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.
2015/10/28 19:57:19
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
That really is an interesting pondering:
If permission to Save against a wound is not granted by default, then Saves can only be taken in situations that specifically mention Saving Throws....
If a Terminator is Stomped on and the result is a 3, does he get any Saves?
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
2015/10/28 20:40:11
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
JinxDragon wrote: That really is an interesting pondering:
If permission to Save against a wound is not granted by default, then Saves can only be taken in situations that specifically mention Saving Throws....
If a Terminator is Stomped on and the result is a 3, does he get any Saves?
Permission to save against a wound is granted in the fight sub-phase rules. Stomp relies on the Stomp rules and the rules of the fight sub-phase which allocates and resolve wounds at each initiative step.
The rule book could be written better and talk about 'default attacks' and 'default' this or that, which would help in cases like Stomp where the things we would like explicitly laid out simply are not explicitly laid out. But that's not the rule book we have.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/28 20:43:04
2015/10/28 20:43:00
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
Not sure why people are making up "special attacks"
if you can find the section on "special attacks" in the BRB quote it, or stop making it up.
Stomp is an attack. An attack in addition to a models normal attacks. Under stomp this is not spelled out specifically what it is.
Hammer of wrath uses the same wording as stomp, it is an attack. It happens when engaged in addition to a models normal attacks.
Smash, calls out hammer of wrath as a close combat attack.
If two rules happen at the same time (during fight sub phase- when blows are struck) and use the same wording for what they are, and one is specifically said to be a close combat attack within the rules of the game, albeit outside of its own rule, then obviously they are both close combat attacks.
there are no such things as special attacks.
There are a models normal attacks, and then there are rules/special rules that grant attacks in addition to a models normal attacks.
these attacks are all close combat attacks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/28 20:44:10
2015/10/28 20:46:07
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
Col_Impact, Can you quote the clause granting permission for Saves to be taken for me please, I am probably just overlooking it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/28 20:48:52
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
2015/10/28 20:51:58
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
JinxDragon wrote: Col_Impact,
Can you quote the clause granting permission for Saves to be taken for me please, I am probably just overlooking it.
Spoiler:
Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties
To determine how many casualties are caused at a particular Initiative step, you will need
to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed. If
several pools of Wounds need to be allocated, the player making the Attacks must decide
in which order they are allocated. All Wounds from a single pool must be allocated
before moving on to the next pool of Wounds.
Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in
the Shooting phase. However, as you’ll often have many models in base contact with
the enemy, there will be many models tied for the privilege of dying first.
To resolve casualty removal, allocate each Wound as follows:
• A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a
model attacking at that Initiative step. If there is more than one eligible candidate,
the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model it is allocated to.
Roll the model’s saving throw (if it has one) and remove the casualty (if necessary).
• If there are no enemy models in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative
step, the Wound is allocated to the next closest enemy model locked in that combat. If
two or more models are equidistant from the attack, the player controlling the models
being attacked chooses which model is closest. Take any save and remove the casualty
(if necessary).
In either case, once a model has a Wound allocated to it during an Initiative step, you
must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the
Wound pool is empty. Note that all of the models in the target unit may be hit,
wounded and removed as casualties during an Initiative step, including those
that are not engaged. You can speed this process up by allocating Wounds in groups
(see Fast Dice).
Allocating Wounds
Cover Saves
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!
Armour Saving Throws
Models can take armour saves to prevent Wounds caused in close combat – provided that
their armour is good enough, of course! As in the Shooting phase, if the Wound is caused
by a weapon with an AP that ignores the wounded model’s Armour Save, then the save
cannot be taken.
Invulnerable Saves
An invulnerable save can be made, if it is the best save available. It can even be made if a
model is not permitted to take an armour save (because the AP of the attack negates it or
the rules for a weapon or Attack state that no armour save is allowed).
2015/10/28 21:12:29
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
warhead01 wrote: I wasn't sure.
I saw the other thread but thought this was some kind of inside joke.
It was my understanding that cover saves were only granted to units who were hit by shooting attacks, which ever kind of shooting attacks. Stomp isn't listed any where I have seen as a shooting attack. Was it faq'ed? If so I missed it.
This is not correct. What the rules actually are is that you cannot take cover against melee attacks, or anything that explicitly ignores cover. So any attack which is untyped does allow a cover save.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
warhead01 wrote: I wasn't sure.
I saw the other thread but thought this was some kind of inside joke.
It was my understanding that cover saves were only granted to units who were hit by shooting attacks, which ever kind of shooting attacks. Stomp isn't listed any where I have seen as a shooting attack. Was it faq'ed? If so I missed it.
