Get's Hot/Cover Saves

[Hiro_Protagonist]

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

 

Exactly. Most things don't make "sense" when you get down to it. Maybe the cover save represents the trooper bracing the weapon on some of the terrain. Weapon gets hot, but he's not holding it close enough for it to kill him. Besides, it's not like it's going to be a game breaker...and even if it did result in some big win / loss turning point in a game...that's just a cool story to tell later.

[nurglez]

I guess you could argue that because it says (normal saves apply), no cover saves because they aren't normal saves, they are cover saves :)

 

Normally the model firing the plasma weapon has a save better to or the same as a cover save, so it hasn't come up.

[Hiro_Protagonist]

I guess you could argue that because it says (normal saves apply), no cover saves because they aren't normal saves, they are cover saves :D

 

Although by that logic noone would get a save. "Normal" is not a save type, otherwise we wouldn't get armour or invulnerable either.

[thade]

Since the "firer" in this case is within 2" of the target, doesn't he deny himself that cover save? :D

 

This probably falls under the "What, are you daft?" section of GW's rules, which is why it's not in an FAQ. Given how incredibly rare it is, I'd probably let my opponent take the save, however cheeky it is.

[Brother Theophantus]

RAW its a bit dicey but it makes perfect sense narrative wise. " Argh, my plasma gun is overheating better chuck it over that wall/behind that tree/in that ditch so it doesn't melt my face." Therefore I'd go with allowing the save.

[Chengar Qordath]

Since the "firer" in this case is within 2" of the target, doesn't he deny himself that cover save? ;)

Good point; that would kill the possible exception for area terrain.

[SeattleDV8]

Since the "firer" in this case is within 2" of the target, doesn't he deny himself that cover save? ;)

You might want to re-read the exceptions on page 23.

Shooting though 2" or less doesn't cancel cover, it does the opposite. It doesn't grant cover by itself.

The model is in area terrain and as such is granted a cover save.

 

Yes I agree it seems silly, but the lack of a specific disallowal, and the mention of normal saves (note the plural) implies strongly that a cover save is allowed.

[Chengar Qordath]

Since the "firer" in this case is within 2" of the target, doesn't he deny himself that cover save? ;)

You might want to re-read the exceptions on page 23.

Shooting though 2" or less doesn't cancel cover, it does the opposite. It doesn't grant cover by itself.

The model is in area terrain and as such is granted a cover save.

 

Yes I agree it seems silly, but the lack of a specific disallowal, and the mention of normal saves (note the plural) implies strongly that a cover save is allowed.

Not sure how you came up with that interpretation; the rule is pretty clear:

 

Therefore they (models in area terrain) may fire through up to 2" of the area terrain they are occupying without that terrain conferring a cover save to the target

A model is obviously going to be less than 2" away from itself, so no cover save.

[dswanick]

Since the "firer" in this case is within 2" of the target, doesn't he deny himself that cover save? ;)

You might want to re-read the exceptions on page 23.

Shooting though 2" or less doesn't cancel cover, it does the opposite. It doesn't grant cover by itself.

The model is in area terrain and as such is granted a cover save.

 

Yes I agree it seems silly, but the lack of a specific disallowal, and the mention of normal saves (note the plural) implies strongly that a cover save is allowed.

Not sure how you came up with that interpretation; the rule is pretty clear:

 

Therefore they (models in area terrain) may fire through up to 2" of the area terrain they are occupying without that terrain conferring a cover save to the target

A model is obviously going to be less than 2" away from itself, so no cover save.

Actually, you should read that exception a little better yourself - the bit you quote is under the "Firing out of area terrain" exception so only applies if the firer is in area terrain and the target is not. Two units within 2" of each other, both in a single piece of area terrain will still have cover saves from each others fire.

[pingo]

Since the "firer" in this case is within 2" of the target, doesn't he deny himself that cover save? ;)

You might want to re-read the exceptions on page 23.

Shooting though 2" or less doesn't cancel cover, it does the opposite. It doesn't grant cover by itself.

The model is in area terrain and as such is granted a cover save.

 

Yes I agree it seems silly, but the lack of a specific disallowal, and the mention of normal saves (note the plural) implies strongly that a cover save is allowed.

 

There may be a lack of a specific disallowal, but this is because the circumstances do not allow a cover save anyway. The conditions under which a model is granted a cover save are simply not present in the Gets Hot situation.

 

The model does not satisfy the condition of being in cover, as to be in cover requires the perspective of another model, for all the reasons previously stated (and not once adequately refuted) in this discussion.

 

'Normal saves' does not imply cover saves simply because it is plural. You're allowed armour saves and invulnerable saves.

 

Would it be helpful if the GW was clearer? Yes, of course. Are cover saves supported by RAW? No, absolutely not.

