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.

dionysus wrote:noc, not a single quote, and everything you lead me to read is a stretch. You still haven't responded to the most important point i brought up multiple times (as you are correct, i only phrased it as a question once, all the other times you just blatently ignored it) I don't know if you are just relying on your stunning good looks or your status here on dakka, but the fact that all you've said in every responce is essentualy, your wrong because i said so, its on a page go read it, is just insulting and a terrible example to set.

Oh where to start....

No, I gave page quotes. I also asked you to actually provide real rules - not your made up statements - and at that point you started getting quite defensive of your position. Classic really. So....

dionysus wrote:

When in Area Terrain you are both In Cover AND have a cover save equal to the terrain you are in. So that's another area you are wrong in.

So your saying vehicles in area terrain have a cover save automaticaly.

No, I did not say that. Apparently you cannot help but jump to incorrect conclusions all the time. You should get that looked at.

Your statement was that being in Area Terrain (general) did not give you a cover save, it just meant you were In cover. That statement (in general) is incorrect. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news and all that....

dionysus wrote:

Permission to take a saving throw is given on page 20

sure for regular saves and invulns, not a mention on when to roll cover saves.

Gosh, you really dont know how to read actual rules, do you?

Page 20, first paragraph left hand column. Final words of the paragraph. Gosh. That means that Taking Saving Throws is all about the three types of saving throws - Armour, Invulnerable and cover! Who would have thought!

dionysus wrote:Wow, I've been saying this for what 4 posts now and all you've done is argue it.

WRONG. You have argued, hilariously incorrectly, that you can *only* get cover saves in the Shooting Phase and against Shooting Attacks. Go right back to what you first made up - that you can only take cover saves against shooting attacks. You were then asked to prove it - and here we are, quite a few pages later, and you still cannot find any proof.

Put up or shut up time

dionysus wrote:All I've been trying to say is cover saves for ramming aren't possible. (barring special circumstances or giant pieces of terrain) Area terrain means crap for vehicles, and there is no target so you cant obscure.

Wrong, KFF makes it possible. SoS makes it possible. Stormcaller makes it possible. All because you have general permission on page 20 to take saves, and a requirement on page 24 to actually take them if they are available. I also wouldnt call those "special" circumstances either.

dionysus wrote:SNIP....yet more irrelevancies...SNIP
But your saying that because there is no set sentence that says: Cover saves are only to be taken against shooting. You can take them against anything.

Yes, in fact page 24 states you are required to take them, as you have been given permission to take them on page 20. Again, you dont even know the rules you are quoting.

dionysus wrote:There is nothing in the book stating you can use a cover save like a "normal save" there is nothing in the book stating you can use cover saves for anything other than the example given... shooting. point me to the exact line of text that states you can use cover saves in all the same instances you could use a regular save.

So when the book defines the three types of regular saves, you dont consider them all to be Normal? Really? Please show me the line that defines "normal saves" and "special saves", and that cover saves fall into the latter. Oh right, you cant because it is yet another thing you have made up out of whole cloth. Shock.

Ive played Orks for over a decade and I would NEVER assume that I could use a KFF as currently written as a cover save during rams or any type of close combat attacks.

Now they could modify the rules in the next edition to give all models within 6" a cover AND Inv save, that would be great.

Don't cover saves only work with wounds?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wrong, KFF makes it possible. SoS makes it possible. Stormcaller makes it possible. All because you have general permission on page 20 to take saves, and a requirement on page 24 to actually take them if they are available. I also wouldnt call those "special" circumstances either.

Actually, nos, SoS would not work, as it is used in your opponents Shooting phase, and lasts until the end of the phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jgehunter wrote:Don't cover saves only work with wounds?

Re-read page 62 of the BRB.

Happyjew wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jgehunter wrote:Don't cover saves only work with wounds?

Re-read page 62 of the BRB.

Yep srry, was thinking of invulnerable

Its a 5+ vehicle invul save I dont understand whats so hard to understand.....yes you can use it in a death or glory.

Smitty0305 wrote:Its a 5+ vehicle invul save I dont understand whats so hard to understand.....yes you can use it in a death or glory.

We were debating cover saves, not invulnerable saves.

still cant quote me a single rule. page 20 does not say when you can take cover saves, it says when you can take armour saves and invulns.

go back and read my posts, not just the bits you want to read.

im only getting defensive because once again, you make blanket statments, and tell me its in the book, i provide quotes that you just ignore due to some magic rule on page 20 that doesn't exsist.

I'm done with this, you can keep miss informing dakka.

Page 62 Left Column, 6th Graph "If the target is obscured and sufferes a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

Allowance to take cover saves whilst obscured.

