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.

When a Swooping Hawk drops its Swooping Hawk Grenades, it happens in the movement phase, not the shooting phase and there is no range on the weapon. Therefore, it is not a shooting attack. Therefore, no cover can be taken from Swooping Hawk Grenade Packs either. Sweet!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now, I haven't read the exact Mawloc rules yet (only internet reports of what it does), but what I'm gathering from context is that it emerges in the movement phase, and everything under the large blast where it emerges takes a Str x AP x hit. Also, I have read that where ever the Mawloc lands, and whoever survives the "blast" gets moved outside of the Mawloc's range (therefore, not in Close Combat). Going on that assumption (or something close) here's my take on Cover Saves:

What disallows cover saves?

1. Not being in cover (or adequately in cover).
2. Being in close combat.
3. Weapons that disallow cover/wounds that disallow saves of all kinds.

1. Are the orks in question in cover? Technically yes, they have something that grants them cover at all times except when in CC.

2. When the Mawloc emerges (Movement phase), are the Mawloc and the unit in close combat? No. It wouldn't count as charging until the ensuing Assault Phase (unless there's some strange wording that says, "Now counts as locked in close combat" or something.) So, since the unit is not locked in combat, and is considered to be "in cover" from the KFF, it would receive a cover save. Once the assault phase begins, that cover save is lost.

3. Does the Mawloc's "weapon" say that it disallows cover? From context, it seems that it does not say that. Therefore, the unit would still get cover.

Lando got cover.

Pg 66 of rulebook

"Gettin' Ate"

Certain Models may have to "ate" other models, declare you are doing this, described in your particular codex, and have the model gettin' ate take a Initiative Test. If he fails, he gets ate.

No cover saves against "Gettin' Ate"

No cover saves, same as eye of wrath
GW has no game balance
dont buy their products
final destination

Karon wrote:Pg 66 of rulebook

"Gettin' Ate"

Certain Models may have to "ate" other models, declare you are doing this, described in your particular codex, and have the model gettin' ate take a Initiative Test. If he fails, he gets ate.

No cover saves against "Gettin' Ate"

I think this just about settles it. You get cover saves if you are entitled to cover.

Wait i dont see this 'gettin ate' section in my rules book? is the page number for BGB or BFBRB

It's bursting out of the damn ground swallowing people whole...I severely doubt hugging a tree will save your ass.

Kurgash wrote:It's bursting out of the damn ground swallowing people whole...I severely doubt hugging a tree will save your ass.

Fluff has no place in discussion of rules, but to humour you, don't you think standing inside the ruins of a building, with concrete floor and foundation, would surely make it harder for the evil bug to come out of the ground to eat you?

Speaking of Mawthings, what happens if you are on the 2nd, or 3rd floor of a ruin? Normaly the blast rules state that only one floor of a ruin is hit by a blast, but is there anything ruleswise preventing the mawthing to put his blast on a higher level of the ruin?

I can see it now.

Long fang squad on the top floor of a 3 story building.
Mawlok burrows up under it, lands on bottom floor but drops template on top floor and kills the whole team because no cover saves.

feth yeah, GW!

It would seem the blast marker being "directly over the spot the Mawloc emerges from" would be on the ground floor as well. 9" up could be read to not be "directly over" but rather 9" over.
As Deepstriking must be to the bottom level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Giant Moth wrote:don't you think standing inside the ruins of a building, with concrete floor and foundation, would surely make it harder for the evil bug to come out of the ground to eat you?

Sure, the DS scatter . . . covers that.

Giant Moth wrote:

Kurgash wrote:It's bursting out of the damn ground swallowing people whole...I severely doubt hugging a tree will save your ass.

Fluff has no place in discussion of rules, but to humour you, don't you think standing inside the ruins of a building, with concrete floor and foundation, would surely make it harder for the evil bug to come out of the ground to eat you?

Speaking of Mawthings, what happens if you are on the 2nd, or 3rd floor of a ruin? Normaly the blast rules state that only one floor of a ruin is hit by a blast, but is there anything ruleswise preventing the mawthing to put his blast on a higher level of the ruin?

Look up the Red Terror. Now, combine that with a worm smaller to those in Dune. Congrats, Mawloc.

Really, it's probably going to get FAQ'd so maybe a sense of 'hmm that sounds possible' is more relative than scrapping the bottom of the loophole barrel to save a squad of guys that was probably screwed to begin with

Okay lemme say this agian...

The attack obviously allows normal armor save. Because it has an AP value. It ends up disallowing them because AP is low enough for that but if it didn't allow saves at all, it would simply say X number of Strenght Y hits, no save allowed. Instead it gives stats as for a weapon.

