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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Can you use a cover save for a Vector Strike? Or a Hammer of Wrath?

SJ

Vector strike has the ignores cover special rule

Does Stomp? Page and Graph to support please.

If every attack thatr occured during close combat was a CLose Combat Attack and so ignored cover why does the Destroyer Hive have "ignores cover" as a special rule? Is this redundant wording, or - just possibly - is it utterly fallacious to decide that anything that happens during the ASsault phase is a close combat attack?

Jeffersonian - do you play that vehicle exploisions grant a cover save? How about a vehicle explosion in the assault phase, does that grant one? One in the shooting phase? or movement phase?
Perhaps col_impact can answer that one - given their ludicrous contention that you cannot access rules that appear in the shooting phase outside of the shooting phase, what happens when you explode a vehicle in the movement phase (from a dropped bomb, for example) and you are standing in cover - or, hell, you would like to use your armour save (which appears inthe shooting phase section)?

Or, just maybe, smoething that is NOT a Close Combat Attack does not, amazingly enough, gain the rules of a Close Combat Attack. So, inherently it does not ignore cover saves, it just makes it really difficult to take LOS based saves.

I play by the rules as written, and take each situation that occurs on a case by case basis. In the case of Stomps, per the BRB, there is not enough support within the rules to infer a cover save for what occurs as a special type of close combat attack. My previous question about Vector Strike and Hammer of Wrath was to demonstrate how other types of attacks that fall under the catagory of "special" treat this subject. Of the two, Vector Strike could legitimately lead to a cover saver if it weren't for a specific restriction, while Hammar of Wrath is a legitimate close combat attack. Where Stomp goes astray for some is its ability to hit units outside of close combat with a blast marker. Per the BRB, Stomp is not listed as a shooting attack, nor a blast. Stomp does occur in the fight sub-phase with specific rules for how to handle wound allocation, yet not special mention is noted for cover saves. As this is a permissive rule set, and no permission is given, we can rightly assume no permission exists. Shooting attacks grant permission. Vector Strike can be considered an out of sequence shooting attack, yet it has a specific restriction to the general permission. Close combat attack specifical do not allow cover saves. With a lack of permission for cover saves from Stomps, there is no precedence to assume a cover save would be allowed even to units hit outside of combat and in cover.

SJ

So you avoid answering questions again?

Awesome

So, since you state there is a requirement for "specific" permission to takea cover save - despite that being a falsehood, unsupported in the rules - where is the specific permission to takea cover save froma vehicle explosion? Or do you not allow cover?

Or, you follow the rules as written, and when you meet the conditions to do so, you may take a cover save. In fact, if it is your BEST save, you MUST take it. Unless SPECIFICALLY told otherwise.

You are not told otherwise with Stomp

RAW you may take any non-LOS based cover save


if you disagree, actual ruels - and not your made up ones - are required.

P52.

Cover Saves
Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds suffered from close combat attacks.

P96
Stomp
Super heavy walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp attack.


Seems pretty clear.

Yes. That this is a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.
This does not mean it is a Close Combat Attack, as it follows none of the procedures for a Close Combat Attack, and is not specifically defined as such.

IF you disagree, having not read this or the linked thread, please post some rules up...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes. That this is a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.
This does not mean it is a Close Combat Attack, as it follows none of the procedures for a Close Combat Attack, and is not specifically defined as such.

IF you disagree, having not read this or the linked thread, please post some rules up...

That is the weakest argument I think I've ever heard. No. Just, no.

If it is a weak argument, you should be able to post Rules that easily counter it?

Ffyllotek wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes. That this is a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.
This does not mean it is a Close Combat Attack, as it follows none of the procedures for a Close Combat Attack, and is not specifically defined as such.

IF you disagree, having not read this or the linked thread, please post some rules up...

That is the weakest argument I think I've ever heard. No. Just, no.

Awesome, thanks for visiting the rules subforum, where you must back up your assertions with rules

You didnt do so

If it is so weak, counter it. Failure to do so makes your assertion seem....less than strong.

