Get's Hot/Cover Saves

[XxRVNGRDxX]

Hey,

 

I had played a game yesterday and a situation came up that seemed weird. We house ruled it at the time but were unsure of what the real outcome would have been. A friend, my opponent at the time, was using a unit of imp guard vets along with Harker. They were deployed in a set of ruins (area terrain). One of the vets had a plasma gun that overheated. Would said vet get a cover save to defend against his plasma gun that "got hot"? I posed this question on another forum, and it just went back and forth. I was just wondering what others may have thought.

[dreadmad]

I'd say RAI definatly not (I'm standing in a forest, ergo my gun is less likely to kill me doesn't ring true for me) but RAW maybe, I can't remember how it specifies cover is received, I think the wording could possibly be twisted to suit...

[dswanick]

GETS HOT!

·'Gets hot!' represents the penchant of certain unstable weapons for overloading and badly burning their user. Roll to hit as normal, except that you must roll to hit even if the target is found to be out of range. For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply).

So yes, a cover save can be used (silly as it is). Also note, that since the rule says the model suffers a wound without specifying an AP value, even a guardsmans 5+ flak armor save can be taken against the wound.

[JamesI]

GETS HOT!

·'Gets hot!' represents the penchant of certain unstable weapons for overloading and badly burning their user. Roll to hit as normal, except that you must roll to hit even if the target is found to be out of range. For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply).

So yes, a cover save can be used (silly as it is). Also note, that since the rule says the model suffers a wound without specifying an AP value, even a guardsmans 5+ flak armor save can be taken against the wound.

Sadly this is correct. Cover against gets hot makes no sense, but it is legal.

[Legatus]

I propose that cover saves can only be taken against ranged attacks.

 

"COVER SAVES

A position in cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the rocks and (hopefully) avoid harm. Because of this, units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw. The great thing about cover saving throws is that they are not affected by the Armour Piercing value of the attacking weapon, so units in cover will normally get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them."

BRB, p. 21

 

"When are models in cover?

When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover."

BRB, p. 21

 

"Exceptions

(...)

Inside area terrain: Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from."

BRB. p. 22

 

 

The second quote explains that a model will only count as "in cover" if an attack or harming effect is coming from some outside source, and if the model is partially obscured from that source's point of view (or from the direction the attack is coming from). If there is no "firer", then there would be no cover to claim. That will of course never be the case if a model's own plasma gun is overheating.

But then there is one special case, where the model is not "behind an obscuring object" but is instead inside a piece of area terrain, in which case LOS does not have to be obscured and the model will allways get a cover save. But that statement also specifically mentions "regardless of the direction the shot is coming from", so it is clearly assuming that the cover save is used against a ranged attack, and not against other forms of harm, such as close combat attacks, falling over and breaking your neck, having a heart attack, or frying your hands with your plasma gun.

[Chengar Qordath]

I would have to agree that RAW-wise you wouldn't get a cover save most times; after all, a model can't be obscured from itself, so a cover save couldn't work. Also seconding everything Legatus said; cover saves can only be taken against shooting attacks.which Gets Hot wounds are not.

[Voktore]

For those people who are desparately trying to find a way around the rules, there will most likely be a way for them to do so. In my opinion, the easy way to solve most any problem that arises in a game is to think about it realistically. A plasma gun is overheating and burning your skin... now since you know there is this risk involved with using your special plasma weaponry, it would be wise of you to arrive on the battlefield with proper countermeasures (i.e. heat resistant gloves) which would be shown by the unit's armor save. My friends and I play this way, and I think it helps us immerse ourselves in the hobby. If you think about this perspective to looking at the rules, generally there are less disagreements in rules because I believe this is the way Games Workshop intended the game to be played.

 

In conclusion, I would say from a fluff standpoint the cover save does not make any logical sense.

[Grey Mage]

A cover save against 'gets hot'? No, I dont think that applies.

 

Why? Because 'gets hot' is not a shooting attack.

[SeattleDV8]

Doesn't matter if it is a shooting attack, you can take cover saves against non-shooting wounds

for example 'Nid FAQ

"Q: Can I take cover saves from a Mawloc’s Terror from

the Deep attack?

A: Yes."

[Legatus]

Maybe that's because the Mawloc attack works essentially like a blast weapon shot? There are other instances where it is not strictly speaking a "shooting" attack, but an attack coming from some source, such as an exploding vehicle, where models within D6" may suffer wounds.

[Dremen]

QUICKLY my misunderstood weapon whos technology escapes most of humanity is getting hot! I KNOW lets throw it in the mud!

[stinkenheim]

You want a cover save from 'gets hot', fine I'll take one from wounds caused in combat, by 'Perils of the warp' and from dangerous terrain rolls. All of those things cause wounds too...