[dswanick]

There may be a lack of a specific disallowal, but this is because the circumstances do not allow a cover save anyway. The conditions under which a model is granted a cover save are simply not present in the Gets Hot situation.

 

The model does not satisfy the condition of being in cover, as to be in cover requires the perspective of another model, for all the reasons previously stated (and not once adequately refuted) in this discussion.

 

'Normal saves' does not imply cover saves simply because it is plural. You're allowed armour saves and invulnerable saves.

 

Would it be helpful if the GW was clearer? Yes, of course. Are cover saves supported by RAW? No, absolutely not.

 

If your claim that to even get a cover save you need a "target" and a "firer" is to be considered logical, why then do Dangerous Terrain tests specifically disallow Cover Saves?

>Get's Hot wounds are a result of a models own actions causing it a wound, which is allowed "all normal saves"(and does not specifically disallow cover saves).

>Dangerous Terrain wounds are a result of a models own actions causing a wound, which specifically disallows cover(and armor) saves.

[Legatus]

If your claim that to even get a cover save you need a "target" and a "firer" is to be considered logical, why then do Dangerous Terrain tests specifically disallow Cover Saves?

To be perfectly unambiguous about what kind of save a player can use in those kinds of situations. That's good. Sometimes GW does that. Sometimes they don't. Dangerous terrain and perrils of the warp are core mechanics. "Gets hot" is just an item property.

 

"all normal saves" is not the same as "all saves". It basically just means "whatever saves would normally be allowed". If a model does not have an armour save, or if that save is negated by the effect's AP, then the model will not get an armour save (even though armour saves are arguably the most "normal" ones). If the effect negates cover saves, or if the effect is not similar to someone firing at someone over or into terrain, then the model will not get a cover save.

[BlkTom]

What is really annoying is a guy with 3+ armor save 'Gets Hot!', rolls a 1 on that armor save, then makes a 'Feel No Pain' check and saves.

[dswanick]

If your claim that to even get a cover save you need a "target" and a "firer" is to be considered logical, why then do Dangerous Terrain tests specifically disallow Cover Saves?

To be perfectly unambiguous about what kind of save a player can use in those kinds of situations. That's good. Sometimes GW does that. Sometimes they don't. Dangerous terrain and perrils of the warp are core mechanics. "Gets hot" is just an item property.

 

"all normal saves" is not the same as "all saves". It basically just means "whatever saves would normally be allowed". If a model does not have an armour save, or if that save is negated by the effect's AP, then the model will not get an armour save (even though armour saves are arguably the most "normal" ones). If the effect negates cover saves, or if the effect is not similar to someone firing at someone over or into terrain, then the model will not get a cover save.

The problem with your logic here is that there is at least one precedent for gaining cover saves from non-shooting attacks : Mawloc's Terror from the Deep wounds. And it does not state that it negates cover saves. Finally there are three types of "normal" saves described in the Basic Rulebook - Armor, Invulnerable, and Cover. If GW didn't want Cover saves included they should have specifically denied it (as they did in other areas or simply said "Armor and Invulnerable saves may be taken")

[Legatus]

The problem with your logic here is that there is at least one precedent for gaining cover saves from non-shooting attacks : Mawloc's Terror from the Deep wounds.

But that works like one.

 

 

If GW didn't want Cover saves included they should have specifically denied it (as they did in other areas or simply said "Armor and Invulnerable saves may be taken")

Let's review:

 

- The cover rules say that models may claim cover when being fired at.

 

- The rules for dangerous terrain say that models cannot use cover saves.

 

- The rules for perrils of the warp say that models cannot use cover saves.

 

- The close combat rules say that models cannot use cover saves.

 

- The rules for 'gets hot' does not say that models cannot get cover saves.

 

To conclude then that cover saves are allowed in all instances where the rules do not specifically deny them would be false, simply because the rules for cover are very specific about when cover can be claimed. If you have several instances where it specifically denies cover saves, that might under different circumstances be an indication that maybe cover saves are allowed where they are not specifically denied. But the very rules for cover saves themselves restrict their use to very specific circumstances. A model is "in cover" when the enemy firer has to shoot over or through some terrain to hit the model. There is no getting around that. If it is not a shooting attack made through or over terrain, then cover will not enter into it.

 

Mawloc attack: Unique case from a Codex. Works like a blast weapon attack. Ruled in the FaQ to allow cover saves.

 

Exploding vehicle: Works very similar to a blast attack. Is an attack coming from an outside source. Does not actually allow cover if the rules for cover are taken as written. But most people would probably allow cover against it.

[pingo]

I was going to respond to you, dswanick, but I'd just be repeating Legatus' excellent posts.

 

It basically boils down to this: having cover save is not a property intrinsic to a particular model or unit (like armour or invulnrable saves), but rather it is a property derived from the point of view of an observing (or shooting) model or unit. It requires an external actor.