JinxDragon wrote:
If it is a weak argument, you should be able to post Rules that easily counter it?

I just have. Read up.

Here's another: which parts of the rules allow you to take cover saves? I'll give you a clue: in the chapter called 'Shooting Phase' is one. Go on, make a list, and see if your list includes close combat attacks or special attacks.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Ffyllotek wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes. That this is a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.
This does not mean it is a Close Combat Attack, as it follows none of the procedures for a Close Combat Attack, and is not specifically defined as such.

IF you disagree, having not read this or the linked thread, please post some rules up...

That is the weakest argument I think I've ever heard. No. Just, no.

Awesome, thanks for visiting the rules subforum, where you must back up your assertions with rules

You didnt do so

If it is so weak, counter it. Failure to do so makes your assertion seem....less than strong.

Thanks for that. If you scroll up a little, you'll see I just quoted two rules. D'oh!

In return, I can't see anywhere you've posted anything other than trying to break the English language and the structure of the rule book. Thanks again.

I pointed out the fault in your argument.

You have provided no counter to this, just vague assertions with no backing.

I covered the HILARIOUSLY terrible argument that cover saves can only be taken in the shooting pohase already, I note that yet again your failure to even have the courtesy to read the thead rears its head, when you make the same tired, flawed argument here

So, follow the Tenets: your argument has been proven wrong, rebut or concede.

I saw a quote stating they can make a Special Attack called Stomp, how does this prove it is also a Close Combat Attack?

Also the reasoning that Cover Saves are only found in the Shooting Phase, so require the attack to occur during the Shooting Phase, is greatly flawed. Wounds are generated in other Phases as well, so unless all these Wounds suddenly ignore the Saving process it is very difficult to conclude this one situation ignores the Saving process. Like wise, many of these out-of-Shooting-Phase generated Wounds have a specific clause forbidding Cover Saves, heavily suggesting that they would otherwise be able to take these Saves.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I pointed out the fault in your argument.

You have provided no counter to this, just vague assertions with no backing.

I covered the HILARIOUSLY terrible argument that cover saves can only be taken in the shooting pohase already, I note that yet again your failure to even have the courtesy to read the thead rears its head, when you make the same tired, flawed argument here

So, follow the Tenets: your argument has been proven wrong, rebut or concede.

So you can't post rules, you can't answer the questions, and you want to abuse the language and concepts of the game in order to make some bizarre argument which, deep down, you know is incorrect.


Please list a rule gives you permission to have a cover save in close combat or against a a stomp attack. It should be very simple - there's a big section on Stomp attacks on page 96.

So, still failing to follow the tenets

The onus is on YOU to prove a cover save is denied

The rules are quite clear that you may not make cover saves against close combat attacks. Prove that Stomp is a close combat attack.

Prove that Stomp has the ignore cover special rule

If not, I will use the rules REQUIRING me to take my best save to allow my theoretical dire avengers to take a cover save while stood in Ruins, against a 2 - 5 result on the stomp table.

As, undeniably, they HAVE a cover save.

(YOur denials do not count, as they lack any rules basis)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, still failing to follow the tenets

Please start quoting some rules, I don't think you've put a single one up, and you'll stop flouting the tenents. It's easy!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The onus is on YOU to prove a cover save is denied

No, it's not. You know that's not how warhammer works. You are only allowed to do things that the rules tell you that you can do. So if you want to take a cover save, against either a CC attack, a Stomp attack, or a special CC stomp attack (however you want to put it), then you need to show some rules.

The rules are quite clear that you may not make cover saves against close combat attacks. Prove that Stomp is a close combat attack.

That is a bit irrelevent, but I'll humour you. Any sensible reading of the rule (which I posted about ten post back) show this. Sure, you can warp the language and structure of the game, but that doesn't really help you. There isn't any reasonable doubt that a Stomp is not a CC attack. Still, it's a bit irrelevent, and is an attempt at deflection.

Prove that Stomp has the ignore cover special rule

I don't believe it does, nor does it need to. Stop deflecting.

