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.

here's the question then: so would models get cover saves for "gets hot" wounds? What about wounds caused by exploding vehicles? Or even "no retreat" wounds?

Polonius wrote:here's the question then: so would models get cover saves for "gets hot" wounds? What about wounds caused by exploding vehicles? Or even "no retreat" wounds?

Get's Hot is tricky and I'm not sure.

Exploding vehicles are a definite yes for surrounding units (it says explicitly to resolve as a shooting attack). Units embarked in the vehicle are hit before being placed on the table, so they aren't in any area terrain when hit. So, they don't get a cover.

No retreat happens in CC, so I'd say standard CC wounding rules apply. So, no cover.

Polonius wrote:here's the question then: so would models get cover saves for "gets hot" wounds?

Are cover saves "normal saves"?

/shrug

I would say that units that can claim cover will get a cover save from a Over-heat. Standing in area terrain would be a good example. No-retreat wounds are taken from close combat resolution, so I'd say you could not take a cover save from them.

Cover saves are not allowed from a Plasma Gun overheating (as great at it is to think of it starting to explode and everyone hitting the deck).

Cover saves can be, explicitly, only taken against shooting attacks IIRC unless otherwise indicated.

calypso2ts wrote:Cover saves can be, explicitly, only taken against shooting attacks

The rules never actually say this, hence the argument.
The cover rules are defined in the shooting section, and the rules for gaining a cover save to take depend on shooting, but having a cover saving throw already (from a kff for example) is more of a grey area when you're given permission to take any "normal saves".

I don't see that. Stuff like your kff or a bikes dust cloud "provide a cover save" because they obscure your unit from the firer. If it was meant for all situations then it would be "the kff provides a _+ invun save" pretty simple. Area of trees - provides cover. Other unit - provides cover. Kff- provides cover. The only difference is the kff moves around with you. Otherwise it functions the exact same.

Terror from the Deep and Spirit Leech are shooting attacks?

DarthSpader wrote:I don't see that. Stuff like your kff or a bikes dust cloud "provide a cover save" because they obscure your unit from the firer. The only difference is the kff moves around with you. Otherwise it functions the exact same.

No, it doesn't obscure your unit from the point of view of the firer. It provides the unit with a cover saving throw.
That's the whole point.

I took the top paragraph on page 21 ' protect from shooting and flying debris' as indicating they can only be taken against shooting or something that creates flying debris (i.e. vehicle explosion).

calypso2ts wrote:I took the top paragraph on page 21 ' protect from shooting and flying debris' as indicating they can only be taken against shooting or something that creates flying debris (i.e. vehicle explosion).

Again, I have argued the same, but there is no rule stating it and GW has ruled otherwise more than once.

See: Terror from the Deep and Spirit Leech.

Those silly GW employees - I bet they write rules and spend the rest of their time watching people argue about them!

Getting cover from being in area terrain etc, and receiving cover from wargear means the same thing. The end result: you qualify for cover, as applicable in the cover save rules. Plain and simple.

And cover only applies to ranged attacks. If you need to define that, check websters. At the risk of repeating myself again: the deffrolla dies not inflict a ranged attack - so no cover.

Why dining feel like I'm banging my head against the wall?

W/e I'm done with this one.

And the only time removing models is defined is in ranged attacvks. So the deffrolla never damages anything.

DarthSpader wrote:W/e I'm done with this one.