[Legatus]

Well, some models do come with a cover save. But in those cases they basically bring the cover with them.

[pingo]

Well, some models do come with a cover save. But in those cases they basically bring the cover with them.

Quite so. I don't recall specific rules wordings, but I reckon that such things grant a cover save in the same way actual cover grants a save. It's just cover not caused by terrain.

[dswanick]

The problem with your logic here is that there is at least one precedent for gaining cover saves from non-shooting attacks : Mawloc's Terror from the Deep wounds.

But that works like one.

Where in the Tyranid Codex rule or GW FAQ does it say that the Terror is in any way related to a shooting attack? Better check it, because it doesn't. Just because it used the Blast Marker to determine models affected doesn't make it a shooting attack. Even if it did, a Blasts Cover Save would be related to the direction of the Mowloc - which isn't even on the table when the wounds are resolved. GW could just as easily have said measure "Pick a point, all models within 2.5" of this point are affected...". Just because they decided to use the Large Blast Marker as a convenient means of determining what models are within 2.5" of a designated point doesn't make it a Shooting Attack.

If GW didn't want Cover saves included they should have specifically denied it (as they did in other areas or simply said "Armor and Invulnerable saves may be taken")

Let's review:

 

- The cover rules say that models may claim cover when being fired at. So do the Armor Saves

 

- The rules for dangerous terrain say that models cannot use cover saves. Specific denial

 

- The rules for perrils of the warp say that models cannot use cover saves. Specific denial

 

- The close combat rules say that models cannot use cover saves. Specific denial

 

- The rules for 'gets hot' does not say that models cannot get cover saves. Exactly

 

To conclude then that cover saves are allowed in all instances where the rules do not specifically deny them would be false, simply because the rules for cover are very specific about when cover can be claimed(As are armor saves). If you have several instances where it specifically denies cover saves, that might under different circumstances be an indication that maybe cover saves are allowed where they are not specifically denied(That's my point). But the very rules for cover saves themselves restrict their use to very specific circumstances. A model is "in cover" when the enemy firer has to shoot over or through some terrain to hit the model(Or when the wounded model is in a piece of area terrain, regardless of any other general requirements). There is no getting around that. If it is not a shooting attack made through or over terrain, then cover will not enter into it. This is your conclusion with which I disagree.

 

Mawloc attack: Unique case from a Codex. Works like a blast weapon attack(Again, not actual in the rule anywhere). Ruled in the FaQ to allow cover saves.

 

Exploding vehicle: Works very similar to a blast attack. Is an attack coming from an outside source. Does not actually allow cover if the rules for cover are taken as written. But most people would probably allow cover against it.

[Legatus]

Where in the Tyranid Codex rule or GW FAQ does it say that the Terror is in any way related to a shooting attack? Better check it, because it doesn't. Just because it used the Blast Marker to determine models affected doesn't make it a shooting attack. Even if it did, a Blasts Cover Save would be related to the direction of the Mowloc - which isn't even on the table when the wounds are resolved. GW could just as easily have said measure "Pick a point, all models within 2.5" of this point are affected...". Just because they decided to use the Large Blast Marker as a convenient means of determining what models are within 2.5" of a designated point doesn't make it a Shooting Attack.

But it works like one.

 

 

- The cover rules say that models may claim cover when being fired at. So do the Armor Saves

To conclude then that cover saves are allowed in all instances where the rules do not specifically deny them would be false, simply because the rules for cover are very specific about when cover can be claimed(As are armor saves).

No, cover saves are not described in the same way as armour saves. The rules for cover do not say "models may attempt a cover save to prevent a wound they just suffered. From shooting. Because this is the shooting section." The rules for cover say "when the model is obstructed from the firer's point of view, then the model counts as being in cover."

 

If there is no firer whose line of sight could be obstructed by terrain or some other means, then there is no cover.

 

 

Armour:

"If a model has a Sv value of 6 or better on its profile, it is allowed a further dice roll to see if the armour stops it being wounded."

 

"Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire and compare the result to the model's Sv characteristic."

 

Cover:

"When are models in cover?

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."

 

For armour saves it describes how "armour saves can be used against wounds from incoming fire". Because this is the shooting section. But for cover saves it does not say "can be used against wounds from incoming fire". The models will only ever be considered to be in cover when a model is trying to fire at them. You don't even check to see whether a model may be in cover if there is no one firing at them. Because "cover" means a firer has to shoot through or over something.

[dswanick]

Where in the Tyranid Codex rule or GW FAQ does it say that the Terror is in any way related to a shooting attack? Better check it, because it doesn't. Just because it used the Blast Marker to determine models affected doesn't make it a shooting attack. Even if it did, a Blasts Cover Save would be related to the direction of the Mowloc - which isn't even on the table when the wounds are resolved. GW could just as easily have said measure "Pick a point, all models within 2.5" of this point are affected...". Just because they decided to use the Large Blast Marker as a convenient means of determining what models are within 2.5" of a designated point doesn't make it a Shooting Attack.

