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.

The basic question is whether a vehicle either in Cover or that gains cover from a special ability (Jink) for example can take a cover save against a Psychic Malediction pg 68 (Objuration Mechanicum pg 422)that causes a glancing or penetrating hit. (and why? or why not?)

Vehicles take cover saves against glancing/penetrating hits the same way a non-vehicle model takes saves against wounds.

An infantry unit would not get a cover save because there are no wounds allocated. The vehicle on the other has an automatic hit assigned to hit.

No units get a cover save(or jink) as it is a Malediction and not a Witchfire power. The only save you get is your Deny the Witch.

 Gloomfang wrote:
No units get a cover save(or jink) as it is a Malediction and not a Witchfire power. The only save you get is your Deny the Witch.

Incorrect, it suffersa S1 hit with the Haywire rule, which generates glancing or penetrating hits. You receive cov er saves against Glancing or penetrating hits. Find a rule saying they do not, as there is a BRB rule saying they can take a cover save, if they have one

It's an auto hit haywire, essentially, since it's a malediction and not a witchfire.

Maledictions are not shooting attacks, and are manifested in the movement phase. You only get cover saves from shooting attacks, or we'd get cover from Imotekh's lightning and such.

You do get cover from Imotekh, only you only get cover from non-LOS effects, like a KFF or area terrain for nonvehicles.

You get cover saves except when explicitly denied, essentially. Reference Mawloc TftD

This needs to be faq'd.
Shooting attacks always define what saves are available, if it doesn't all saves are available.

This isn't a shooting attack, its a psychic attack in the movement phase, end result if deny the witch fails is a haywire hit.

Psychic test.
Deny the Witch
It hits
Roll for Haywire

Just because the end result is a haywire hit does not signify you get a save.
It's like suggesting you get cover saves against other Malediction's which you clearly do not.

The confusion is the end result "A Haywire Hit".

Should be FAQ'd, will it get included in FAQ? Probably not.
Will people still claim a cover save? More than likely.

 L0rdF1end wrote:
It's like suggesting you get cover saves against other Malediction's which you clearly do not.

You clearly don't because none of the other ones cause wounds/glancing or penetrating hits. If they did, you would.

Should be FAQ'd, will it get included in FAQ? Probably not.
Will people still claim a cover save? More than likely.

An they absolutely should - you cannot point to a rule denying the cover save and I can point to a rule allowing a cover save against all penetrating/glancing hits.

Yes, and haywire can result in a penetrating or glancing hit. Which you DO get a save against.

Crazyterran wrote:
You only get cover saves from shooting attacks...

That's not true. I don't know why "no cover saves against close combat" routinely gets transcribed in people's minds to "only cover saves against shooting", but the former is true and the latter is not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, and haywire can result in a penetrating or glancing hit. Which you DO get a save against.

How do you determine a cover save from something that does not require LOS? (Just wondering)

Also your Hit resolution is off on determing if you get a cover save.

You call the results from Haywire a hit, but that is not a hit. It is the RESULT of a hit. Once the vehicle is hit you roll to detrime if there are any other effects. The results can count as a glancing hit or a penetrating hit.

You'd get a cover save if you had one (though not due to obscured, it would have to be area terrain / smoke / etc.). You just would not get the opportunity to do things like Evade, because there's no Roll to Hit. So, Flyers are SOL vs. Ob Mech (b/c they won't have yet had the opportunity to Evade against anything else, and so would not be Jinking), but skimmers that moved and smoked vehicles and the like would get a shot at stopping it.

 Gloomfang wrote:
The results can count as a glancing hit or a penetrating hit.

And that's what you get cover saves against.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Gloomfang wrote:
The results can count as a glancing hit or a penetrating hit.

And that's what you get cover saves against.

Again, how do you determine the cover save? Is it only units in area terrain? Jink? KFF? I can see a case being made for those particular types of cover save (maybe).

Need to go through my rulebook when I get home and form a better response.

There is no firing model, so cover saves dependent on LOS from the firing model to determine if you get them dont happen. KFF, Flickerfield ALL would be allowed, as Haywire can generate a penetrating or glancing hit (not a counts as, either, it IS a hit)

You don't get cover saves from non shooting attacks, like command barges sweeping etc, so IMO you don't get a cover save from OM. Invulnerable saves are allowed.

All glandes/pens allow for cover saves with any exception explicitly worded ie command barge sweeping specifically disallows cover saves.

Jpr wrote:
You don't get cover saves from non shooting attacks, like command barges sweeping etc, so IMO you don't get a cover save from OM. Invulnerable saves are allowed.

This is completely wrong. It is other way around: You don't get cover against close combat attacks and other attacks that specifically deny you cover save. So no cover save against sweep attack from Chariot is because rules explicitly say so.
But you do get cover save against FMC Vector Strike because it doesn't say you don't. And same applies to OM.

