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.

Gorkamorka wrote: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.

You can only take cover saves vs shooting attacks.

Unfortunately, the rules are ambiguous on what is a shooting attack.

We have no idea if a vehicle explosion is a shooting attack. We have no idea if a mawloc's ds blast is a shooting attack.

It's left up to the players to determine if an attack is a shooting attack and to see if a cover save is warranted.

imweasel wrote:
You can only take cover saves vs shooting attacks.

Unfortunately, the rules are ambiguous on what is a shooting attack.

We have no idea if a vehicle explosion is a shooting attack. We have no idea if a mawloc's ds blast is a shooting attack.

It's left up to the players to determine if an attack is a shooting attack and to see if a cover save is warranted.

Almost nothing in your post is true.

The only restrictions on taking cover saving throws are specific ones, as in templates or CC attacks.
Vehicular explosions are resolved as shooting.
And actual shooting attacks are almost universally clearly typed as such in the rules.

Gorkamorka wrote:Almost nothing in your post is true.

The only restrictions on taking cover saving throws are specific ones, as in templates or CC attacks.
Vehicular explosions are resolved as shooting.
And actual shooting attacks are almost universally clearly typed as such in the rules.

No, the restrictions on taking cover saving throws are restricted to shooting attacks. 40k is a permissive rules set. You need to have permission to take cover saves outside of shooting.

Vehicular explosions are resolved as shooting? Rules and page please.

The mawloc's ds attack is 'almost universally clearly typed as such in the rules'? Rules and page please that define what kind of attack this is.

There are many attacks that are 'not defined' and are left up to the players to determine what kind of attack it really represents.

imweasel wrote:
No, the restrictions on taking cover saving throws are restricted to shooting attacks. 40k is a permissive rules set. You need to have permission to take cover saves outside of shooting.

Vehicular explosions are resolved as shooting? Rules and page please.

The mawloc's ds attack is 'almost universally clearly typed as such in the rules'? Rules and page please that define what kind of attack this is.

There are many attacks that are 'not defined' and are left up to the players to determine what kind of attack it really represents.

The saving throw rules give you permission to take a saving throw against wounds. They have to be denied to not apply. A cover saving throw is a saving throw. Nowhere in the cover rules is a shooting attacks only restriction placed on saving throws granted by cover, anywhere. You are fabricating it. In fact, no restrictions are placed on it at all until other rules later in the book.

In the rules for vehicle damage effects, on page 67.

The mawlocs ds attack is not a shooting attack. It has no type, and it doesn't need one. That does not mean that things that are shooting attacks are not labeled as such or that we should apply labels to unlabeled attacks as you claim.

If you'd read the thread you'd know all of this. All of these points have been covered.

Gorkamorka wrote:Almost nothing in my post is true.

Fixed

imweasel wrote:There are many attacks that are 'not defined' and are left up to the players to determine what kind of attack it really represents.

By that statement, you are saying that Games Workshop builds games that are intentionally ambiguous with the intent of making the game play completely different from store to store, or even table to table within one store. I doubt very highly that their intent is to make the rules confusing, though they sometimes succeed in doing just that.

That said, there is nowhere in the book that states that cover saves are exclusive to shooting, and as far as I can tell, nothing to support to the rest of your claims.

Carnuss wrote:By that statement, you are saying that Games Workshop builds games that are intentionally ambiguous with the intent of making bucketloads of cash as people rush to buy broken and overpowered models for their armies only for them to be nerfed come FAQ/new codex and thus forcing them to buy a whole new round of models for even more buckets of cash.

Fix'd

It is probably worth noting that the Mawloc rules use a shooting attack profile to specify how things are wounded. Str 6 AP2 only applies to shooting attacks (or vehicle explosions, which have been demonstrated as being the same thing.) If it were a melee style attack, the rule should read something like:
"All models under the large blast marker suffer an automatic Str 6 hit with no armor saves allowed."

Of the two methods of dealing hits and wounds we know of, only shooting uses AP. Melee, the other, uses power weapon/no armor saves allowed.

Now, of course it is possible that GW inadvertantly invented a new method of dealing damage that they did not clearly define. However, they did this back with the Eldar codex with Swooping Hawks, if at all. It seems more likely that any attack with a profile of type "StrX APy 'Description of Stuff'" is a shooting attack, as described by shooting attack profiles.

Wehrkind wrote:It is probably worth noting that the Mawloc rules use a shooting attack profile to specify how things are wounded. Str 6 AP2 only applies to shooting attacks (or vehicle explosions, which have been demonstrated as being the same thing.) If it were a melee style attack, the rule should read something like:
"All models under the large blast marker suffer an automatic Str 6 hit with no armor saves allowed."

Just because an attack has an ap value, doesn't make it a shooting attack.

