Get's Hot/Cover Saves

[Brother Theophantus]

On a related note, what happens when a blast weapon scatters back onto the model that fired it? Again there would be no direction between firing model and target as they would be one and the same. So no cover save even if the model was in area terrain?

 

Also the "they work in the same way so must be the same thing" arguement really doesn't seem to hold weight to me. After all in both shooting and cc you pick a target, roll to hit, roll to wound then they make saves. They basically work the same way yet are two distinct parts of the game.

 

If anything "get's hot" seems far more likely to qualify as a shooting phenomena. It is a wound caused in the shooting phase because a model fired a weapon.

[Legatus]

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

But... I just broke it down for you...

 

 

Orbital bombardment is a function of a special rule of the Chapter Master - he must still be on the table to use Orbital Bombardment.

Orbital bombardments may also occur via a bought special attack from the army list (such as the Witch Hunter orbital strikes) or as a strategical asset in special missions or in an Apocalypse game.

 

 

- You nominate a point on the board - This is not exclusive to Shooting Attacks.

But it's how blast weapons work.

 

 

- You roll for scatter - This is a function of Deep Striking, a Movement ability not a Shooting Attack.

It's also how blast weapons work.

 

 

- 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.

But it is how blast weapons work.

 

 

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

And for blast weapons.

 

 

Really, the entire process is like firing a blast weapon. You pick a target point, roll for scatter, place the marker, count the models that are covered, then resolve wounds. That's how blast weapons work, and that's how the Terror works. Deep strikes don't hurt models the deep striking unit lands on. Dangerous terrain does not scatter on top of models. This is how a blast weapon works.

It is supposed to represent something else, like the Terror breaking out from underground. But the entire process is resolved just like a blast weapon shot would be. And while it does not say anything about cover saves in the rule for this attack itself, GW has ruled in the FaQ that the models hit by this attack can use cover saves against it. If you were just going by the BRB and the Codex Tyranids you might not have given models hit by the Terror attack a cover save. But GW has ruled that way. And maybe they have ruled that way because it simply works like a blast weapon attack.

 

 

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.

How about orbital bombardments again? You know, not the Space Marine Chapter Master type. And what would a vehicle's BS have to do with the explosion blast wave emanating from it? Diddely squat, that's what.

 

 

Also the "they work in the same way so must be the same thing" arguement really doesn't seem to hold weight to me.

This is not an argument for why you should give models hit by the Terror attack a cover save. The BRB does not say that such models would get a cover save. The Codex Tyranids does not say that such models would get a cover save. GW says so in the Tyranids FaQ. So they get one. This argument is merely explaining why GW has probably ruled that way. They have probably ruled that way because the attack is worked out just like a blast weapon attack. And not because cover saves generally work against everything unless specifically denied.

[dswanick]

But... I just broke it down for you...

LOL, you just broke something, alright. We'll just agree to disagree on this one - and go back to my earlier statement

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.

[pingo]

Let's take a step back; we're starting to go round in circles here.

 

So, what does Get's Hot say about cover saves? Well, precisely nothing really! The rule itself does not specifically disallow cover saves.

 

It does allow 'normal saves'. So, the question really is 'does the model have a cover save available to it?'

 

We need to look elsewhere, expand our assessment, and go to first principles.

 

So what do we know? It might sound obvious, but to have a cover save, a model or unit must be in cover.

 

Now the question is, 'is the model suffering a Gets Hot wound in cover?

 

To answer that, we need to look at what conditions need to be satisfied for a model to be in cover. To do that, we need to turn to p. 21 of the rulebook where we have the helpfully named rule '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.'

 

So we can extract some conditions we must satisfy here:

 

1. The model must be a target

2. There must be a 'firer'

3. Any part of the model's body must be obscured from the point of view of the firer

 

Now, let's apply this to the Gets Hot situation.

 

1. Is the model a target?

 

No. The model has not been targeted as it has not been selected as a target by a firing model (see page 16: 'Check Line of Sight & Pick a Target' where a target unit is defined as the target a firing unit has elected to shoot at). Additionally, nor has the model suffered a hit in another way – e.g. like a non-target model having a blast marker scatter into them – (the model suffers a wound not a hit – these are different entities).

 

2. Is there a 'firer'?

 

Maybe. It can be argued that there is a firer insofar as the Gets Hot model has elected to fire a weapon.