[Grey Mage]

Doesn't matter if it is a shooting attack, you can take cover saves against non-shooting wounds

for example 'Nid FAQ

"Q: Can I take cover saves from a Mawloc’s Terror from

the Deep attack?

A: Yes."

Wich is resolved in all ways as a shooting attack.....

[SeattleDV8]

You want a cover save from 'gets hot', fine I'll take one from wounds caused in combat, by 'Perils of the warp' and from dangerous terrain rolls. All of those things cause wounds too...

 

Except for the fact that those rules clearly state:

BRB pg. 39 "....models do not get cover saves from wounds suffered in close combat,..."

BRB pg. 50 " The pysker suffers 1 wound with no armour or cover saves allowed."

BRB pg.14 ".....the model suffers a wound with no armour or cover saves allowed...."

 

Note that in each case the cover is clearly disallowed, this is not the case with 'Gets Hot'

 

BRB pg.31 ".....model suffers a wound (normal saves apply)"

It doesn't say 'armour save' only, but any saves available to the model.

There is no rule stating that cover is only used in shooting attacks.

The rescrictions on cover saves tend to make it seem that way, as per the examples above.

As Legatus pointed out there are 'semi-shooting' attacks that cause wounds and still allow cover.

You may use cover saves against wounds caused by 'gets hot' as far as I can see.

 

Yes it seems silly and only helps guard and other non-power armour Imperium troops.

[Legatus]

There is no rule stating that cover is only used in shooting attacks.

Well, there kinda is. As I have quoted earlier:

 

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

 

"When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover."

 

"Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from."

[SeattleDV8]

Not really, considering that the shooting rules are the first place that saves (armour ,cover and Invulnerable) are mentioned.

Would you say that a model can't take a armour save in CC because the BRB (pg 20) states "Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire..."?

 

Of course not.

Using the shooting wording to disallow cover from other sources makes the same sense.

[Legatus]

But then the close combat rules explain how "models struck and wounded in close combat can attempt armour saves to avoid becoming casualties."

 

And the issue with cover saves is not as simple as "cover saves are made against shooting attacks". The way cover is described a model will only even be considered to be "in cover" from the perspective of someone firing at that model. A model is not considered "in cover" just because it is standing next to a barricade. It is only considered "in cover" if an enemy on the other side is shooting at the model and his view is obscured partially by this barricade. If the enemy model was on the same side of the barricade, or it was shooting from a high up position so that it could see the complete model over the barricade, then this model would not be ocnsidered to be "in cover". I.e. "cover" is defined as "a shot is coming from somewhere, but there is something in the way". If there is no shot coming from somewhere, then there is no "cover" to consider.

 

"When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover."

 

That is your reason why there are no cover saves in HtH, against dangerous terrain or against perrils of teh warp right there. Though it is nice that they specifically point it out in the relevant sections. A model is only considered "in cover" from the point of view of a firing model. If there is no firing model with such a view to consider, then there is also no cover.

 

There is the special case of area terrain.

 

"Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from."

 

But even that is apparently given in regard to incoming fire.

[Hellios]

Also people don't try and make rational sense of the rules... getting cover saves from mind war makes no sense... but you can ^_^ stick with the program folks ;)

[SeattleDV8]

You are still using the basic shooting rules for cover and not for armour and invulnerable saves.

Yes the CC rules do expand upon the basic armour and invulnerable rules, but you still have not really shown that cover is only allowed for shooting.

Seeing how clearly the rules point out when cover is not allowed, 'gets hot' does not meet the same intent.

[Legatus]

but you still have not really shown that cover is only allowed for shooting.

 

"When are models in cover?

When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover."

BRB, p. 21

 

I.e. when there is no firer, there is no cover.

[pingo]

but you still have not really shown that cover is only allowed for shooting.

 

"When are models in cover?

When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover."

BRB, p. 21

 

I.e. when there is no firer, there is no cover.

 

This.

 

If you read this and still think you get a cover save from Gets Hot, read the quote again!

 

A model would have to be shooting at itself, and not be able to see it's whole body.

 

I would argue cover saves for Gets Hot are expressly forbidden by RAW.

[dswanick]

but you still have not really shown that cover is only allowed for shooting.

 

"When are models in cover?

When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover."

BRB, p. 21

 

I.e. when there is no firer, there is no cover.

 

This.

 

If you read this and still think you get a cover save from Gets Hot, read the quote again!

 

A model would have to be shooting at itself, and not be able to see it's whole body.

 

I would argue cover saves for Gets Hot are expressly forbidden by RAW.

Flip the page to 22, now read the exceptions :

Inside area terrain : Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from.