DeathReaper wrote:Page 62 Left Column, 6th Graph "If the target is obscured and sufferes a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

Allowance to take cover saves whilst obscured.

Completely true.

However it's a bit pointless to discuss this as AFAIK you can't be obscured against a ram (bar weird abilities) And I think we all agree that you can take saves for KFF et al

jgehunter wrote:
However it's a bit pointless to discuss this as AFAIK you can't be obscured against a ram (bar weird abilities) And I think we all agree that you can take saves for KFF et al

Therein lies the problem. It is being claimed, incorrectly, by Dinoysus that those "wierd ablilites" such as KFF can't be taken vs a Ram attack.

Really though it's a separate discussion in relation to the OP.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Put up or shut up time

Is there a need to get all worked up over toy soldier rules? Serious? If you think he doesn't get it, then drop it.

So wounds = glance/pen for everything but shield breaker?
Or are people going to argue that Hive Guard don't ignore vehicle cover saves?

rigeld2 wrote:So wounds = glance/pen for everything but shield breaker?
Or are people going to argue that Hive Guard don't ignore vehicle cover saves?

I don't agree that wounds = glance/pen. It is an extrapolation that people make from other rules which is, at its core, RAI.

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So wounds = glance/pen for everything but shield breaker?
Or are people going to argue that Hive Guard don't ignore vehicle cover saves?

I don't agree that wounds = glance/pen. It is an extrapolation that people make from other rules which is, at its core, RAI.

I, however, don't think it's relevant, the only place were I would see it problematic would be with the flicker field invuln but how it works is explained in the faq

dionysus wrote:still cant quote me a single rule. page 20 does not say when you can take cover saves, it says when you can take armour saves and invulns.

Wrong, stil. Taking Saves defines that you roll a dice to take any of the saves. I gave page and para - more than you've managed.

dionysus wrote:
im only getting defensive because once again, you make blanket statments, and tell me its in the book, i provide quotes that you just ignore due to some magic rule on page 20 that doesn't exsist.

Wrong again - I gave the rules, repeatedly. You dont like them because they are proving you wrong. Which is why you are getting defensive. Again.

dionysus wrote:I'm done with this, you can keep miss informing dakka.

Nope, I am still 100% correct, and you have yet to provide an actual rule to back up your claim that you can only take cover saves against shooting attacks. I asked for it after your first post, and you have never provided a single, actual rule to back up your position. Please, stay away if you are unable to provide actual rules, it is better than misinforming others with your unsupported, made up rules.

Therein lies the problem. It is being claimed, incorrectly, by Dinoysus that those "wierd ablilites" such as KFF can't be taken vs a Ram attack.

Really though it's a separate discussion in relation to the OP.

I never EVER claimed that KFF couldn't be taken. I mentioned it once in a post and said it was a whole other issue. In fact at one time i even stated that under special circumstances cover saves can be taken for ram, I was referring to things like this.

So thank you for that.

And Nos I think you are so stuck on being right you wont even take a look in the brb. Quote me verbatim the line on page 20, or anywhere in the codex that states when cover saves are allowed to be taken. I truly believe your lack of posting actual quotes is due to your lack of being able to find any evidence to back up your statements.

Its very easy to say I'm wrong without ever providing proof. I have quoted whole Paragraphs for you and you ignore them. I have loaded this thread with statement after statement pulled directly from the rulebook, yet you maintain I haven't.

Nos: I also asked you to actually provide real rules - not your made up statements

how is quoting the rulebook verbatim a made up statement? Every statement ive made ive backed up with a direct quote from the brb, not just a page number, like your so fond of. You are getting to the point of trolling.

Page 20, first paragraph left hand column. Final words of the paragraph. Gosh. That means that Taking Saving Throws is all about the three types of saving throws - Armour, Invulnerable and cover! Who would have thought!

First off the word cover is never stated. Secondly those 3 paragraphs tell you HOW to make saves, not WHEN to make saves. Next section is about how and when to take armour saves. the following section is about how and when to take invuln saves. So you tell me where your magical proof on page 20 is that cover is for anything but shooting. Quote me a line.

So when the book defines the three types of regular saves, you dont consider them all to be Normal?

Page 24: Sometimes a model will have a normal armour save and a separate invulnerable save.......... As if this wasn't enough the model might be in cover as well.
Then in the following example cover is again used with shooting.

My favorite Nos quote was your addendum while quoting me:

SNIP....yet more irrelevancies...SNIP
But your saying that because there is no set sentence that says: Cover saves are only to be taken against shooting. You can take them against anything.