Which is probably a good stance to take - simply because I think we have thoroughly established that this is one of those grey areas that there simply are no RAW. We simply must decide with our opponent when we play how we want to handle this, and I think most people can agree:

1.) Deffrolla is neither a ranged nor CC attack, nor really even an "attack" but a special Tank Shock like Ramming;
2.) There are no RAW covering cover as it pertains to Tank Shock or Ramming, and the only one covering wounds is "Death or Glory!" which the Deffrolla does have RAW for;
3.) As the deffrolla inflicts it damage as a zero-range object smashing into you with intense force, much like an enormous mace/flail/spiked club, the closest analogue which is covered under the rules explicitly is a close combat attack, which will not allow cover saves.
4.) If your opponent disagrees, you should roll for it

So far as the argument that "you could jump into a hole and thus get a cover save, that is neither a RAW nor a RAI argument: it is a common sense argument. While I enjoy common sense arguments, I think we can agree that they rarely are useful in resolving any rules arguments in 40K, and if you think otherwise, tell me why marines crouching behind a concrete wall would rather stand up and take bullets on the armor then from behind that wall. Common sense is not useful in this arena, because if we did employ it, you'd also have to explain why any terrain filled with holes big enough for troops to hide in doesn't also count as difficult terrain. So, unless you think that 4 point flow chart breaks down at some point, that's how I'd do it.

Please note that the deffrolla hits are not in fact always applied to models that are in btb with the rolla. One model in the unit must come into btb contact, the rolla then can inflict multiple wounds to the unit...even if it only ever comes into contact with ONE model of the unit.

Is the rolla really hitting every model upon which it inflicts a wound or is it spewing out splinters and shrapnel as if smashes through trees and walls? For point of reference: In the days of sail most wounds were inflicted by the splinters created by the cannonballs striking the ship, very few wounds were inflicted by the cannonballs directly) So yes it is quite possible that cover might be useful in avoidng a rolla and its effects.

In actuality, the hits are of course being distributed to the unit as a method of keeping the game moving quickly. The RAI of how and why the wounds are inflicted by the rolla are hidden deep in the dark recesses of the GW development staff, not somewhere that any sane individual really wants to delve.



Sliggoth

I agree with Ouze. I think that while the RAW reads that the wounding process allows for cover saves, and only the Close combat rules explicitly forbid that, I think it's more likely that GW wrote those rules thinking they'd be the only two ways modesl would take wounds.

It's more likely that GW wrote the wound rules sort of generally, but still with the idea that it was part of the shooting rules. They then recycled those rules with a few patches for the close combat, and moved on.

This means that while it's tempting (and I've tossed around the idea) to simply treat the entire wounding section of the shooting rules as the "general purpose" wounding mechanism (including cover saves), I think it's giving GW too much credit. Cover saves against wounds from an extremely short ranged, indiscriminate peice of wargear that also by rules and fluff can rip through terrain seems a bit much.

Ouze wrote: you'd also have to explain why any terrain filled with holes big enough for troops to hide in doesn't also count as difficult terrain.

To be fair, this is exactly how we have played it--terrain checks with the area terrain.

If the deff rolla was so able to mangle units whether they are in terrain or not, wouldn't it have an AP value?

Only shooting attacks have an AP. If there was an AP here, this whole conversation would be redundent.

I think Ouze has the logic set here and I would happily follow it as such.

What I don't get is how most of these people try to twist rules or make up their own interpretation of how it is written..."Dive into cover???" ROFL where in the rules does it say...."Ignore this rulebook, make your own up."

Covers saves vs tank shock??? Only skimmers get their save.

This is a no brainer rule everybody...You tank shock a squad, they make their leadership test, then choose to death or glory...He fails his D/G or passes, you roll your D6 str 10 wounds. Opponent rolls his armor save. Remove models...Done

AP = shooting. Tank shocking isn't shooting. You always get your armor save.

This is done exactly like any other tank shock vs. a squad. There is no cover save period.

So many people will do ANYTHING to screw the deffrolla over. It's not even something to fear honestly. It's a 20pt upgrade that rarely is able to be used.

What I don't get is how most of these people try to twist rules or make up their own interpretation of how it is written..."Deny any type of save without rules saying to???" ROFL where in the rules does it say...."Ignore this rulebook, make your own up."

Covers saves vs tank shock??? For vehicles, only skimmers get their save.
And Bjorn.
And other vehicles with saves listed.