This is not correct. What the rules actually are is that you cannot take cover against melee attacks, or anything that explicitly ignores cover. So any attack which is untyped does allow a cover save.
Incorrect. There is no such thing as an untyped attack.
Permission to take a cover save from shooting attacks is granted in the Shooting Sequence rules.
Permission to take armor saves and invulnerable saves from close combat attacks is granted in the Fight Sub-phase. Cover saves are not granted in the Fight Sub-phase.
So by default we can take cover saves from shooting attacks.
And by default we cannot take cover saves from close combat attacks.
In the cases where an attack is not specified as a shooting attack or a close combat attack, the rules for the attack often come packed with how to handle the attack.
Spoiler:
Gaze of Death: In its Shooting phase, in addition to using Powers of the C’tan, this model
can target one non-vehicle enemy unit within 12" to which it has line of sight. The unit
suffers a number of Wounds equal to 3D6 minus its Leadership, resolved at AP2 and with the
Ignores Cover special rule. If at least one unsaved Wound is inflicted, the C’tan Shard of the
Nightbringer immediately regains one Wound lost earlier in the battle.
In the case of Stomp, Stomp is an "attack in close combat" that relies on its rules and the rules for the fight sub-phase (for wound allocation, saves, etc.).
It is robed in the rules for close combat but is not explicitly named a "close combat attack."
2015/10/28 23:11:29
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
blaktoof wrote: Not sure why people are making up "special attacks"
No one is. Stomp generates a special attack. It says so in the first couple of sentences.
blaktoof wrote: if you can find the section on "special attacks" in the BRB quote it, or stop making it up.
Okay...
Spoiler:
Super-heavy Walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp attack.
blaktoof wrote: Stomp is an attack. An attack in addition to a models normal attacks. Under stomp this is not spelled out specifically what it is.
Sure it is, a "special attack" and then describes how that special attack is resolved.
blaktoof wrote: Hammer of wrath uses the same wording as stomp, it is an attack. It happens when engaged in addition to a models normal attacks.
Ummm... Not quite.
Spoiler:
If a model with this special rule ends its charge move in base or hull contact with an enemy model, it makes one additional Attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the model’s unmodified Strength with AP-.
I don't see a mention of it being a special attack...
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2015/10/28 23:44:52
Subject: Re:Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
There is no category of attack called "special attack".
There is a category of attack called "Stomp attack".
Stomp is a special type of attack in a category all its own, namely "Stomp attack".
It's both, obviously. It says so itself. It's an advanced rule which is designed to make stuff up, and this one does it by the barrel.
Except "special attack" does not exist in the rule book and there are no rules for it. You will not find the word "special" immediately followed by word "attack" anywhere in the rule book.
There is such a thing called "Special Rules." That is a defined thing in the BRB.
There is also such a thing called "Stomp attack"
Spoiler:
Super-heavy Walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp
attack.
You are simply getting confused by the sentence. "Special" is just an adjective modifying "type" conveying that it is different than what is usual.
2015/10/29 02:37:13
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
A codex has a "special attack". is it really any different from "a special type of attack"?
"If you wait a few months, they'll pick one of the worst codexes and they'll nerf almost everything, its an abstract sort of balance, but it's the sort of balance gw likes... "
2015/10/29 02:55:23
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
jokerkd wrote: A codex has a "special attack". is it really any different from "a special type of attack"?
Rules quote please. The BRB does not say "a codex has a 'special attack.'"
"Special attack" is not a recognized category in the BRB. In fact, it's not even a word combination you will find in the BRB.
Stomp attack is a recognized category in the BRB and we have rules for performing Stomp attacks. And, lo and behold, it is a word combination you will find in the BRB.
If you feel otherwise, back up what you say with rules.
2015/10/29 09:01:39
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
Mr. Shine wrote: A "special type of attack" is also not clearly a "close combat attack".
And I don't believe the rulebook actually says, "All attacks have a type; generally either shooting or close combat," or similar.
The basic rules give permission for models to take cover saves, armor saves, and invul saves against shooting attacks.
The basic rules give permission for models to take armor saves and invul saves against close combat attacks.
The rules for Stomp are advanced rules that indicate there is another kind of attack called a Stomp attack that relies on the rules for the Fight sub-phase.
The rules for this new category of attack, called a Stomp attack, do not give permission for models to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.
2015/10/29 03:21:49
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
Screw it, while we're breaking the game because of inconsistencies within the rules, Im gonna start fielding Ateos'Rau'Keres again and cheese the crap out of the fact that it states "Pink horrors summoned this way may not shoot in the shooting phase" when Pink Horrors no longer make shooting attacks outside the Psychic Phase as all they can do is use Psychic abilities.