Nos already pointed out that you might not get cover save based on LOS though.

Jpr wrote:
You don't get cover saves from non shooting attacks, like command barges sweeping etc, so IMO you don't get a cover save from OM. Invulnerable saves are allowed.

Rules citation required. Hint - there isn't one.
Something has to explicitly deny a cover save before you are unable to take it.

lets go through this step by step. First, the psyker casting a malediction is not firing, or a shooting model (page 68). They are powers that inflict specail rules and reducing characteristics. Secondly, cover saves for vehicles specifically calls for the facing of the targeted vehicle to be at least 25% obscured form the firer.(page 74) This would also discount Nos assertion (the third bullet point) because it directly calls for the vehicle to be obscured. Which is defined in the first bullet point. Which we can only determine if the model is firing.

With all this in mind, you must prove you can take a cover save because it is a permissive rule set. Rather then have to be denied one, because of the afore mentioned information.

You are aware that things like smoke launchers and kustom force fields are perfectly capable of providing a cover save even at 100% visibility? Your argument relies on a rule that doesn't apply in the first place.

BTW, if there's no firer, then you can't see any of the vehicle from the firer's position, so it's 100% obscured.

For my own part, when it's perfectly clear where the effect is originating from, I don't think it's appropriate to get hung up on whether it counts as "firing".

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
With all this in mind, you must prove you can take a cover save because it is a permissive rule set. Rather then have to be denied one, because of the afore mentioned information.

I have a KFF or smoke, or Jink cover save.
I have permission to take a cover save any time I receive a penetrating or glancing hit - Page 75 (stronger than permission - a requirement).
I must roll the cover save if I receive a glancing or penetrating hit.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
With all this in mind, you must prove you can take a cover save because it is a permissive rule set. Rather then have to be denied one, because of the afore mentioned information.

I have a KFF or smoke, or Jink cover save.
I have permission to take a cover save any time I receive a penetrating or glancing hit - Page 75 (stronger than permission - a requirement).
I must roll the cover save if I receive a glancing or penetrating hit.

Ringeld you must find out how to detemine if you do count as being obscured before you can claim a cover save. Therefore, must go back to the first bullet point which tells you exaclty how to detemine obscured, this does not give you permission to take said cover save. You have to fulfill all requirements of the text, in order to benefit from the cover saves rule. Which is how you determine a cover save is available. If you cannot fulfill the requirements to count as obscured (in this case there is no firer, but there is a caster of a Malediction which, btw is not a psykic shooting attack) you cannot say a cover save is allowed or even manditory.


Pyrain I am aware of the use of smoke launchers and KFF's, but in the rules RAW, you must have a firer in order to figure out if you are obscured or not in all cases (Page17 for models other than vehicles).

Page 422 BRB Objuration Mechanicum
"Objuration Mechanicum is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must reroll To Hit and To Wound rolls of 6. In addition, if the target is a vehicle (or vehicle squadron), each vehicle in the unit has a strenght 1 hit with the haywire special rule allocated to it (roll separately for each). "

Quote maintained copied straight from book.

So please tell me where you can determine that there is a firer to count as obscured, or even have a cover save to take, mandatory or not.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
With all this in mind, you must prove you can take a cover save because it is a permissive rule set. Rather then have to be denied one, because of the afore mentioned information.

I have a KFF or smoke, or Jink cover save.
I have permission to take a cover save any time I receive a penetrating or glancing hit - Page 75 (stronger than permission - a requirement).
I must roll the cover save if I receive a glancing or penetrating hit.

Ringeld you must find out how to detemine if you do count as being obscured before you can claim a cover save. Therefore, must go back to the first bullet point which tells you exaclty how to detemine obscured, this does not give you permission to take said cover save. You have to fulfill all requirements of the text, in order to benefit from the cover saves rule. Which is how you determine a cover save is available. If you cannot fulfill the requirements to count as obscured (in this case there is no firer, but there is a caster of a Malediction which, btw is not a psykic shooting attack) you cannot say a cover save is allowed or even manditory.

Smoke Launchers say I'm obscured. (Page 87)
Jink doesn't, but I'd argue the intent is to allow it since you get it from rams.
I don't have access to the ork codex, but I'm pretty sure KFF says you're obscured.

I've fulfilled the requirements of the text - the model is obscured. I've taken a penetrating/glancing hit. Now, find something to deny that permission.

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't have access to the ork codex, but I'm pretty sure KFF says you're obscured.

It does indeed.
Cover saves for infantry, obscured for vehicles.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
With all this in mind, you must prove you can take a cover save because it is a permissive rule set. Rather then have to be denied one, because of the afore mentioned information.