If not, I will use the rules REQUIRING me to take my best save to allow my theoretical dire avengers to take a cover save while stood in Ruins, against a 2 - 5 result on the stomp table.

As, undeniably, they HAVE a cover save.

Please quote some rules to support this wild assumption, or withdraw the statement.

(YOur denials do not count, as they lack any rules basis)

Rules, please. Show that you get a cover save vs stomp. As I said, it should be really really easy. There's lots of references to cover saves throughout the rule book, and lots of text on p96 regarding Stomp attacks.

Don't feed the Nos. Doesn't matter how many times you cite rules to support your position, he just ignores it and posts that you never supported your argument.

And in this case, the burden is on the person attempting to use a cover save versus a Stomp to prove that they can. Good luck with that.

SJ

Just a quick RULE #1 reminder - calling someone a troll is NOT considered polite.

IF you see a post that you think breaks the rules of the site - report it.

That is the only "proper" response to such posts.

Thanks!

Ffyllotek wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, still failing to follow the tenets

Please start quoting some rules, I don't think you've put a single one up, and you'll stop flouting the tenents. It's easy!

I posted. I also showed how your rules do not apply. Yu continually ignore this

Ffyllotek wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The onus is on YOU to prove a cover save is denied

No, it's not. You know that's not how warhammer works. You are only allowed to do things that the rules tell you that you can do. So if you want to take a cover save, against either a CC attack, a Stomp attack, or a special CC stomp attack (however you want to put it), then you need to show some rules.

The rules for Ruins state I havea acover save
The rules tell me to take my est available save

PROVE the cover save is not available.
PROVE IT. With rules of your own. I have basic permission to take any save I have - as already posted, yet you ignore

Ffyllotek wrote:

The rules are quite clear that you may not make cover saves against close combat attacks. Prove that Stomp is a close combat attack.

That is a bit irrelevent, but I'll humour you. Any sensible reading of the rule (which I posted about ten post back) show this. Sure, you can warp the language and structure of the game, but that doesn't really help you. There isn't any reasonable doubt that a Stomp is not a CC attack. Still, it's a bit irrelevent, and is an attempt at deflection.

No, it is a genuine attempt to get you to cite relevant rules to support your position

You have, again, failed to do so

There is NO rule stating Stomp is a CC Attack. It follows none of the rules for CC Attacks, lacking a weapon, WS, S or Toughness, etc. In ANY "sensible reading of the rules" (Which is your clutching at straws, failing to provide any results so resorting to ad hominem - against the forum tenets, and a logical fallacy) so any senssible reading tells you it is what it states it is:

A Special Attack

Do you believe Destroyer Hive is a CC Attack?

Ffyllotek wrote:

Prove that Stomp has the ignore cover special rule

I don't believe it does, nor does it need to. Stop deflecting.

WHy does it "not need to"? It does if you want it to Ignore Cover. Or, you could prove it is a CLose Combat Attack - which you havent done, and in fact refuse to do.

Ffyllotek wrote:

If not, I will use the rules REQUIRING me to take my best save to allow my theoretical dire avengers to take a cover save while stood in Ruins, against a 2 - 5 result on the stomp table.

As, undeniably, they HAVE a cover save.

Please quote some rules to support this wild assumption, or withdraw the statement.

Ruins, page 108.

"Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured"

Proven. Note this is not conditional on shooting. ,they receive this save

Models with more than one save, page 38

"a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save"
So, categorically proven:

I HAVE a cover save (of 4+)
I MUST use it

Over to you

Prove it is a close combat attack, 3trd time of asking. The rules you posted simply show it is a Special Attack used during Clsoe Combat. A lot like the Destroyer Hive

Failure, again, to show this shows you have no intention of debating honestly, and your argument can be ignored as irrelevant.

Ffyllotek wrote:

(YOur denials do not count, as they lack any rules basis)

Rules, please. Show that you get a cover save vs stomp. As I said, it should be really really easy. There's lots of references to cover saves throughout the rule book, and lots of text on p96 regarding Stomp attacks.

Its been proven, so over to you

Jeffersonian - still waiting on you to answer the posted questions DO you allow a cover save against vehicle explosions in the:
a) Movement phase?
b) Shooting Phase?
c) Assault phase?

