Cover saves from Exploding vehicles?

[Morticon]

A vehicle blows up and a unit that is arguably in cover (either Area or on the "safe" side of models) takes wounds.

 

Do they get cover saves?

 

Yes or No?

 

Why ?

[JamesI]

I would say yes, basically because I see no reason in the rules to prevent them from getting it.

[Grey Mage]

The rule reads like an area of affect attack centered on the vehicle.

 

Of course, you can try to argue that 'from the vehicle' is part of the fluff, but as far as I can see its the only thing we have to work with.

[Morticon]

My initial thought was that you get cover saves from shooting attacks, or anything that specifically states you get cover from.

This states neither.

 

I think intuitively, you should, but i'm failing to see where the rules cover any allowance for a cover save.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

My initial thought was that you get cover saves from shooting attacks, or anything that specifically states you get cover from.

This states neither.

 

I think intuitively, you should, but i'm failing to see where the rules cover any allowance for a cover save.

 

I thought the rules were specific that you didnt get a cover from Assault attacks specifically?

 

If you're in area terrain there shouldnt be an arguement over whether you can get the save but if you were just behind some crates or something there might be an arguement...

[Vindicatus]

I suppose that depends.

 

Models that happen to be in area terrain when the vehicle goes pop, I would assume that yes, they were hiding behind pillars/rocks/packed dirt or whatever when the vehicle went to it's explody-doom, and thus could get some cover.

 

Models that are behind other models in a different unit, I would actually argue that no, you don't. A vehicle exploding isn't only a danger from flying shards of metal, but concussion; just because the dude in front of you took the burning chunk of tank armour in the chest, doesn't mean that both your ears won't suddenly burst, eyes don't pop out of your skull, or your organs won't turn to jelly from the clap of energy that surrounds you. (Proof : look up Thermobaric explosions) At least if you were in some sort of terrain that would be considered cover, it would deflect or shield you from that expended energy.

 

/Physics-Hammer

[Isiah]

Models that are behind other models in a different unit, I would actually argue that no, you don't. A vehicle exploding isn't only a danger from flying shards of metal, but concussion; just because the dude in front of you took the burning chunk of tank armour in the chest, doesn't mean that both your ears won't suddenly burst, eyes don't pop out of your skull, or your organs won't turn to jelly from the clap of energy that surrounds you.

 

Fun though it is that's a fluff argument - not a rules argument :cuss

[Vindicatus]

Blast weapon cover saves are usually determined by where the 'center' of the explosion compared to your troops. If the majority of your guys are in clear LoS of that blast center and still fall in range while out in the open, I'd say you're boned.

[Morticon]

Blast weapon cover saves are usually determined by where the 'center' of the explosion compared to your troops. If the majority of your guys are in clear LoS of that blast center and still fall in range while out in the open, I'd say you're boned.

 

Why are we using rules about blast weapons??

 

This has nothing to do with the rules at hand.

 

 

See, intuitively, im with Grey and James (and Bob?) but, i'm struggling to see where the rules supply us with enough information to warrant a save.

 

 

More rules backup would help sway me here.

 

Cheers,

Mort.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

See, intuitively, im with Grey and James (and Bob?) but, i'm struggling to see where the rules supply us with enough information to warrant a save.

(Pretty much)

 

Doom. The doom is the only other thing I can think of with a radius attack like this. And you get cover saves vs. it?

[bystrom]

If you mean the Doom of Malant'tai, then yes according to the FAQ

Q: Can cover saves be taken against wounds inflicted

by the Doom of Malant’tai’s Spirit Leech ability?

A: Yes.

[ShinyRhino]

I thought that cover saves applied to all non-melee attacks that caused wounds[/q]. Mind War, for example, allows a cover save. Boon of Mutation, however, does not.

[Seahawk]

When a vehicle 'splodes, it causes models to suffer a "S3, AP-" hit. This little bit, by definition, is resolved as a shooting attack because it has an AP value (albeit a "-") instead of just saying "gets/doesn't get armor saves." If it is a shooting attack, you could be eligible to receive a cover save, depending on what's between you and the source. So yes, you can take cover saves from exploding vehicles.

[Vindicatus]

Why are we using rules about blast weapons??

 

This has nothing to do with the rules at hand.

 

See, intuitively, im with Grey and James (and Bob?) but, i'm struggling to see where the rules supply us with enough information to warrant a save.

 

 

More rules backup would help sway me here.

 

Cheers,

Mort.

 

ex-plo-sion [ik-sploh-zhuhn] noun

1. an act or instance of exploding; a violent expansion or bursting with noise, as of gunpowder or a boiler ( opposed to implosion).

2. the noise itself: The loud explosion woke them.

3. a violent outburst, as of laughter or anger.

4. a sudden, rapid, or great increase: a population explosion.

5. the burning of the mixture of fuel and air in an internal-combustion engine.

6. Phonetics . plosion.

 

blast [blahst] noun

Yadda-yadda on down to number 11

11. the act of exploding; explosion: Some say the blast was in the next county.

 

 

I mean, forgive me for taking the rules as they are stated, but by other's definition a frag missile, artillery shell, or grenade wouldn't be a blast weapon either, but millions of tiny shooting attacks.

 

When a vehicle goes boom, it's not voluntarily firing chunks of it's armour off in every direction with the intent and purpose of maiming anyone nearby. It's exploding, thus, a blast in a radius around the vehicle for so many inches, just like a templated weapon would be doing.

