or any other ability that could possibly harm him even though he's in combat. Gotta love warding staves.

As for Doom, i've always played it as units behind cover still take the wound(s), they just get to take a cover saves upon the wound being allocated.

I play that Doom doesnt get to wound models out of LOS, as this fits with how 6th edition is constructed

LoS obviously matters, as you can get cover, so you dont get to just avoid parts of the shooting rules (the only rules that let you cause ANY wounds with his power) you dont like.

I think this is unfortunately one of those ambiguous rules that's easily interpreted either way. When the rule was written, it was clearly neither a shooting or close combat attack, more of an aura of sorts that pulsed every turn to do damage. Since the FAQ explicitly states that cover saves are allowed against such an attack, then we can assume that the attack penetrates cover, so one could easily assume that models behind cover but out of LoS are also hit. One could also just as easily assume that the Doom must be able to see the target unit to be able to steal its life essence.

I guess this all comes down to clarifying what the attack actually is. It definitely needs a re-write to explain whether it's a penetrating aura or a LoS soul steal of sorts. Another spectacularly unclear rule from the realms of Games Workshop.

I agree with nos in regards to LoS as this is how it works for other attacks such as shooting. I don't care about how Life Leech used to work in the prior edition.