Unless you are stating if an attack has a str and ap rating it makes it a shooting attack?

imweasel wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:It is probably worth noting that the Mawloc rules use a shooting attack profile to specify how things are wounded. Str 6 AP2 only applies to shooting attacks (or vehicle explosions, which have been demonstrated as being the same thing.) If it were a melee style attack, the rule should read something like:
"All models under the large blast marker suffer an automatic Str 6 hit with no armor saves allowed."

Just because an attack has an ap value, doesn't make it a shooting attack.

Unless you are stating if an attack has a str and ap rating it makes it a shooting attack?

I am in fact saying just that. I will check my BRB at lunch though; I might be thinking of a rule from 4th that specified that as the case. Or conflating psychic shooting attacks' definition as have a weapons profile. I am really pretty certain that anything with an AP value is a shooting attack by definition, while melee attacks (the only other type) either allow armor saves or do not.

Of course there is the whole dangerous terrain thing, but that specifies no cover saves, and isn't due to unit actions.

Wehrkind wrote:I am in fact saying just that. I will check my BRB at lunch though; I might be thinking of a rule from 4th that specified that as the case. Or conflating psychic shooting attacks' definition as have a weapons profile. I am really pretty certain that anything with an AP value is a shooting attack by definition, while melee attacks (the only other type) either allow armor saves or do not.

Interesting. According to your definition, successful rending attacks are shooting attacks.

But applying your line of thinking, since mawloc's attack always hits rear armor on vehicles, it must be a cc attack?

a moderator wrote:

There are too many complaints coming off this thread.

Everyone please make sure to moderate your comments or some action will have to be taken.

Thank you.

Don't even have the codex. But im certain you're allowed no cover. Its obvious IMO.

kirsanth wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:Almost nothing in my post is true.

Fixed

Kirsanth, just saying someone is wrong, without actually refuting what was said, is trolling. It's against the Dakka rules, and you know it. Either ignore the post, or describe why you think it's so wrong.

@ imWeasel

I would reason that the Mawloc ability his rear armour for the same reason mines hit rear armour, it represents the attack coming up and hitting the thinly armoured underbelly of the tank.

imweasel wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:I am in fact saying just that. I will check my BRB at lunch though; I might be thinking of a rule from 4th that specified that as the case. Or conflating psychic shooting attacks' definition as have a weapons profile. I am really pretty certain that anything with an AP value is a shooting attack by definition, while melee attacks (the only other type) either allow armor saves or do not.

Interesting. According to your definition, successful rending attacks are shooting attacks.

But applying your line of thinking, since mawloc's attack always hits rear armor on vehicles, it must be a cc attack?

Ok I checked at lunch, and while only weapons defined in the shooting section of the rules have the full profile that the mawloc trick has, and melee weapons only have the description of what they do (doubles str, does not allow armor saves etc.) it does not specify that having the profile automatically means it is a shooting attack in the Shooting Section.

I would point out though, that I think Rending says shooting attacks are AP1 and melee Rending ignores armor saves. I will check that when I get home. (I wish I had seen that before lunch )

Also, a ranged weapon always hitting a certain side is not unheard of, and is merely a function of its rules. Examples are spore mines, barrage weapons, etc. A weapon that always hits on rear armor is not different from a weapon that ignores cover saves, or counts all armor values as no higher than 12 and the like.

Again, if the attack were a melee attack from the mawloc, listing an AP or defining which side of the vehicle it hits would not be necessary; as a monsterous critter each attack would negate armor and not allow FNP saves, and all melee attacks hit rear armor. Really, the fact that they felt the need to point out that it was AP2 (ignores armor) and always hits on rear armor seems to imply that it is a shooting attack, and so those effects can not be implied from the nature of the beast.

Wehrkind wrote:I would point out though, that I think Rending says shooting attacks are AP1 and melee Rending ignores armor saves. I will check that when I get home. (I wish I had seen that before lunch )

No

Any roll to wound of 6 with a rending weapon automatically causes a wound, regardless of the target's Toughness, and counts as AP2. Against vehicles, an armour penetration roll of 6 allows a further D3 to be rolled, with the result added to the total score.

Ok, I didn't have my book on hand. Thanks for quoting the rule.

doubled wrote:@ imWeasel

I would reason that the Mawloc ability his rear armour for the same reason mines hit rear armour, it represents the attack coming up and hitting the thinly armoured underbelly of the tank.

True. Or it could be considered a cc attack.

No one knows and we will have to wait several months to find out.

Gwar! wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:I would point out though, that I think Rending says shooting attacks are AP1 and melee Rending ignores armor saves. I will check that when I get home. (I wish I had seen that before lunch )

No

Any roll to wound of 6 with a rending weapon automatically causes a wound, regardless of the target's Toughness, and counts as AP2. Against vehicles, an armour penetration roll of 6 allows a further D3 to be rolled, with the result added to the total score.