 

3. Is any part of the model's body must be obscured from the point of view of the firer?

 

No, except in perhaps the most unusual of circumstances. It seems unlikely a model will not be able to see it's whole body.

 

Conclusion: Condition 1 may never be satisfied by a Gets Hot result occurring. Condition 3 is highly unlikely to be satisfied, while Condition 2 may be satisfied depending on interpretation of the rule. However, since Condition 1 can never be satisfied by Gets Hot, the model can never be considered to be in cover, and therefore will never have a cover save available to it.

 

 

Perhaps we need to look in the 'Exceptions' on p. 22. Only one seems relevent:

 

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

 

We can extract conditions again:

 

1. The model must be a target

2. The model's base must be wholly or partially within area terrain

3. There must be a shot incoming (from any direction)

 

Applying to Gets Hot we have:

 

1. Is the model a target?

 

No, for the reasons stated in the last example (it has not been selected as a target by a firing model)

 

2. Is the model's base wholly or partially within area terrain?

 

This is obvious by mere observation. Let's assume in our example it is.

 

3. Is there a shot coming from any direction?

 

This is trickier and can depend on interpretation. Perhaps technically there is a shot as the model fires its weapon (and also, technically, misses as it rolls a 1). But by the same token there isn't exactly in incoming shot (there is no hit suffered). This is something that may be up for debate. Let's be generous and assume a 'yes'.

 

Conclusion: Condition 2 would obviously be satisfied and Condition 3 is up for debate but may technically be satisfied. But again, Condition 1 can never be satisfied as the model suffering Gets Hot can never be a target, so once again the model is not in cover, and has no cover save available.

 

 

The key point here is that to be considered to be in cover, a model must be a target. In other words, it must have been selected as a target by a firing unit as per p. 16 of the rulebook. Suffering a Gets Hot result can never satisfy this condition, so therefore I propose that, RAW, cover saves for Gets Hot are prohibited on the basis that the model is not in cover, and has no cover save available.

 

------------

 

NB: without access to any Codex specific rules for granting permanent cover saves (e.g. Kustom Force Fields), I cannot assess these here. However, since Codex trumps rulebook, these situations would have no affect on the above arguments, and must be dealt with separately.

[dswanick]

The key point here is that to be considered to be in cover, a model must be a target. In other words, it must have been selected as a target by a firing unit as per p. 16 of the rulebook. Suffering a Gets Hot result can never satisfy this condition, so therefore I propose that, RAW, cover saves for Gets Hot are prohibited on the basis that the model is not in cover, and has no cover save available.

Congratulations on going back to what started the current debate back on page 1. <_<

 

The problem currently is the assessment that to gain a cover save a model must be the "target" of a "firer". Thus comes Terror. If Terror is a Shooting attack from a BS 0 model which is not even on the table when it "fires" Terror in its Movement Phase then all is good with your assessment of the prerequisites of Cover Saves being a Shooter and a Target unit. If, however, Terror is a Deep Strike which causes some non-Shooting attack wounds which can be saved by Cover saves then the non-Shooting wounds caused by Gets Hot may also be saved by Cover.

[Seahawk]

However, as Brother Theophantus said, what if a models blast weapon scatters back onto itself? For instance, a marine's plasma cannon or more commonly, an Imperial Guard demo charge. Following the conditions again:

 

1. The model must be a target. (No, as he's certainly not targeting himself, only falling foul of fickle fates)

2. There must be a 'firer.' (He is the firer)

3. Any part of the model's body must be obscured from the point of view of the firer. (I suppose that depends on the terrain...if a leafy shrub happens to be covering his foot then the condition is satisfied)

 

1. The model must be a target. (Again he is not)

2. The model's base must be wholly or partially within area terrain. (Yes, this has been verified)

3. There must be a shot incoming (from any direction). (Yes it is, either where the hole is, or himself, it's still a direction)

 

According to the conditions idea, you don't get cover saves from your own scattering weapon, which I disagree with.

 

I'm of the opinion that when you're utilizing tlos terrain, you will not get the cover save from an overheat because the action is happening behind the terrain that's protecting you from the enemy out there, not the gremlins within. However, when in area terrain you do get the cover save because it says you always get it no matter the direction.