The attack does not specifically disallow cover save, like a flamer does, for exemple.

Saves are not situational. You're in cover (as defined per the rules), you get a cover save, unless the attack specifically disallow it or unless the unit is in assault.

In conclusion, Armour saves -would- be allowed but AP prevents it. Invulnerable saves are allowed because it doesn't specifically say they're not. Cover saves are allowed because it doesn't specifically say they're not.

At the risk of sounding repetative, it does not say they are allowed - and THAT is what is required. Saying "it does not say I can't" only works if something says "I can".

All the rules for allowing cover saves (with the rules being quoted) require the attack to be a shooting attack for cover saves to apply.

kirsanth wrote:At the risk of sounding repetative, it does not say they are allowed - and THAT is what is required. Saying "it does not say I can't" only works if something says "I can".

All the rules for allowing cover saves (with the rules being quoted) require the attack to be a shooting attack for cover saves to apply.

Read the rules quotes I provided on the last page, saving throws do not work that way and do indeed 'say that you can'.

The qualification rules for gaining a cover saving throw have nothing to do with taking a cover saving throw or when you are allowed to take one, outside of granting one to be taken in a specific set of cases.
Stop clinging to them like they apply to a cover saving throws viability somehow.

kirsanth wrote:At the risk of sounding repetative, it does not say they are allowed - and THAT is what is required. Saying "it does not say I can't" only works if something says "I can".

All the rules for allowing cover saves (with the rules being quoted) require the attack to be a shooting attack for cover saves to apply.

Again, at the risk of sounding repetitive, saves cannot be taken from a Swooping Hawk Grenade pack, even if it is dropping upon a unit on the bottom floor of a building, because it's not a shooting attack?

As this is a YMDC discussion, and in no way directly effects the way that anyone games... take a second and look at the last two posters avatars... just for a second....

Yeah... you can laugh at that, it IS funny.

Big monster jumps out of ground, temporarily rearranging any cover that would be there, regardless of the type.

No. Cover. Saves.

YMDC, You make the call. I game in a way that actually makes sense, and finds an easy pathway, around the poorly written, and maintained rules that GW feels like dumping on me.

Ok, after getting my hands on my own codex, and starting to read what is actually written as far as rules go, I've come to the conclusion that THIS IS THE WORST WRITTEN CODEX EVER. Its confusing, and poorly written just in dealing with written rules. It seems that the codex was written with an attitude of "oh oh oh this would be cool" and writing something out which is then edited to keep it down to a page (more fluff, less rules on a page, but keep it to a page).

Now what does have to be remembered is that the 40k rules are a permissive rule set, just because it does not say you can do it, does not mean you can. Just because it says it doesn't give a cover save, doesn't mean you get one.

We have to decide what type of "attack" Terror from the Deep (TFTD) is. Is it a shooting weapon, is it a CC type weapon, is it none of these? The rule just doesn't say, all it says is it is a str 6 ap 2 hit.

So for TFTD, its a "large blast template" which doesn't actually exist in the rules in the BRB, but we will assume it is a large blast weapon. I say weapon because it gives a strength and AP, weapons being defined on pg 27 of the BRB and also Blast weapons being defined in that section. I do not believe it is a CCW as defined on pg 42, because those do not give a separate strength and more importantly no AP value. So I agree with InquisitorBob, it is a Weapon. What this ends up meaning that one would have to check armour, invulnerable, and cover saves where applicable. The difficulty of the cover saves, where exactly is the point of origin of the shot? Is it from the center of the large blast marker, or from any point in that large blast marker? It is a little difficult to actually check LOS to and from a large blast marker. Is it on the ground? Is it above the models but not touching them? Is it a giant cylinder from the table top to 5 feet above?

So the easiest things to account for: Anything that explicitly gives a cover save (i.e. KFF, Venomthrope), if the unit has half of its models in AREA terrain, or if the unit decides to Go to Ground. Otherwise work it out with your opponent on what you end up "seeing".

The only way to really confirm or dispute this would be finding an example of a wounding effect that gives a strength and AP of the effect, and doesn't allow saves. Otherwise we are waiting for GW to say something, again.

other difficulties that are created:
TFTD, you deep strike and end up on impassable terrain and an enemy model, what takes precedence, rolling on the mishap table, or ignoring the table because you deep strike onto a point occupied by another model?
To me it looks like by RAW, if the Mawloc Deep Strikes and come within 1" of an enemy model, but doesn't end up onto an enemy, they have to roll on the mishap table. Just seems pretty silly not to compensate for this per the rules.

puma713 wrote:When a Swooping Hawk drops its Swooping Hawk Grenades, it happens in the movement phase, not the shooting phase and there is no range on the weapon. Therefore, it is not a shooting attack. Therefore, no cover can be taken from Swooping Hawk Grenade Packs either. Sweet!

