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.

From the way I see it, you wouldn't get a cover save.

Why?

As some have explained, cover is described in the BRB as "...anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots."

This leaves us with two possibilities.

1. Cover saves can only be taken against shooting attacks.
2. The rules for cover saves was written incorrectly, and the 'incoming shots' part should be read as 'incoming wounds'.

Since we know that 1 isn't true, that leaves us with 2.

Therefore, any instance of firer or shooter can be replaced with 'source of the wound' or 'model causing the wound'.

Armour saves say something similar

"...for each wound the model suffers from incoming fire..."

But we all know some rules allow saves to be made from other sources that allow it. Such as this one this one that says normal saves allowed.

Units inside terrain are allowed cover saves no matter were its coming from. We are not shooting out of terrain so the 2" rule does not apply.

The rules are pretty clear.

Firstly you need to know that Saving throws are taken against Wounds, not against shots or what ever, you suffer wounds you take saving throws.

Now cover saves only apply if the unit is in cover, obviously there will no intervening terrain but luckily the Cover Save rules make an exception for Area terrain. So to work out if you get a cover save or not you check,

'is the unit the model in Benefiting from area terrain'?

That is the only question you need to answer, it's the only question the rules care about, they don't care how you got the wound, nor where it came from just that you have a Cover Save from Area terrain.

So if the Unit is standing in Area terrain then you may take a cover save from a Gets Hot.

If you look at something like Peril of the Warp and Dangerous Terrain checks which are both you harming your own unit it explicitly says you do not get Cover Saves from them, Gets Hot does not.

Well, I suppose what I'm really getting at is that cover saves are described as being from terrain interfering with an attack.

And all of those attacks are done at range. Spirit Leech might not be a shooting attack, but it is most certainly works at range.

While I'd agree that cover saves are normal saves, I don't see any evidence that you're allowed to take a cover save against a source of damage that you're adjacent to, or that comes from a special rule/wargear on the unit itself.

Well by RAW you are allowed cover saves against anything that allows armor saves, as the wording is the same. The only time you are not allowed to take cover saves is when the rules tell you not to. This is very likely not RAI, and most people won't try to roll cover saves against wrecking balls or "gets hot" anyways.

ArcaneKnight wrote:While I'd agree that cover saves are normal saves, I don't see any evidence that you're allowed to take a cover save against a source of damage that you're adjacent to, or that comes from a special rule/wargear on the unit itself.

Just answer the simple question 'Is the unit suffering the wound benfiting from Area Terrain?'

If it's yes then Cover Saves all round, there's your evidence.

ArcaneKnight wrote:

While I'd agree that cover saves are normal saves, I don't see any evidence that you're allowed to take a cover save against a source of damage that you're adjacent to, or that comes from a special rule/wargear on the unit itself.

seriously? I answered that three times. Go read pg 22 under Exceptions under area terrain. Its the only rule that matters here. There are no rules saying you don't get cover save against a source your adjacent. The only rule is you don't get cover saves while in CC.

Close combat attacks disallow cover saves.

This is not the same as saying shooting attacks permit cover saves.

If you want a non-Tyranid example (that will cause no less whining), see: Deff-Rolla.

If it is not a CC attack, it does not (assume to) ignore cover saves.

Seems pretty clearcut to me: Gets Hot! says that all normal saves apply. No reason why he shouldn't get a cover save. I know. It makes zero sense. But, those are the rules. I think we are all in agreement that GW really has no idea what they are doing when it comes to rules clarity. But, that is how they wrote them.

After rethinking this, I'm going to try going at this differently.

If your original target unit would of gained a cover save from the area terrain your model occupies, then I must concede you have a cover save. If you do not give a cover save to your target unit, because of the Exceptions on page 22 of the BRB, then I do not think your model can then claim one itself.

That's the best I can come up with!

It's not like the plasma shot bounces off the enemy, so there is not foundation to build an argument on.

kirsanth wrote:Close combat attacks disallow cover saves.

This is not the same as saying shooting attacks permit cover saves.

If you want a non-Tyranid example (that will cause no less whining), see: Deff-Rolla.

If it is not a CC attack, it does not (assume to) ignore cover saves.

The Deff-Rolla!

I couldn't think of any other example. Thanks for the save Kirsanth.

I agree with VoxDei - He's dead on and I also agree with Kurce - let's boycott GW's writing staff.

Here's another vote for by RAW you get a cover save vs Gets Hot in area terrain but by "I am not a jerk" you shouldn't take it.

Ok, let me try going about this another way.

It's obvious from a reading of cover saves from the BRB that the 'spirit' of the rule in question is that you get cover when terrain gets between two models. And I don't think that anyone would disagree with this statement.

Now, I draw your attention to the ork FAQ.

Q. Can Grotsnik board a vehicle if doing so will
get him closer to the nearest enemy than if he
moved normally?
A. In the spirit of the rule, if embarking in a
vehicle will not prevent him from charging that
turn and will also get him closer to the nearest
enemy than moving normally that turn, he may
do that. Once aboard, the vehicle must always
move in such a way as to move as fast as possible
towards the closest enemy and allow Grotsnik to
disembark and charge the closest enemy as soon
as possible.

So, GW made a ruling that worked towards the 'spirit' of the rule ... so why wouldn't/shouldn't we say the same thing applies here?

Because the spirit of a rule is very much subjective; one person may feel that it isn the spirit of the rule to do X, but another person may see the performing of X as simply bending the rules, and insists that Y should be done in the spirit of the rule.

It is similar in a sense to RAI, two people may interpret 1 rule differently when it comes to stating the writer's intent.

TheRedArmy wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Close combat attacks disallow cover saves.

This is not the same as saying shooting attacks permit cover saves.

If you want a non-Tyranid example (that will cause no less whining), see: Deff-Rolla.

If it is not a CC attack, it does not (assume to) ignore cover saves.

The Deff-Rolla!

I couldn't think of any other example. Thanks for the save Kirsanth.

I agree with VoxDei - He's dead on and I also agree with Kurce - let's boycott GW's writing staff.

Wrecking Ball, too.

To be honest, it makes more sense to dive into a ditch to not be run over a the giant smoke-belching ork tank or hide behind a tree from a spiked metal ball, than diving into a ditch or behind a tree from your weapon that overheated...

I'd personally let my opponent roll a cover save against the ork wargear without arguing, they are not made to kill infantry anyway.