 

It does make sense to me fluffily as well. He sees it's about to overheat and so tries to toss it away before it injures him. Passing the cover save means he got it behind a tree or something; failing it means he was too slow to throw.

[pingo]

The key point here is that to be considered to be in cover, a model must be a target. In other words, it must have been selected as a target by a firing unit as per p. 16 of the rulebook. Suffering a Gets Hot result can never satisfy this condition, so therefore I propose that, RAW, cover saves for Gets Hot are prohibited on the basis that the model is not in cover, and has no cover save available.

Congratulations on going back to what started the current debate back on page 1. <_<

 

The problem currently is the assessment that to gain a cover save a model must be the "target" of a "firer". Thus comes Terror. If Terror is a Shooting attack from a BS 0 model which is not even on the table when it "fires" Terror in its Movement Phase then all is good with your assessment of the prerequisites of Cover Saves being a Shooter and a Target unit. If, however, Terror is a Deep Strike which causes some non-Shooting attack wounds which can be saved by Cover saves then the non-Shooting wounds caused by Gets Hot may also be saved by Cover.

I'm afraid that is a Codex-specific issue and has no bearing on the functioning of the rules in the main rulebook.

 

Furthermore, it is not correct to expand one example of non-shooting cover saves to another (or indeed all) non-shooting hits or wounds.

[dswanick]

The key point here is that to be considered to be in cover, a model must be a target. In other words, it must have been selected as a target by a firing unit as per p. 16 of the rulebook. Suffering a Gets Hot result can never satisfy this condition, so therefore I propose that, RAW, cover saves for Gets Hot are prohibited on the basis that the model is not in cover, and has no cover save available.

Congratulations on going back to what started the current debate back on page 1. <_<

 

The problem currently is the assessment that to gain a cover save a model must be the "target" of a "firer". Thus comes Terror. If Terror is a Shooting attack from a BS 0 model which is not even on the table when it "fires" Terror in its Movement Phase then all is good with your assessment of the prerequisites of Cover Saves being a Shooter and a Target unit. If, however, Terror is a Deep Strike which causes some non-Shooting attack wounds which can be saved by Cover saves then the non-Shooting wounds caused by Gets Hot may also be saved by Cover.

I'm afraid that is a Codex-specific issue and has no bearing on the functioning of the rules in the main rulebook.

 

Furthermore, it is not correct to expand one example of non-shooting cover saves to another (or indeed all) non-shooting hits or wounds.

Well, of course you can win an argument by define the conditions under which a win is assessed. Not everyone agrees with you, however.

The rules in the main rulebook are in force unless specifically overruled by a codex. The Rulebook is ambiguous on if Cover saves can be taken against non-Shooting attacks. Terror causes non-Shooting attacks which can be saved by Cover without specifically overruling a BRB rule stating such wounds can not be saved by Cover. The FAQ clarifies that Cover does, in fact, prevent wounds caused by Terror thus opening up the possibility that the interpretation that Cover saves may not be taken against non-Shooting attacks is incorrect. It's similar to the theory that vehicles could only benefit from a Cover save if they were "obscured", and therefore some argued that Shield of Sanguinius or Storm Caller couldn't protect vehicles.

[pingo]

However, as Brother Theophantus said, what if a models blast weapon scatters back onto itself? For instance, a marine's plasma cannon or more commonly, an Imperial Guard demo charge. Following the conditions again:

 

1. The model must be a target. (No, as he's certainly not targeting himself, only falling foul of fickle fates)

2. There must be a 'firer.' (He is the firer)

3. Any part of the model's body must be obscured from the point of view of the firer. (I suppose that depends on the terrain...if a leafy shrub happens to be covering his foot then the condition is satisfied)

 

1. The model must be a target. (Again he is not)

2. The model's base must be wholly or partially within area terrain. (Yes, this has been verified)

3. There must be a shot incoming (from any direction). (Yes it is, either where the hole is, or himself, it's still a direction)

 

According to the conditions idea, you don't get cover saves from your own scattering weapon, which I disagree with.

 

I'm of the opinion that when you're utilizing tlos terrain, you will not get the cover save from an overheat because the action is happening behind the terrain that's protecting you from the enemy out there, not the gremlins within. However, when in area terrain you do get the cover save because it says you always get it no matter the direction.