 

edit : I'll also add that this argument back and forth will likely continue until GW get's off the couch and defines little loops like this in the future. Granted, I can see it working either way, but the way my brain tells me to wrap around this is by resolving it as I have previously stated.

 

Cheers :P

[Disruptor_fe404]

When a vehicle 'splodes, it causes models to suffer a "S3, AP-" hit. This little bit, by definition, is resolved as a shooting attack because it has an AP value (albeit a "-") instead of just saying "gets/doesn't get armor saves." If it is a shooting attack, you could be eligible to receive a cover save, depending on what's between you and the source. So yes, you can take cover saves from exploding vehicles.

 

This. It's a shooting attack.

[Morticon]

Why are we using rules about blast weapons??

This has nothing to do with the rules at hand.

See, intuitively, im with Grey and James (and Bob?) but, i'm struggling to see where the rules supply us with enough information to warrant a save.

More rules backup would help sway me here.

 

Cheers,

Mort.

 

ex-plo-sion [ik-sploh-zhuhn] noun

1. an act or instance of exploding; a violent expansion or bursting with noise, as of gunpowder or a boiler ( opposed to implosion).

2. the noise itself: The loud explosion woke them.

3. a violent outburst, as of laughter or anger.

4. a sudden, rapid, or great increase: a population explosion.

5. the burning of the mixture of fuel and air in an internal-combustion engine.

6. Phonetics . plosion.

 

blast [blahst] noun

Yadda-yadda on down to number 11

11. the act of exploding; explosion: Some say the blast was in the next county.

 

 

I mean, forgive me for taking the rules as they are stated, but by other's definition a frag missile, artillery shell, or grenade wouldn't be a blast weapon either, but millions of tiny shooting attacks.

 

When a vehicle goes boom, it's not voluntarily firing chunks of it's armour off in every direction with the intent and purpose of maiming anyone nearby. It's exploding, thus, a blast in a radius around the vehicle for so many inches, just like a templated weapon would be doing.

 

edit : I'll also add that this argument back and forth will likely continue until GW get's off the couch and defines little loops like this in the future. Granted, I can see it working either way, but the way my brain tells me to wrap around this is by resolving it as I have previously stated.

 

Cheers ^_^

 

 

Not if the people discussing it are open minded and open to be shown where the rules at play are. :huh:

Im never above changing my opinion - just need to be shown with sound logic/arguments why it is so.

 

Bobs for example relies on precedent. Its not a rule, and its not a decisive argument, its just a note of a precedent being set for that kind of thing. However, as we're aware precedent doesnt mean anything besides interpreting intent. (Which eeeeeveryone, including myself is agreeing with).

 

Seahawks definition is currently the strongest -though still not 100%.

 

If we had to Venn it, you'd get an area that has characteristics and profile of a shooting attack, but isn't a shooting attack (which we get cover saves from).

All the mentions in the "cover" section of the rules list "firers", "incoming shots", "position of the firer" etc.

All list an active "firer".

 

A vehicle exploding isnt. That being said, im not saying they should or shouldnt get a cover save, i think intuitively, they should. I'm just looking for concrete rules to back it up.

 

 

Your argument though is using an English dictionary definition to redefine what the rulebook already stipulates and predefines (ie: the type "blast" for weapons).

 

Your analogy is near identical to taking this rule:

 

Melta weapons are lethal, short-ranged "heat rays". (pg 32)

 

Applying this definition:

 

Heat (ht)

n. Physics

1.

a. A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted through solid and fluid media by conduction, through fluid media by convection, and through empty space by radiation.

b. The transfer of energy from one body to another as a result of a difference in temperature or a change in phase.

2. The sensation or perception of such energy as warmth or hotness.

 

 

And leaping off Conclusion Cliff to get:

 

Therefore melta weapons also have the rule "gets hot".

 

 

OR:

 

Taking this rule:

 

"Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons" (pg 70)

 

 

Taking this definition:

 

Adv. 1. flat out - in a blunt direct manner; "he spoke bluntly"; "he stated his opinion flat-out"; "he was criticized roundly"

bluffly, bluntly, brusquely, roundly

2. flat out - at top speed; "he ran flat out to catch the bus"; "he was off down the road like blue murder"

 

 

and then arguing that a Fast vehicle moving 13" is not moving "flat out".

 

 

 

In short, you cant use similar terms of the English language to redefine pre-existing rules/terminology - that makes the baby emperor cry and causes 40k implosion.

 

 

 

Another interesting tidbit is the note on pg67 for exploding vehicles and passengers.

It specifically says:

 

The unit suffers a number of S4, Ap- hits equal to the number of models embarked, treated just like hits from shooting.

Boom. No contest.

 

Vehicles exploding and non passengers getting hit though...we're not so lucky.

Which is why i'm still not 100% convinced (rules wise).

[dizzy-xc]

This happens in one players shooting phase, and the folowing player's movement phase.

 

The Obliterators with Multi-Meltas exploded the Warboss' Truck he and his Nob squad was in and a crater was placed along with the warboss and his nob squad inside it. Then a unit of Noise Marines opend fire on the now exposed passengers doing many wounds, of which a few were saved from the crater providing cover for the orcs. During the Orc players following turn, they roll a D6 for each unit to clamber out of the dangerous terrain crater they were placed in after the vehicle explodes, thus taking even more casualties.

 

Is this how the rules are sopposed to see events like this transpire?

[Seahawk]

Craters are not Dangerous Terrain. Wrecked vehicles are, but that's only when it's a Vehicle - Wrecked result instead of explosion.