The "yet more irrelevancies" bit was the actual rules pulled from the rulebook and here they are. page 21-22 states things like "not affected by the AP of the ATTACKING WEAPON" and that "units in cover will normaly get a cover save regardless of what's FIRING at them." If you continue reading you get things like "A position in cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots..." and "Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots." and "When any part of the target model's body is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover." and "If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by other models, it recieves a... cover save..."

Where in this book is the magical line that allows for you to take cover against anything other than what they explicitly state cover is used for. Post me a quote.

I think this is way to funny that people are arguing this, i dont think you should get cover..

here is something to back up that you do take cover saves... look at the mawlok, his terror from the deep attack, that is done in the movment phase, and that is basicly a ram attack
he says he is going to that location, stuff gets out of the way... you get coversaves from that....

dionysus wrote:*snip* there is nothing in the book stating you can use cover saves for anything other than the example given... shooting *snip*

dionysus wrote:*snip* I never EVER claimed that KFF couldn't be taken. *snip*

Dionysus, you know that KFF is a cover save.

Dionysus - so when I post the exact link tot eh rules that isnt enough for you? I have to do ALL your work for you?

Your made up statement is that cover saves can ONLY be taken against Shooting Attacks. You have yet to manage a single, solitary rule from ANYWHERE where that is proven correct. Not a one.

Me the troll? Nope, not even close.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dionysus - so when I post the exact link tot eh rules that isnt enough for you? I have to do ALL your work for you?

Your made up statement is that cover saves can ONLY be taken against Shooting Attacks. You have yet to manage a single, solitary rule from ANYWHERE where that is proven correct. Not a one.

Me the troll? Nope, not even close.

How long more do you want to continue this bickering?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Me the troll? Nope, not even close.

You very much are doing so. Please outline where exactly Cover Saves provide you the ability to use them against anything other than ranged attacks? Cover Saves specifically are allowed to be taken against attacks that are "fired". You don't fire a chainsword so CC is out.

It also only provides a save against attacks which otherwise pierce the armor the unit inherently already has. CC attacks do not pierce armor, they either ignore it or they do not. Ranged attacks pierce armor.

KFF does not provide any protection other than a cover save. Where is it allowed to do more than that?

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Me the troll? Nope, not even close.

You very much are doing so. Please outline where exactly Cover Saves provide you the ability to use them against anything other than ranged attacks? Cover Saves specifically are allowed to be taken against attacks that are "fired". You don't fire a chainsword so CC is out.

It also only provides a save against attacks which otherwise pierce the armor the unit inherently already has. CC attacks do not pierce armor, they either ignore it or they do not. Ranged attacks pierce armor.

KFF does not provide any protection other than a cover save. Where is it allowed to do more than that?

Actually, you do not get cover saves from cc attacks, because the assault rules SPECIFY:

BRB, page 39 wrote:This means models do not get cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat, and for obvious reasons cannot go to ground.

NecronLord3 wrote: Please outline where exactly Cover Saves provide you the ability to use them against anything other than ranged attacks? Cover Saves specifically are allowed to be taken against attacks that are "fired". You don't fire a chainsword so CC is out.

It also only provides a save against attacks which otherwise pierce the armor the unit inherently already has. CC attacks do not pierce armor, they either ignore it or they do not. Ranged attacks pierce armor.

KFF does not provide any protection other than a cover save. Where is it allowed to do more than that?

I posted where cover saves for vehicles were allowed.

Page 62 Left Column, 6th Graph "If the target is obscured and sufferes a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

Allowance to take cover saves whilst obscured.

No mention of "Only from ranged weapons" So you can use it against any attack that does not specifically disallow a cover save.

Hmm.. This reference is taken from the section "shooting at vehicles".

grendel083 wrote:Hmm.. This reference is taken from the section "shooting at vehicles".

And the Instant Death rules are in the shooting section, what is your point?

DeathReaper wrote:

grendel083 wrote:Hmm.. This reference is taken from the section "shooting at vehicles".

And the Instant Death rules are in the shooting section, what is your point?

Thought it was being taken out of context, it isn't. I do apologise.

It is a solid point, obscured allows for a cover save (KFF granting the obscured) for any glance/pen.

Close combat being an obvious form of attack disallowed, but I can't find anything that says Ramming disallows cover.

I thought it had been established earlier that ramming has no target. So as there's no explicit target for a ram, the vehicle can't benefit from the cover save for being obscured.

Not having a target does not matter.

If the target is obscured and sufferes a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

would suggest a target is needed.

Now I would agree that the target of a ram is the vehicle struck (using common sense) but I'm not sure that strict reading of the rules actually assigns a target to a ram.