No mention of direction of firer in this exception. This is further reinforced in the barrage rules where it also states that a model in area terrain gets its cover save regardlesss of the direction the shot is coming from. If a barrage weapon were to land directly on the model (center hole over the base of the model) would you argue that the target gets no cover save from occupied area terrain because the shot is coming from the direction of the model itself or has no direction? I've never encountered anyone who argues that this should be the case.

[Legatus]

Flip the page to 22, now read the exceptions :

Inside area terrain : Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from.

No mention of direction of firer in this exception.

Er... yes mention of direction of firer in this exception. Because that's the exception. This is a special case of the cover rules, which had been described in the earlier quote. The special case is not that now the cover save works against everything, where previously it only worked against shooting attacks. The special case is that you don't have to check LOS from the firer to determine cover. The model will allways count as in cover "regardless of the direction the shot is coming from". It is still a shot coming from somewhere, just like in the basic cover rules. You just don't check from the POV of the firer, because area terrain is abstract, and you just assume that there will be something in the way.

 

Basic cover rules:

When any part of the target model's body (...) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover.

 

--> No firer, no obstructed POV, no cover.

 

Special case:

"Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from."

 

--> Area terrain is abstract. You assume that the firer's POV will be obscured by something, so you do not have to check for true LOS.

 

 

The special case for area terrain is a refinement of the basic rules for cover. And the basic rules for cover do not simply describe that "cover can be used against shooting attacks", so that it may then later be applied to other sections of the book as well (like being transfered from the rules for shooting to the rules for close combat, just like armour saves). No, the rules for cover are explained so that the whole "cover" concept will only even come into play when some model is making a ranged attack from somewhere, and the path of the attack or the POV of the attacking model is obstructed by something. Because that's what "cover" is. There is "something in the way".

 

That is why models may be "in cover" when they are being shot at, but why they are not "in cover" when someone standing right next to them (in btb) is trying to hit them over the head, why they are not "in cover" when they are tripping in dangerous terrain, and why they are not "in cover" when a daemon fries their brain.

[pingo]

Flip the page to 22, now read the exceptions :

Inside area terrain : Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from.

No mention of direction of firer in this exception.

 

Apart from the use of the phrase 'target models'; in a Gets Hot situation, the model suffering the wound is not a target. Getting a cover save from area terrain requires a model to be a 'target'. Also, Gets Hot does not involve a 'shot' 'coming from' anywhere, it's just a wound. So, I would suggest that this exception is irrelevant on at least two counts.

 

 

This is further reinforced in the barrage rules where it also states that a model in area terrain gets its cover save regardlesss of the direction the shot is coming from.

 

Again, you're talking about shooting attacks being made on a model, not a wound being suffered. It's a different thing.

 

If a barrage weapon were to land directly on the model (center hole over the base of the model) would you argue that the target gets no cover save from occupied area terrain because the shot is coming from the direction of the model itself or has no direction? I've never encountered anyone who argues that this should be the case.

 

Of course not, because I'm not a raving moron :)

[BlkTom]

but you still have not really shown that cover is only allowed for shooting.

 

"When are models in cover?

When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover."

BRB, p. 21

 

I.e. when there is no firer, there is no cover.

 

This.

 

If you read this and still think you get a cover save from Gets Hot, read the quote again!

 

A model would have to be shooting at itself, and not be able to see it's whole body.

 

I would argue cover saves for Gets Hot are expressly forbidden by RAW.

Flip the page to 22, now read the exceptions :

Inside area terrain : Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from.

No mention of direction of firer in this exception. This is further reinforced in the barrage rules where it also states that a model in area terrain gets its cover save regardlesss of the direction the shot is coming from. If a barrage weapon were to land directly on the model (center hole over the base of the model) would you argue that the target gets no cover save from occupied area terrain because the shot is coming from the direction of the model itself or has no direction? I've never encountered anyone who argues that this should be the case.

 

No mention of direction of firer??? "Reguardless of the direction the shot is coming from." And no, you can not use the barrage rules in that situation to claim you can not use cover rules. Yes, if it is a crator or the wrong side of a wall, realisticly thinking if the shot is dead on, you would not get that cover save. But for a game rules stand point where you have bunkers, buildings, woods, ect that would easilly deflect or stop a barrage shot, you can not realisticly say in the rules 'This cover stops this and that cover stops that, depending on the cover'. You have to, as a rule mechanic, make it all work the same in this situation. The only thing that changes is the 'dangerous terrain' rule and the amount/level of cover save (+5 to a +3). So yes, you get your cover save against a barrage, you do not get a cover save against a 'Gets Hot' because it is not a ranged attack that is incoming from a direction. They at least get their armor save.