If we are going to continue arguing it and none of us can come to a consensus, then house rule it to your best ability and talk to people before games. 40k is a broken game over saturated with conflicting rule sets and sloppy mechanics all around, we need to deal with it, with our opponents.
Life: An incomprehensible, endless circle of involuntary self-destruction.
12,000
14,000
11,000
2015/10/29 04:29:16
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
col_impact wrote: The basic rules give permission for models to take cover saves, armor saves, and invul saves against shooting attacks.
The basic rules give permission for models to take armor saves and invul saves against close combat attacks.
The rules for Stomp are advanced rules that indicate there is another kind of attack called a Stomp attack that relies on the rules for the Fight sub-phase.
The rules for this new category of attack, called a Stomp attack, do not give permission for models to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.
Well, no. The rules for armour and other saves, while in the shooting section, are not even part of the shooting sequence. The shooting sequence comes to a close after you move to "select another weapon", the section after which explains armour saves.
In any event, the rules explaining how armour and other saves are taken actually tell us that they may be taken when a model suffers a wound, without actually referencing the origin or type of the attack causing that wound. Thus we have general permission to take saves against successful wounds, with only close combat attacks removing the ability to take cover saves.
The rules for cover saves don't limit their general allowance to be taken:
"Cover Saves
Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/29 04:32:43
2015/10/29 04:40:08
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
col_impact wrote: The basic rules give permission for models to take cover saves, armor saves, and invul saves against shooting attacks.
The basic rules give permission for models to take armor saves and invul saves against close combat attacks.
The rules for Stomp are advanced rules that indicate there is another kind of attack called a Stomp attack that relies on the rules for the Fight sub-phase.
The rules for this new category of attack, called a Stomp attack, do not give permission for models to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.
Well, no. The rules for armour and other saves, while in the shooting section, are not even part of the shooting sequence. The shooting sequence comes to a close after you move to "select another weapon", the section after which explains armour saves.
In any event, the rules explaining how armour and other saves are taken actually tell us that they may be taken when a model suffers a wound, without actually referencing the origin or type of the attack causing that wound. Thus we have general permission to take saves against successful wounds, with only close combat attacks removing the ability to take cover saves.
The rules for cover saves don't limit their general allowance to be taken:
"Cover Saves
Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
On the contrary. Cover saves are not generally allowed. Your quote clearly indicates that "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots. Where this is the case . . . "
Sounds like the burden is on you to tie Stomp Attack with "flying debris" or "enemy shots". Good luck with that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/29 04:50:44
2015/10/29 04:53:19
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
Mr. Shine wrote: "Cover Saves
Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
On the contrary. Cover saves are not generally allowed. Your quote clearly indicates that "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots. Where this is the case . . . "
Or from a proper English comprehension standpoint, models being partially hidden or obscured by terrain is what where this is the case refers to. The sentence you quoted is a description of Cover, which was already defined in the sentence prior ending with "which is also known as being in cover".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/29 05:12:29
It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately.
2015/10/29 05:11:17
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
Mr. Shine wrote: "Cover Saves
Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
On the contrary. Cover saves are not generally allowed. Your quote clearly indicates that "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots. Where this is the case . . . "
Or from a proper English comprehension standpoint, models being partially hidden or obscured by terrain is what where this is the case refers to. The sentence you quoted is a description of Cover, which was already defined in the sentence prior ending with "which is also known as being in cover".
The case is "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots" or you fail at English comprehension.
2015/10/29 05:12:26
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
No, it applies in the case of models being partially hidden or obscured by terrain. Which is modified by, for example, models being in ruins and not needing to be partially hidden or obscured, amongst other rules.
Several rules in fact state they grant a cover save, or that models receive a cover save. You say that they require permission in the close combat rules to take that save, but you've not proven that in the face of that cover save being granted to or received by the model.
You keep shifting the goalposts in any event, and it's tiresomely repetitive. Instead of responding to the entirety of points raised in a post you seem to ignore the ones you have no answer for, or ignore the post entirely, and try to raise another point.
It seems apparent to me you've already made the decision, and almost certainly had the decision made before creating the post. Why bother asking the question if you're going to conveniently ignore valid points raised, or at best cherry pick parts out to try and create an other pointless sub-argument?
2015/10/29 05:13:00
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
Mr. Shine wrote: "Cover Saves
Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
On the contrary. Cover saves are not generally allowed. Your quote clearly indicates that "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots. Where this is the case . . . "
Or from a proper English comprehension standpoint, models being partially hidden or obscured by terrain is what where this is the case refers to. The sentence you quoted is a description of Cover, which was already defined in the sentence prior ending with "which is also known as being in cover".
