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.

If the target is obscured and suffers a glance/Pen, you get a cover save.

the context tells us that "Target" means vehicle.

Necron - yawn, take your trolling elsewhere please. You dont get cover saves against close combat attacks because the rules specify you dont. Which had already been mentioned in this thread, I guess they were just more inconvenient words for you to ignore?

AS DR says above - you have permission to take cover saves, and a requirement to take the best save you have (p24) - so if you HAVE a cover save you MJST take it if it is better than your armour / invulnerable save.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Necron - yawn, take your trolling elsewhere please. You dont get cover saves against close combat attacks because the rules specify you dont. Which had already been mentioned in this thread, I guess they were just more inconvenient words for you to ignore?

AS DR says above - you have permission to take cover saves, and a requirement to take the best save you have (p24) - so if you HAVE a cover save you MJST take it if it is better than your armour / invulnerable save.

Cover saves in both the pg 21 section and vehicle section page 62 repeatedly refer to being " fired" at. In every situation cover saves refer back to ranged attacks the only exception is the one bullet point on page 62, however this does not mean that every other rule and reference to shooting is ignored on page 21 and 62. You are bending rules to your advantage in doing so, and it is incorrect to do so in the absence of a specific rule giving permission to take cover saves against ramming attacks. Please take your incorrect information elsewhere.

Cover saves need to be denied. Rams do not. See: mawlok, Doom of malantai, et al.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:
Do you not in fact have permission in the shooting phase to do that. Not in every phase. Given that the rules for cover are found in the chapter entitled The Shooting Phase? Why assume that it applies outside this phase?

I was just reading through this thread and I though of an answer for this question, if a vehicle explodes beside my unit in the assault phase and it's explosion can wound my unit and does so. I may make a cover save against it if my unit is in cover.

kirsanth wrote:Cover saves need to be denied. Rams do not. See: mawlok, Doom of malantai, et al.

FAQ grants specific permission:

WARHAMMER 40,000: 4
Q: Can cover saves be taken against wounds inflicted
by the Doom of Malan’tai’s Spirit Leech ability? (p58)
A: Yes.

Q: Can I take cover saves from a Mawloc’s Terror from
the Deep attack? (p51)
A: Yes.

Assumed permission to use a Cover Save against all types of attacks is therefore denied unless specifically allowed to do so.

If they switch the turn order and describe saves in the assault phase, are people going to claim cover does not work against shooting?

That is what is happening here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NecronLord3 wrote:Assumed permission to use a Cover Save against all types of attacks is therefore denied unless specifically allowed to do so.

That was an FAQ, not errata.
It is clarifying intent.

All available saves can(and in fact must) be taken unless denied. (Which makes them unavailable.)

A model with a cover save must use it if it is a better save. It is not even an option.

I think the issue isn't can a cover save be used, RAW give no reason why not, sorry if this steps on any toes.

BUT I am not seeing a reason why a cover save would be granted as when you are in b2b contact you can more or less see +50% of the model.
If we are going on the area terrain reason(personally I think area terrain can eat me, never liked it) then shouldn't both of the tanks get to make a cover save?

@liturgies of blood: we were discussing the KFF that the orks have. it grants obscured status to vehicles even if the vehcle is 100% visible to the enemy.

That is why they get a cover save, because they have wargear that does not care if you can see more than 50% of the vehicle or not.

Ok, I wasn't sure if people were just talking about that as it seemed to break down into "Are you the troll or am I?" for a while there.

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Necron - yawn, take your trolling elsewhere please. You dont get cover saves against close combat attacks because the rules specify you dont. Which had already been mentioned in this thread, I guess they were just more inconvenient words for you to ignore?

AS DR says above - you have permission to take cover saves, and a requirement to take the best save you have (p24) - so if you HAVE a cover save you MJST take it if it is better than your armour / invulnerable save.

Cover saves in both the pg 21 section and vehicle section page 62 repeatedly refer to being " fired" at. In every situation cover saves refer back to ranged attacks the only exception is the one bullet point on page 62, however this does not mean that every other rule and reference to shooting is ignored on page 21 and 62. You are bending rules to your advantage in doing so, and it is incorrect to do so in the absence of a specific rule giving permission to take cover saves against ramming attacks. Please take your incorrect information elsewhere.

Under a KFF i HAVE a cover save, permanently. From page 24 I HAVE to use it.

Sorry but youare, yet again, entirely missing the point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Under a KFF i HAVE a cover save, permanently. From page 24 I HAVE to use it.

Sorry but youare, yet again, entirely missing the point.

You are again making up rules that do not exist.

It doesn't change that cover saves are not permitted against ramming attacks.

Do you honestly believe that if GW does another 5th edition FAQ they would answer yes, the cover saves may be taken against ramming attacks?

NecronLord3 wrote:cover saves are not permitted against ramming attacks.

This is false.
Nothing in ramming attacks mention cover saves, which are allowed unless denied - like all saves.

kirsanth wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:cover saves are not permitted against ramming attacks.

This is false.
Nothing in ramming attacks mention cover saves, which are allowed unless denied - like all saves.

Cover saves are permitted against attacks that are fired. Is the ram fired?

The problem with your argument Necron is vehicles have general permission to take cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits. They are only specifically prohibited from taking them against CC attacks (AFAIK).

I do not think there are any references to be found that state 'you cannot take a cover save from a ram'

You cannot extrapolate the negative (that cover saves are prohibited) from an FAQ that says 'yes you can against TFTD' and "Yes you can against Spirit Leech'

NecronLord3 wrote:Cover saves are permitted against attacks

Fixed.