But it works like one.

But it doesn't :

Shooting attacks happen in the Shooting Phase - Terror happens in the Deep Strike par tof the Movement Phase.

Shooting attacks originate from a model on the table - Terror does not, the Mawloc is not placed on the table until after the Terror attracks are resolved.

Also, most Shooting attacks require a To-Hit Roll - Terror does not.

[dswanick]

Basically, this debate is not resolveable using RAW. The RAW is inconclusive and potential contradictor. How one interprets the rules for Gets Hot and Cover depends on ones interpretation of how Cover Saves works in regards to directional and directionless Shooting and non-Shooting wounds. The best answer pending a FAQ from GW is either 1. discuss it with your opponent before the game, 2. be sportsmanlike and give your opponent his interpretation, 3. Dice off.

[thade]

RAW its a bit dicey but it makes perfect sense narrative wise. " Argh, my plasma gun is overheating better chuck it over that wall/behind that tree/in that ditch so it doesn't melt my face." Therefore I'd go with allowing the save.

 

Given the real lack of hard RAW to address this issue, my current favorite response involves "chuck[ing]" the obviously overheating gun over an embankment so as to avoid injuring oneself. Looks like cover makes sense after all.

 

This is a frustrating issue; and one of the more baffling ones I've seen.

[Legatus]

But it works like one.

But it doesn't :

Shooting attacks happen in the Shooting Phase - Terror happens in the Deep Strike par tof the Movement Phase.

It is not the phase the attack is happening in that makes it have the same mechanics as a shooting attack. It's having the same mechanics as a shooting attack that makes it having the same mechanics as a shooting attack. Swooping Hawk grenades are not used in the shooting phase either. Vehicles do not necessarily explode during the shooting phase either.

 

 

Shooting attacks originate from a model on the table - Terror does not, the Mawloc is not placed on the table until after the Terror attracks are resolved.

Orbital bombardments do not originate from a model on the table. I think everyone would treat them as shooting attacks none the less.

 

 

Also, most Shooting attacks require a To-Hit Roll - Terror does not.

Neither do blast weapons. They scatter. Like a deep striking Mawloc does. Well, not quite like that (you can usually substract a BS value when someone fires a blast weapon).

 

Here is how the Terror works like a shooting attack:

 

- You nominate a point on the board

 

- You roll for scatter

 

- You place the large blast marker over the final target point

 

- every model covered at least partly by the marker is hit

 

- you roll for wounds and saves for all the models under the marker

 

That's how a blast weapon works. And that's how the Terror works.

[dswanick]

But it works like one.

But it doesn't :

Shooting attacks happen in the Shooting Phase - Terror happens in the Deep Strike par tof the Movement Phase.

It is not the phase the attack is happening in that makes it have the same mechanics as a shooting attack. It's having the same mechanics as a shooting attack that makes it having the same mechanics as a shooting attack. Swooping Hawk grenades are not used in the shooting phase either. Vehicles do not necessarily explode during the shooting phase either.

It does not have the same mechanics as a shooting attack.

 

Shooting attacks originate from a model on the table - Terror does not, the Mawloc is not placed on the table until after the Terror attracks are resolved.

Orbital bombardments do not originate from a model on the table. I think everyone would treat them as shooting attacks none the less.

Orbital bombardment is a function of a special rule of the Chapter Master - he must still be on the table to use Orbital Bombardment. And it still counts as his Shooting Attack for his Shooting Phase.

 

Also, most Shooting attacks require a To-Hit Roll - Terror does not.

Neither do blast weapons. They scatter. Like a deep striking Mawloc does. Well, not quite like that (you can usually substract a BS value when someone fires a blast weapon).

 

Here is how the Terror works like a shooting attack:

 

- You nominate a point on the board - This is not exclusive to Shooting Attacks. You do the same for Deep Strikes, which is what Terror is.

 

- You roll for scatter - This is a function of Deep Striking, a Movement ability not a Shooting Attack. Blast Shooting attacks subtract BS from the scatter distance.

 

- You place the large blast marker over the final target point - As I said, using the Blast Marker to deisgnate an area does not, of itslef, make it a Shooting Attack.

 

- every model covered at least partly by the marker is hit

 

- you roll for wounds and saves for all the models under the marker - The same can be said of Dangerous Terrain wounds.

 

That's how a blast weapon works. And that's how the Terror works. - And that is how Deep Strike, Dangerous Terrain, and other game mechanics work. Sorry, I still disagree. Your list actually does a very good job of showing how Terror is unlike Shooting attacks.

Another important point to touch on here is that the Mawloc's Terror is not a Shooting Attack because the Mawloc has a BS of 0, thus it may not make Shooting Attacks.