Is the Destroyer Hive (Typhus) a close combat attack? If "yes", why does it have the Ignores Cover special rule?

It's a very simple couple of questions - given your ad hominem about me not posting rules (not true, another lie from you!) perhaps you could, for once, support your reams of posts with smoetrhing approaching a consistent, logical argument?

There is one other special attack that can be considered, prince yriel in the eldar codex has the eye of wrath, a once per game special attack that he can make in close combat instead of his regular attacks. This power does not mention in the codex that it either grants or denies cover. I know a lot of people feel that this doesn't matter, but I thought I'd mention that the itc has faq'ed that cover saves can not be taken against this power, this is the only similar ruling if seen involving close combat special attacks.

The ITC makes a lot of changes to the rules and does not label them as such. They are a terrible resource for arguing rules as written in the rulebook, as their rules changes are not labelled as such.

Eye of Wrath is NOT a Close Combat Attack, so cover saves, if available, can be taken as normal.

Ffyllotek wrote:No, it's not. You know that's not how warhammer works. You are only allowed to do things that the rules tell you that you can do. So if you want to take a cover save, against either a CC attack, a Stomp attack, or a special CC stomp attack (however you want to put it), then you need to show some rules.

The thing is, a Stomp Attack is not defined as anything else but a Special Attack. The only relationship it has with close combat is timing (I step 1) and location (close combat).

Ffyllotek wrote:That is a bit irrelevent, but I'll humour you. Any sensible reading of the rule (which I posted about ten post back) show this. Sure, you can warp the language and structure of the game, but that doesn't really help you. There isn't any reasonable doubt that a Stomp is not a CC attack. Still, it's a bit irrelevent, and is an attempt at deflection.

Somewhat relevant, actually. One of the key reasons why some have been saying that Stomp does not allow Cover Saves is because it is a close combat attack (you implied as such with your first post as well). Stomp as a close combat attack has not been proven, though. Which puts us in a grey area, especially with the way GW writes.

For example, can you Look Out Sir! a Dangerous Terrain Wound? How about from Perils of the Warp? How about from a Stomp Attack?

Look Out Sir!, only technically addresses from shooting attacks and close combat attacks in their titles, however, they do not indicate as such on one of the rules, and just say "any wound allocated to a Character", and leaves it at that.

The main issue here is that Charistoph and the other assume that a Stomp attck isn't a "close combat attack." But when you look at the rules for the Fight Sub-Phase the first time the specific phrase "close combat attack" is used in actually in the rules concerning cover saves (pg52). Up until that point only attacks in close combat are mentioned. Now according to the index Close Combat attacks are explained on page 49, but they never use the term there. So we only can assume that "close combat attacks" are the same as "attacks in close combat". Now on pg 49 it states in the Number of Attacks paragrahp which and how much attacks a model has. One of the ways as specified by the Other Bonusses section is by a special rule.

And guess what Stomp is a special rule that states a SHW engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.

So here we have an attack in combat provided y a special rule. So according to the rules that state what a close combat attack is and how a model can get these attacks, this special attack is an "Attack in Close Combat" which is the same as a "Close Combat Attack".

So no guys, you are not allowed to make cover saves for a Stomp Attack.

aemon wrote:
The main issue here is that Charistoph and the other assume that a Stomp attck isn't a "close combat attack." But when you look at the rules for the Fight Sub-Phase the first time the specific phrase "close combat attack" is used in actually in the rules concerning cover saves (pg52). Up until that point only attacks in close combat are mentioned. Now according to the index Close Combat attacks are explained on page 49, but they never use the term there. So we only can assume that "close combat attacks" are the same as "attacks in close combat". Now on pg 49 it states in the Number of Attacks paragrahp which and how much attacks a model has. One of the ways as specified by the Other Bonusses section is by a special rule.

And guess what Stomp is a special rule that states a SHW engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.

So here we have an attack in combat provided y a special rule. So according to the rules that state what a close combat attack is and how a model can get these attacks, this special attack is an "Attack in Close Combat" which is the same as a "Close Combat Attack".