Would that not mean that by RAW, Rending doesn't ignore Armour saves since CC attacks don't have an AP value?

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:Would that not mean that by RAW, Rending doesn't ignore Armour saves since CC attacks don't have an AP value?

I suppose successful cc rending attacks do have an ap value.

That quote is from the Weapons section describing rending. Appropriately, the CCW section has this to say about rending on CCWs:

brb p.42 wrote:... a rending close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat, the opponent automatically suffers a wound, regardless of its Toughness. These wounds count as wounds from a power weapon. Against vehicles, and armor penetration roll of 6 allows a further d3 to be rolled, with the result added to the total score.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I find imweasel's response frustrating. Why would you provide an answer like that? You didn't look up any rules but tried to confirm how rules worked. This type of posting - not looking at rules, leads to alot of unnecessary repetition and confusion in threads found in YMDC.

Dracos wrote:I find imweasel's response frustrating. Why would you provide an answer like that? You didn't look up any rules but tried to confirm how rules worked. This type of posting - not looking at rules, leads to alot of unnecessary repetition and confusion in threads found in YMDC.

Provide an answer like what? I am interested in seeing how people 'play by the rules'.

You said "i suppose cc attacks have ap".

CC attacks never have AP values. Saying so demonstrates a fundamental lack of rules knowledge, and certainly a lack of looking up the rule in question.

The rules for rending weapons are clear that they act as power weapons(edit: on a roll of 6 to wound of course). The fact that you were unaware of this just shows you didn't bother to look up the rules but you posted about the rule anyways. Why would you post about a rule without looking it up first?

Posting without looking up the rules can only lead to confusion and mistaken assumptions. For instance, now we have 3 posts when you could have just not posted, and waited for someone who knew the answer/was willing to look up the answer.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess what I'm really saying is that I found it frustrating that your broke the first tenet of YMDC:

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give a basis for a statement; without this, there can be no debate.

He's being sarcastic. The Mawloc's Gonna Eatcha template can't be considered a shooting attack just because it has an AP value; if that was a meaningful criteria then close combat rending attacks could be called shooting attacks, too.

Has ANYONE read Gorkamorka's posts? He's clearly laid out that cover saves can be taken against any wounds, irregardless of how they are received. This is covered in the saves section and means you always get a save (against wounds) unless you are specifically denied it. It does not say you have to take them from shooting attacks all it says is you take them from wounds. At that point shooting is the only way you could have taken a wound but later the Assault phase shows another way as do the psychic and Vehicle rules.

The rules allow you to take a save against any wound it does not state this applies only to shooting. Hence why it specifies cover saves do not apply to Assault and in other cases that cover saves do not apply (i.e. perils of the warp). Why would it have this if cover saves were not allowed except for shooting?

sourclams wrote:He's being sarcastic. The Mawloc's Gonna Eatcha template can't be considered a shooting attack just because it has an AP value; if that was a meaningful criteria then close combat rending attacks could be called shooting attacks, too.

What CC attack has AP?

Edit: Rather than waiting, and since Rending is the only answer you'll give, it takes the time to clarify it is treated like a power weapon as well. If you can prove that anything besides shooting attacks have an AP value, your statement is valid.

Gwar! wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:I would point out though, that I think Rending says shooting attacks are AP1 and melee Rending ignores armor saves. I will check that when I get home. (I wish I had seen that before lunch )

No

Any roll to wound of 6 with a rending weapon automatically causes a wound, regardless of the target's Toughness, and counts as AP2. Against vehicles, an armour penetration roll of 6 allows a further D3 to be rolled, with the result added to the total score.

Actually, you are incorrect GWAR. Shooting weapons with Rending autowound and count as AP2 on a 6 to wound, as per page 31 of the mini rule book. However, MELEE rending autowounds and COUNTS AS A POWER WEAPON on rolls of 6 to wound, as per page 42 of the mini rule book.

So, yea, my point stands that melee attacks do not have an AP value, only shooting attacks. Also, Melta bombs (and other grenades) also do not have an AP value attached to them, as they can only be used in melee. Just another example.

Edit: That answers Sourclams' post as well: Melee rending does NOT have an AP value. Instead it only counts as a power weapon. Similarly, shooting rending has AP, not power weapon qualities.

Apparently the "AP value defense" is as strong as the Chewbacca defense

This is not strictly true. Pistols have AP, but it ignored since they count as normal close combat weapon. Regardless (not irregardless), even if no CCWs have an AP, that does not mean they cannot.

As for being able to take any save available, this is true. And the rules for cover saves, as quoted in numerous places, let you know when cover saves are available.

Also, there is page 39 under Taking Saves.
"Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting." Oddly, people use that as justification for taking cover saves from things other than for shooting.