Actually it says "Work out hits and damage as normal". What is normal? well since it has a weapon profile, you deal with it as shooting, much as I believe now what TFTD does

Maxus wrote:

puma713 wrote:When a Swooping Hawk drops its Swooping Hawk Grenades, it happens in the movement phase, not the shooting phase and there is no range on the weapon. Therefore, it is not a shooting attack. Therefore, no cover can be taken from Swooping Hawk Grenade Packs either. Sweet!

Actually it says "Work out hits and damage as normal". What is normal? well since it has a weapon profile, you deal with it as shooting, much as I believe now what TFTD does

All that "normal" could mean is , you determine which models get hit (using the scatter die), you determine which models take wounds and which models take saves. That's all "normal" may mean. It may mean shooting, it may not. But according to some of the debates going on here, if there's no range and it doesn't happen in the shooting phase, then it's not a shooting attack. And if it's not a shooting attack, then there are no cover saves allowed.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll be getting an official FAQ from GW sometime in the near future.

Maxus wrote:I've come to the conclusion that THIS IS THE WORST WRITTEN CODEX EVER.

You obviously haven't read the Space Wolves Codex then. Compared to the Space Wolves one, the Tyranid codex is a Thesis on technical writing.

My father had a level of logic when I was a kid that I will apply here:

They get a cover save....BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!

Of course next comes the belt so nobody can argue hehe.

It would seem to me that they do get a cover save as it does not state cover saves are not allowed. Its more about game mechanics then anything else.

Fishboy wrote:Of course next comes the belt so nobody can argue hehe.

I find there are many situations in 40k for which taking off the belt for an ass-whooping would be appropriate.

Hawk grenades, deffkopta bombs, mawloc, to say any of these don't get cover saves is reading WAY to much into the rulebook. If it's a wound occurring from something besides someone getting hit in assault, and doesn't say it ignores cover saves, then you get cover. They weren't trying to write the rulebook for exactitude, so reading exact intentions into it will just come up with asinine responses.

Hmm, I don't think GW ever bothered to make rules on what would happen if you Deep Strike onto upper levels of buildings. On one side a Str 6 Ap 2 Blast is insane powerful, so you would think that it would give a Cover Save. On the other hand, the Mawloc does still scatter, before anyone argues, page 51 of the nid codex Terror From the Deep Rule Paragraph 1 "If a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied be another model do not roll on the Mishap table, instead do the following." it goes on to tell you to do the blast and that vehicles are hit on rear armour. ect ect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It nowhere has any entry that it does not scatter

I should note something here.


The Mawloc does NOT place a S6 AP2 Large Blast.

It places the large blast marker, and "Every unit under the the template suffers a number of Strength 6, AP2 hits equal to the number of models in that unit that are wholly or partially covered by the template." Exact wording from the codex.

Stating that a unit takes hits without citing it being a shooting attack is grounds for not calling a cover save. If so, you could take cover saves from bosspoles, vehicular explosions, perils of the warp, and so on.

wow mawlok yeah...

Broken Loose wrote:I should note something here.


The Mawloc does NOT place a S6 AP2 Large Blast.

It places the large blast marker, and "Every unit under the the template suffers a number of Strength 6, AP2 hits equal to the number of models in that unit that are wholly or partially covered by the template." Exact wording from the codex.

Stating that a unit takes hits without citing it being a shooting attack is grounds for not calling a cover save. If so, you could take cover saves from bosspoles, vehicular explosions, perils of the warp, and so on.

What part of the saving throw rules are you missing? You can take them to prevent a wound unless they're denied.
You can certainly take a cover saving throw against the Mawloc, or against vehicular explosions, or even against a bosspole.

Read Perils of the Warp: "The psyker suffers 1 wound with no armour or cover saves allowed."
That is what a wounding rule or attack has to say to deny you the ability to take a cover saving throw if you have one to take.

The mawloc allows a save because it says anything that survives is displaced around it maintaining unit coherency.

Models could survive by the Tyranid player not passing every single wounding test.

Doubled - yes they did. If you deepstrike into Ruins it must be onto the lowest floor

WarmasterScott wrote:The mawloc allows a save because it says anything that survives is displaced around it maintaining unit coherency.

It could be invul saves .

doubled wrote:Hmm, I don't think GW ever bothered to make rules on what would happen if you Deep Strike onto upper levels of buildings.

I think they did. I think I read that if you DS in a building you DS on the ground floor. can't remember what page it is in the BRB, under DS I believe.