 

It does make sense to me fluffily as well. He sees it's about to overheat and so tries to toss it away before it injures him. Passing the cover save means he got it behind a tree or something; failing it means he was too slow to throw.

 

There is an issue with the main rulebook in that it seems to imply that cover saves can be taken against non-close combat hits. However, I cannot find anywhere that states this directly, though it appears to assume it (along with the player base). But, I would argue that suffering a hit is substantially different from suffering a wound (with no hit being suffered at all).

 

This blast marker thing is a bit vague in the rulebook anyway. However, p. 30 states:

 

When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit, instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the blast marker over the base of the target model

 

Technically, any model that is not the target that the market scatters into could be argued not to have a cover save. This is obviously craziness. I think, RAI at least, that what ends up under the marker is selected as a target automatically.

 

But anyway, this line of reasoning may be moot. I'm not convinced we're dealing with an identical or equivalent situation.

 

In any case, I have seen no argument that shows a model suffering Gets Hot is entitled to a cover save, or is even considered to be in cover.

[pingo]

Well, of course you can win an argument by define the conditions under which a win is assessed. Not everyone agrees with you, however.

The rules in the main rulebook are in force unless specifically overruled by a codex. The Rulebook is ambiguous on if Cover saves can be taken against non-Shooting attacks. Terror causes non-Shooting attacks which can be saved by Cover without specifically overruling a BRB rule stating such wounds can not be saved by Cover. The FAQ clarifies that Cover does, in fact, prevent wounds caused by Terror thus opening up the possibility that the interpretation that Cover saves may not be taken against non-Shooting attacks is incorrect. It's similar to the theory that vehicles could only benefit from a Cover save if they were "obscured", and therefore some argued that Shield of Sanguinius or Storm Caller couldn't protect vehicles.

 

Ha ha, indeed. But I don't think I'm doing that. I'm primarily talking about what the main rule book has to say on the rule in question. Extending back from a Codex to the main rulebook seems like a recipe for trouble, though I admit it may glean insights into what the designers had in mind when compiling the main rules.

 

I don't know that rule in the Tyranid codex you're referring to. However, you may have made the incorrect assumption that Gets Hot is a shooting attack. It's not even an attack. Or a hit. It's just a wound suffered.

[Legatus]

The problem currently is the assessment that to gain a cover save a model must be the "target" of a "firer". Thus comes Terror. If Terror is a Shooting attack from a BS 0 model which is not even on the table when it "fires" Terror in its Movement Phase then all is good with your assessment of the prerequisites of Cover Saves being a Shooter and a Target unit. If, however, Terror is a Deep Strike which causes some non-Shooting attack wounds which can be saved by Cover saves then the non-Shooting wounds caused by Gets Hot may also be saved by Cover.

That is onla a problem if you assume that GW will rule in the FaQ based on how the rules from the BRB and Codex would necessarily work out according to RAW. They may have simply ruled the way they did to keep things simple. Because the Terror attack works basically like a... you know.

 

 

However, as Brother Theophantus said, what if a models blast weapon scatters back onto itself? For instance, a marine's plasma cannon or more commonly, an Imperial Guard demo charge. Following the conditions again:

 

1. The model must be a target. (No, as he's certainly not targeting himself, only falling foul of fickle fates)

2. There must be a 'firer.' (He is the firer)

3. Any part of the model's body must be obscured from the point of view of the firer. (I suppose that depends on the terrain...if a leafy shrub happens to be covering his foot then the condition is satisfied)

 

1. The model must be a target. (Again he is not)

2. The model's base must be wholly or partially within area terrain. (Yes, this has been verified)

3. There must be a shot incoming (from any direction). (Yes it is, either where the hole is, or himself, it's still a direction)

 

According to the conditions idea, you don't get cover saves from your own scattering weapon, which I disagree with.

I am not that fond of the three conditions presented, mainly because I think some of them are misinterpretations of the rules.

 

For example, there is no "intent" required by a firer (I.e., the model does not have to be consciously selected as a "target") in order to claim a cover save. A blast may scatter and land on an unintended unit, which could then still possibly claim cover. What matters is that it is some form of shooting attack, coming from somewhere, and that between the origin of this shooting attack and the model that is harmed is some kind of intervening terrain.