All attacks are described as "Fired" in the shooting section.
Then the rest of the rules require those rules be used.

Where else do you see rules for resolving saves, for example?

NecronLord3 wrote:Cover saves are permitted against attacks that are fired. Is the ram fired?

I didn't see - did you cite that restriction somewhere?
Or are you going to also argue that KFF doesn't protect against Imotekh's lightning storm?

You're allowed to take cover/armor/invul saves against wounds/glance|pen.
CC attacks specifically disallow cover saves.

Is the ram a CC attack? Does it have a rule saying no cover saves? Is the vehicle obscured?

If you answer no, no, yes to the above, you get a cover save. And the rules support that.

kirsanth wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Cover saves are permitted against attacks

Fixed.

All attacks are described as "Fired" in the shooting section.
Then the rest of the rules require those rules be used.

Where else do you see rules for resolving saves, for example?

So you ignore the rules on page 39 for taking saves during the assault?

Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Under a KFF i HAVE a cover save, permanently. From page 24 I HAVE to use it.

Sorry but youare, yet again, entirely missing the point.

You are again making up rules that do not exist.

It doesn't change that cover saves are not permitted against ramming attacks.

Do you honestly believe that if GW does another 5th edition FAQ they would answer yes, the cover saves may be taken against ramming attacks?

So the rules on page 24 dont exist? What about KFF, which gives you obscured (and thus a 4+ cover save) at all times? The mind boggles with just how much you make up and troll threads.

You have simply made up another set of NecronLord rules that have no basis in actual rules, further diluting any remaining credibility you have in any thread you participate in. Which rules are you ignoring that you find inconvenient now?

I have a 4+ cover save. I am required to use it, and have permission to do so. You have yet to find any single rule that matches the stuff you have made up, and so can be safely ignored.

NecronLord3 wrote:Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting

kirsanth wrote:No, I just do not apply that rule outside of close combat - since it has no bearing outside of close combat.

Just as Cover Saves have no bearing outside of Shooting.

NecronLord3 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:No, I just do not apply that rule outside of close combat - since it has no bearing outside of close combat.

Just as Cover Saves have to bearing outside of Shooting.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Cover saves are permitted against attacks that are fired. Is the ram fired?

I didn't see - did you cite that restriction somewhere?
Or are you going to also argue that KFF doesn't protect against Imotekh's lightning storm?

You're allowed to take cover/armor/invul saves against wounds/glance|pen.
CC attacks specifically disallow cover saves.

Is the ram a CC attack? Does it have a rule saying no cover saves? Is the vehicle obscured?

If you answer no, no, yes to the above, you get a cover save. And the rules support that.

There is no definite answer as to whether Imotekh's Lighting Strikes allow a cover save. The INAT covers it and that is good enough for me and exactly how I expect GW to rule on it if they ever address it.

NecronLord3 wrote:There is no definite answer as to whether Imotekh's Lighting Strikes allow a cover save. The INAT covers it and that is good enough for me and exactly how I expect GW to rule on it if they ever address it.

So you're just going to ignore the implications of my question, and the rest of my post?

There is nothing that restricts cover saves to shooting only. Not a single rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:There is no definite answer as to whether Imotekh's Lighting Strikes allow a cover save. The INAT covers it and that is good enough for me and exactly how I expect GW to rule on it if they ever address it.

So you're just going to ignore the implications of my question, and the rest of my post?

There is nothing that restricts cover saves to shooting only. Not a single rule.

The rest of your question is irrelevant. As the Cover Save rule (in the shooting section of the BRB) is only relevant to shooting attacks and other attacks that function like ranged combat, explosions pscychic attacks etc. Cover Saves are specifically mentioned to be used when fired upon, and reiterated to only be used against shooting attacks in the Assault section of the rule book.

KFF does not give a Cover Save in every situation only those which a cover save would be permitted. Ramming is not one of those situations.

NecronLord3 wrote:As the Cover Save rule (in the shooting section of the BRB) is only relevant to shooting attacks and other attacks that function like ranged combat, explosions pscychic attacks etc. Cover Saves are specifically mentioned to be used when fired upon, and reiterated to only be used against shooting attacks in the Assault section of the rule book.

You haven't cited a rule that supports that.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:As the Cover Save rule (in the shooting section of the BRB) is only relevant to shooting attacks and other attacks that function like ranged combat, explosions pscychic attacks etc. Cover Saves are specifically mentioned to be used when fired upon, and reiterated to only be used against shooting attacks in the Assault section of the rule book.

You haven't cited a rule that supports that.

I have:

A position in cover shield troops troops against flying Debris and enemy shots.

units in cover will normally get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them.

Page 21

Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting

Page 39

Just because something is not a shooting attack does not make it a close combat attack.

You are conflating them.

kirsanth wrote:Just because something is not a shooting attack does not make it a close combat attack.

You are conflating them.

Never said it was. But it isn't a ranged attack or the equivalent of flying debris either. Which Cover Saves are only permitted against.

NecronLord3 wrote:Never said it was. But it isn't a ranged attack or the equivalent of flying debris either. Which Cover Saves are only permitted against.

So you say, but the rules do not. Ever.

Again, which is the Spirit Leech?
Since it HAS to be a shooting attack to allow cover, you are saying the DoM can never use its ACTUAL shooting attack?


Editing to add:
You inference may be a legitimate attempt from them to imply what you are saying.
There is simply not a rule that agrees with you.
Maybe context, but you misread if you think so.