The case is "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots" or you fail at English comprehension.
Lol, who fails at English? You apparently, here's why.
col_impact wrote: I have read the entire quote. It clearly applies in the case of "flying debris and enemy shots". Have you read the entire quote?
Yes, you read it, but you misinterpreted the meaning as that is not how referential statements work. The statement did not ask for flying debris and enemy shots to be the requirement for cover as that was included in a clause describing the benefits of cover. Parse the sentence properly.
[Cover]-subject- <shields>-verb- (troops)-direct object- //{against}-preposition- flying debris and enemy shots//-prepositional phrase-, <enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm.>-dependent clause-
None of that is what "Where this is the case" refers to as it can only refer to the subject Cover. What is Cover exactly? The first sentence tells us.
It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately.
2015/10/29 05:19:12
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
col_impact wrote: The case is "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots" or you fail at English comprehension.
No. This can be disproven very simply. Take our base paragraph:
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
Now let's try juggling it around to read as you say:
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Where cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
This doesn't make much sense in the context of the rules and how we determine cover saves, so let's try again:
"Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where you find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
That makes far more sense in terms of the rules and how we ordinarily determine cover saves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/29 05:20:47
2015/10/29 05:20:44
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
Mr. Shine wrote: "Cover Saves
Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
On the contrary. Cover saves are not generally allowed. Your quote clearly indicates that "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots. Where this is the case . . . "
Or from a proper English comprehension standpoint, models being partially hidden or obscured by terrain is what where this is the case refers to. The sentence you quoted is a description of Cover, which was already defined in the sentence prior ending with "which is also known as being in cover".
The case is "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots" or you fail at English comprehension.
Lol, who fails at English? You apparently, here's why.
col_impact wrote: I have read the entire quote. It clearly applies in the case of "flying debris and enemy shots". Have you read the entire quote?
Yes, you read it, but you misinterpreted the meaning as that is not how referential statements work. The statement did not ask for flying debris and enemy shots to be the requirement for cover as that was included in a clause describing the benefits of cover. Parse the sentence properly.
[Cover]-subject- <shields>-verb- (troops)-direct object- //{against}-preposition- flying debris and enemy shots//-prepositional phrase-, <enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm.>-dependent clause-
None of that is what "Where this is the case" refers to as it can only refer to the subject Cover. What is Cover exactly? The first sentence tells us.
No. This is the case. Obviously.
Spoiler:
Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm.
2015/10/29 05:32:07
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm.
A case cannot refer to an extraneous element of the grammatical English sentence structure, which a prepositional phrase qualifies as. So does the dependent clause. Seriously, you learn in third grade how to parse long sentences into their simple structure. A sentence is not contingent upon dependent clauses and prepositional phrases in conveying rudimentary meaning. In other words, both can be legally removed according to the rules of grammar and leave us with the most simplified version of the core sentence which will still encompass the message. After removing the prepositional phrase and the dependent clause, you are left with the subject, verb, and direct object. When applied to this sentence you get:
"Cover shields troops."
That is the case being referred to, the subject Cover. The first sentence then explains what is considered being in cover.
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover."
Ask your English teacher, you'll learn a bit about grammar.
It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately.
2015/10/29 05:32:35
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
col_impact wrote: The case is "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots" or you fail at English comprehension.
No. This can be disproven very simply. Take our base paragraph:
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
Now let's try juggling it around to read as you say:
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Where cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
This doesn't make much sense in the context of the rules and how we determine cover saves, so let's try again:
"Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where you find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
That makes far more sense in terms of the rules and how we ordinarily determine cover saves.
I accept your first juggle. That allows cover saves to be taken against shooting attacks which we know is RAI and RAW.
I don't accept your second juggle. That allows cover saves to be taken against close combat attacks which we know is not RAI or RAW.
So quit trying to obfuscate the issue.
We know that the shooting rules grant cover saves to shooting attacks.
We know that the close combat rules do not grant cover saves to close combat attacks.
We know that there are no rules for 'untyped' attacks.
We know that Stomp attacks are neither shooting attacks nor close combat attacks and that the Stomp attack rules do not grant cover saves.
2015/10/29 05:35:10
Subject: Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
I don't accept your second juggle. That allows cover saves to be taken against close combat attacks which we know is not RAI or RAW.
So quit trying to obfuscate the issue.
He's not. We would be allowed cover saves during close combat. It's the close combat rules in the Assault Phase rules that prohibit cover from being taken against them, not this rule.
It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately.
"
12,000
14,000
11,000