 

In case of a model firing a blast that scatters back on the model itself, it is still a shooting attack coming from somewhere, and if the model is standing in area terrain then it will receive a cover save, because in area terrain the exact direction does not matter and you do not check for true LOS to see whether there actually is something in the way of the shot. If the model is standing in area terrain, due to the abstract nature of that terrain you automatically assume that there is something in the way.

[dswanick]

I don't know that rule in the Tyranid codex you're referring to. However, you may have made the incorrect assumption that Gets Hot is a shooting attack. It's not even an attack. Or a hit. It's just a wound suffered.

No, I'm not assuming Gets Hot is a Shooting attack. It's not - that's kind of my point. Some are claiming that only wounds from Shooting attacks may be saved by Cover. I contend that unless a wound from a non-Shooting source specifically disallows Cover then it is allowed (a la : Dangerous Terrain wounds specifically disallows Cover saves). If Terror causes wounds without being a Shooting attack, does not specifically disallow Cover saves, and is FAQd that Cover saves may be taken then by extension Gets Hot(which also causes non-Shooting attack wounds) may also allow Cover saves, as it also does not specifically disallow them. The debate recently has been about whether Terror is a Shooting attack (in which case it's moot) or its wounds are non-Shooting wounds (which will reinforce the contention that Cover saves can prevent such wounds unless disallowed).

[pingo]

I am not that fond of the three conditions presented, mainly because I think some of them are misinterpretations of the rules.

 

Well, there's no accounting for taste :angry:

 

For example, there is no "intent" required by a firer (I.e., the model does not have to be consciously selected as a "target") in order to claim a cover save. A blast may scatter and land on an unintended unit, which could then still possibly claim cover. What matters is that it is some form of shooting attack, coming from somewhere, and that between the origin of this shooting attack and the model that is harmed is some kind of intervening terrain.

 

I think you may be correct here insofar as I think GW's interpretation of being a target is more than just being selected by a firing unit, but in addition, also including being hit by shots or attacks of some kind. Whether this is RAW, I can't say.

 

Still, Gets Hot is just a wound suffered with no hit involved.

[dswanick]

The problem currently is the assessment that to gain a cover save a model must be the "target" of a "firer". Thus comes Terror. If Terror is a Shooting attack from a BS 0 model which is not even on the table when it "fires" Terror in its Movement Phase then all is good with your assessment of the prerequisites of Cover Saves being a Shooter and a Target unit. If, however, Terror is a Deep Strike which causes some non-Shooting attack wounds which can be saved by Cover saves then the non-Shooting wounds caused by Gets Hot may also be saved by Cover.

That is onla a problem if you assume that GW will rule in the FaQ based on how the rules from the BRB and Codex would necessarily work out according to RAW. They may have simply ruled the way they did to keep things simple. Because the Terror attack works basically like a... you know.

Yeah, I know ... a Deep Strike which causes some wounds. :angry:

[pingo]

I don't know that rule in the Tyranid codex you're referring to. However, you may have made the incorrect assumption that Gets Hot is a shooting attack. It's not even an attack. Or a hit. It's just a wound suffered.

No, I'm not assuming Gets Hot is a Shooting attack. It's not - that's kind of my point. Some are claiming that only wounds from Shooting attacks may be saved by Cover. I contend that unless a wound from a non-Shooting source specifically disallows Cover then it is allowed (a la : Dangerous Terrain wounds specifically disallows Cover saves). If Terror causes wounds without being a Shooting attack, does not specifically disallow Cover saves, and is FAQd that Cover saves may be taken then by extension Gets Hot(which also causes non-Shooting attack wounds) may also allow Cover saves, as it also does not specifically disallow them. The debate recently has been about whether Terror is a Shooting attack (in which case it's moot) or its wounds are non-Shooting wounds (which will reinforce the contention that Cover saves can prevent such wounds unless disallowed).

I think, though, that the debate should really be about whether the Gets Hot model is in cover.

 

Gets Hot does not preclude cover saves.

 

If a model is classed as in cover, then it can take the cover save.

 

If it is not in cover, then it cannot.

 

What we need to do is establish whether the model is classed as being in cover, not necessarily what the nature of the attack/hit/wound is.

[dswanick]

I think, though, that the debate should really be about whether the Gets Hot model is in cover.

 

Gets Hot does not preclude cover saves.