So no guys, you are not allowed to make cover saves for a Stomp Attack.

The white text is where your argument fails as its based on an assumption on your part instead of actual, written rules.

aemon, do you agree then that due to Smash, all wounds caused by Stomp are AP2?

@Ghaz, if that is the case can you specify where and how Close Combat Attacks are defined. As far as I can tell nowhere in the rules is mentioned exactly what a Close Combat Attack is.

@Happyjew, no. The Stomp rules them self, specify how the wounds caused by Stomp are resolved, which overrides any possible interaction with Smash.

It doesn't allow you to make an assumption and claim its the rule as written. Its still just your personal opinion with no support.

aemon wrote:
@Ghaz, if that is the case can you specify where and how Close Combat Attacks are defined. As far as I can tell nowhere in the rules is mentioned exactly what a Close Combat Attack is.

@Happyjew, no. The Stomp rules them self, specify how the wounds caused by Stomp are resolved, which overrides any possible interaction with Smash.

If Stomp is a close combat attack, then per Smash it is AP2, since all close combat attacks (except Hammer of Wrath) are AP2.

aemon wrote:
The main issue here is that Charistoph and the other assume that a Stomp attck isn't a "close combat attack."

Can you provide incontrovertible proof that a Stomp Attack IS a close combat attack? So far, we've only had circumstantial. So far we know it is a Special Attack, with nothing else to define it as either close combat or shooting aside from location and timing.

aemon wrote:
But when you look at the rules for the Fight Sub-Phase the first time the specific phrase "close combat attack" is used in actually in the rules concerning cover saves (pg52). Up until that point only attacks in close combat are mentioned. Now according to the index Close Combat attacks are explained on page 49, but they never use the term there. So we only can assume that "close combat attacks" are the same as "attacks in close combat". Now on pg 49 it states in the Number of Attacks paragrahp which and how much attacks a model has. One of the ways as specified by the Other Bonusses section is by a special rule.

So, circumstantial assumptions are used to define close combat attacks? That has been the problem in both threads.

aemon wrote:
And guess what Stomp is a special rule that states a SHW engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.

Necron Nightbringer's Gaze of Death happens in the Shooting Phase, does that make it a Shooting Attack? No, it does not. Location alone does not define what type an Attack is.

aemon wrote:
So here we have an attack in combat provided y a special rule. So according to the rules that state what a close combat attack is and how a model can get these attacks, this special attack is an "Attack in Close Combat" which is the same as a "Close Combat Attack".

So no guys, you are not allowed to make cover saves for a Stomp Attack.

Except not all Stomp Attacks may be in close combat. It may start there, but some of it may hit units that are not in any Engagement or be affected by close combat attacks.

So no, it is not a close combat attack. It's not a shooting attack. It is a special attack called Stomp. Cover Saves are not specifically denied, but they are not specifically allowed, either. It can easily be argued that the initial Stomp (and sometimes only) will usually happen in close combat (though, it is possible that it may not, though that is hard to set up), so it could be argued that Cover Saves are not allowed there. However, for Stomp Attacks that hit beyond the Engagement the Super-Heavy is involved in, they could easily be argued as not close combat attacks, but something else. The ability to take Cover Saves in these instances is where it is grey and not well defined.

There are really only two options here. Either Stomp allows cover saves, or Stomp is always AP2

Yes, but that would be true nay if those arguing the unsupportable argument were consistent.

They want it to be a close combat attack, despite it not being so, but don't want to admit that makes stomp ap2, when clearly it isn't meant to be.

As predicted, still no answer to whether cover saves can be taken from vehicles exploding in any phase, or whether destroyer hive is a close combat attack....

The answer must lie in the cover save text for the Assault Phase!

Pg52
"Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds suffered from close combat attacks, and for obvious reasons, cannot Go to Ground - there is nowhere to hide!"

Except this last bit contradicts the state of the game! If you're stomping into cover a distance away, there clearly IS a place to hide! Lots of them, in fact.