This is a no brainer rule everybody...You tank shock a squad, they make their leadership test, then choose to death or glory...He fails his D/G or passes, you roll your D6 str 10 wounds. Opponent rolls his saves. Remove models...Done

AP = shooting. Tank shocking isn't listed as any type of attack. You always get saves unless denied.

This is done nothing like any other tank shock vs. a squad--because Tank Shocks normally do not cause wounds.

There is no denial of any save, period.

So many people will do ANYTHING with the deffrolla to screw people over. It's not even something to fear honestly. It's a 20pt upgrade that rarely is able to be used.

Yes it is done the EXACT same way as any other tank shock +1 extra step. Once leadership passed and D/G played out or not. You roll your wounds....Take armor saves

You are tank shocking your opponent. Read rules for tank shock. Then the deffrolla dishes out wounds...That's it...Pretty plain and simple.

Flyinmiata1 wrote:Yes it is done the EXACT same way as any other tank shock +1 extra step. Once leadership passed and D/G played out or not. You roll your wounds....Take armor saves

You are tank shocking your opponent. Read rules for tank shock. Then the deffrolla dishes out wounds...That's it...Pretty plain and simple.

I think you missed something lol. If it was that simple this argument would be done. It gets a lot more confusing, read back a couple pages.

Flyinmiata1 wrote:Yes it is done the EXACT same way as any other tank shock +1 extra step. Once leadership passed and D/G played out or not. You roll your wounds....Take armor saves

Sorry, you're getting this where? Where are you getting these tank shock save/wound rules from that doesn't allow you to take a specific type of saving throw? And isn't close combat, since the rolla definitely isn't a close combat.

Gorkamorka.....

Where in any of my 2 posts did I say you don't get saves vs. a deffrolla??? You get your armor save/invul (whichever is better obviously), but you do not get a cover save...


85% of you look WAY into the rules only to try and exploit something with this thread. 40k is not a complicated game, but trying to bend rules here and there turns it into a hornet's nest of BS.

What do you do when you "tank shock" a unit?

1. Leadership test
2. D/G or not to
3. Move squad over

The deffrolla follows the exact same rules only that it does dmg as well. Yes you get your armor saves, but sorry you don't get cover saves...Being shocked doesn't count as "shooting."

This is not rocket science people...

Tank shock (sans rolla) does not cause wounds, so there is nothing to save, regardless.

In case you are wondering why that step does not come up.

What about all of this new dark eldar stuff, Reavers, Chain snares on a Raider, Blade Vanes, and such?

It says specifically that "cover saves may be taken as normal" even though it is done in the movement phase. "As normal" seems to imply that you would get a cover save from the deffrolla, or any other sort of attack like it, unless otherwise stated.

Gorkamorka wrote:Where are you getting these tank shock save/wound rules from that doesn't allow you to take a specific type of saving throw?

Flyinmiata1 wrote:Gorkamorka.....
Where in any of my 2 posts did I say you don't get saves vs. a deffrolla???

Several times. Right here for example:

Flyinmiata1 wrote:There is no cover save period.

Or here:

Flyinmiata1 wrote:you do not get a cover save...

Or here:

Flyinmiata1 wrote:sorry you don't get cover saves

I'll ask you again, since you ignored me. Where in the rulebook are you finding these rules for tank shock wounding and saving throws that allow you to ignore a type of saving throw my models have?
You say that the wounds work and that armor works... where are you getting these rules? The shooting section, where all saving throws work fine and can be applied to everything that doesn't specifically bypass them?
Hint: You can't use the CC rules, since they don't apply, and you can't use the rules governing gaining a cover saving throw since the kff bypasses them.

Flyinmiata1 wrote:What I don't get is how most of these people try to twist rules or make up their own interpretation of how it is written..."Dive into cover???" ROFL where in the rules does it say...."Ignore this rulebook, make your own up."

You repeatedly mock people who make up rules, yet it appears your entire stance is based upon a made up assumption you can't point to in the book.

It's fine if you want to houserule the rolla to work the way you claim, but don't pretend for a second it's written in the rulebook.