I have a KFF or smoke, or Jink cover save.
I have permission to take a cover save any time I receive a penetrating or glancing hit - Page 75 (stronger than permission - a requirement).
I must roll the cover save if I receive a glancing or penetrating hit.

Ringeld you must find out how to detemine if you do count as being obscured before you can claim a cover save. Therefore, must go back to the first bullet point which tells you exaclty how to detemine obscured, this does not give you permission to take said cover save. You have to fulfill all requirements of the text, in order to benefit from the cover saves rule. Which is how you determine a cover save is available. If you cannot fulfill the requirements to count as obscured (in this case there is no firer, but there is a caster of a Malediction which, btw is not a psykic shooting attack) you cannot say a cover save is allowed or even manditory.

Smoke Launchers say I'm obscured. (Page 87)
Jink doesn't, but I'd argue the intent is to allow it since you get it from rams.
I don't have access to the ork codex, but I'm pretty sure KFF says you're obscured.

I've fulfilled the requirements of the text - the model is obscured. I've taken a penetrating/glancing hit. Now, find something to deny that permission.

Smoker launchers say in the next enemy shooting phase, so no cover there seeings how we are in the movement phase when the spell is cast....
Jink you have to play by the cover save rules which says you have to have a firer in order to get that cover save. Since there is no firer again, no cover.
what exactly does the KFF say if you would not mind grendel.

Also, by the defention given in the vehicles and cover-obscured targets section page 74. You are given a definition to what obscured means and how you apply it. So if you would care to take a look you are required to use the definition for obscured and use it in that manner. If you have a way to use those rules without the required "unit" firing at a vehicle I would like to see the text as that is not what it says in my BRB.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Also, by the defention given in the vehicles and cover-obscured targets section page 74. You are given a definition to what obscured means and how you apply it. So if you would care to take a look you are required to use the definition for obscured and use it in that manner. If you have a way to use those rules without the required "unit" firing at a vehicle I would like to see the text as that is not what it says in my BRB.

I'll give you Smoke Launchers - again, I'd argue intent but not RAW.
KFF makes any vehicle within range count as obscured.
Obscured vehicles must - not may - make a cover save against any penetrating or glancing hit.

Page 75 BRB wrote:If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a wood and so on).

The malediction has a target, so that is satisfied. The vehicle is obscured, so that's satisfied.
If you are obscured, you get a save against OM.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Also, by the defention given in the vehicles and cover-obscured targets section page 74. You are given a definition to what obscured means and how you apply it. So if you would care to take a look you are required to use the definition for obscured and use it in that manner. If you have a way to use those rules without the required "unit" firing at a vehicle I would like to see the text as that is not what it says in my BRB.

I'll give you Smoke Launchers - again, I'd argue intent but not RAW.
KFF makes any vehicle within range count as obscured.
Obscured vehicles must - not may - make a cover save against any penetrating or glancing hit.

Page 75 BRB wrote:If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a wood and so on).

The malediction has a target, so that is satisfied. The vehicle is obscured, so that's satisfied.
If you are obscured, you get a save against OM.

All well and good, I agree RAI, with you. Raw on the other hand does not agree with us. Unfortunatly this is a RAW forum and I am trying to do my best to sticking to it.

You are forgetting to apply what obscured means to the situation. Again the way you find out what obscured means and how to apply any rules that state as such you have to follow those rules in the BRB unless they give another definition to what obscured means in a codex. So before you can say "Ha I obscured because KFF says so, and I am going to roll my cover save." You have to see what situations you are allowed to use obscured in. In the first bullet point in that section it tells you exactly what I am saying. I will quote it here so there can be no confusion.

page 74 vehicles and cover-obscured targets

First bullet point

"At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the FIRER for the vehcile to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or 'hull down'). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.

emphasis mine to show context. Context being that it is referencing the need for a model to fire to use these rule.

This section details the definition of obscured. How we use it, and what instances you can claim these and use these rules. Unfortunately RAW disagrees with the use of cover in the case of Objuration Mechanicum.

The Third bullet point which you are referencing tells us that you must take a cover save. I am saying that cover saves as written in the BRB in both section (page 17 and page 74-75) deny us the ability to use cover saves. Since there is no firer there is no cover to be had.....

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
The Third bullet point which you are referencing tells us that you must take a cover save. I am saying that cover saves as written in the BRB in both section (page 17 and page 74-75) deny us the ability to use cover saves. Since there is no firer there is no cover to be had.....

Wrong.
Page 75 says that obscured vehicles must take cover saves against pen/glancing hits.
The vehicle is obscured (by the definition in KFF). The vehicle takes a pen/glancing hit.
Page 75 does not limit the cover save to only shooting - you're assuming that based on the first bullet point.