 

If a model is classed as in cover, then it can take the cover save.

 

If it is not in cover, then it cannot.

 

What we need to do is establish whether the model is classed as being in cover, not necessarily what the nature of the attack/hit/wound is.

Well, that's the other part.

Dangerous Terrain wounds are sustained by a model without there being a "firer" or TLOS - yet specifically disallows Cover saves.

Terror (if it's not a shooting attack) wounds are sustained by a model without there being a "firer" or TLOS - does not disallow Cover saves and is FAQd that they may be taken.

This leads me to believe that the rules allow for models in area terrain to benefit from a Cover save against non-Shooting (non-"Fired") wounds (Dangerous Terrain if the rule did not specifically disallow them)/Terror(if it is in fact non-Shooting wounds)/Gets Hot(not a Shooting attack and says "all normal saves" apply), even though written from the point of view of "firers" and "targets".

[pingo]

Personally, I'm uncomfortable extending rulings in one area to another area when I'm not certain that they are the same thing.

 

From what you've said, it seems 'wounds suffered' are specifically allowed in some (one) case, but specifically disallowed in other cases. From that, you've assumed that since Gets Hots doesn't specifically disallow cover saves, you get cover saves. But could not the opposite be true? Because the Terror allows cover saves, it had to be specified and since Gets Hot is not specified then you don't get the cover save? I don't know the wording of the rule, so can't comment too much on this.

 

Unfortunately, none of those exceptions and rulings by GW explain why a cover save, or no cover save, is given (unless I'm mistaken?). They seem like arbitrary rulings, or rulings based on criteria known only to GW. When it is allowed, something must be granting the save, when it is not allowed, something must deny it.

 

I still maintain that in order to have a cover save, something must be giving cover to a model. You don't get cover for nothing, and it's a matter of point-of-view and/or position. This is unlike armour and invulnerable saves which are permanent properties of the model.

 

From what I can see in the rulebook, there is nothing to indicate that the model that suffers a Gets Hot result is in cover. Ergo, it has no cover save available.

 

Please show me a way in which the model can be classed as being in cover and I will agree with you without hesitation or reservation.

[dswanick]

Well, to the first part of your question - Dangerous Terrain, Close Combat, and Perils of the Warp were all mentioned as non-Shooting sources of wounds. And they all specifically disallow Cover saves. Gets Hot and Terror were both mentioned as non-Shooting sources of wounds that do not specifically disallow cover saves. Terror is FAQd that Cover saves may be taken. Gets Hot is not mentioned, but the rule itself says to take "all normal saves". Thus the debate.

 

As to the second part of your question the OP asked if a model in a piece of area terrain can take a Cover save against the Gets Hot wounds. Part of the debate revolves around the wording of models in area terrain getting a Cover save "regardless of the direction of the shot". Is no direction (the wound is coming from the model itself) count as a direction that is disregarded by the regardless? Can area terrain provide a cover save to wounds that have no direction or no firer. Some argue that the wording of the Cover save rules requires a Shooting attack with a firer and a target in area terrain. Others point out that Armor saves are also written in regards to firers and targets but that doesn't preclude using Armor saves against non-Shooting attacks. Its not that the model is getting cover from nothing, its if the area terrain that the model is in can grant a cover save to a non-directional, non-Shooting wound.

[SeattleDV8]

I still maintain that in order to have a cover save, something must be giving cover to a model. You don't get cover for nothing, and it's a matter of point-of-view and/or position. This is unlike armour and invulnerable saves which are permanent properties of the model.

 

From what I can see in the rulebook, there is nothing to indicate that the model that suffers a Gets Hot result is in cover. Ergo, it has no cover save available.

 

Please show me a way in which the model can be classed as being in cover and I will agree with you without hesitation or reservation.

 

BRB pg.23 Exceptions

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

Thats rather clear and simple, if you are in terrain you have cover.

[Legatus]

...against shots.

[dswanick]

...against shots.

ARMOUR SAVES

Roll a D6 for each wound the model suffered from incoming fire and compare the results...

And yet you wouldn't argue that said Armor saves may not be used against Dangerous Terrain or Gets Hot wounds because they aren't caused by incoming fire.

[Legatus]

I think I did explain this.

 

Basic rules for cover:

 

"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

 

So no firer, no cover.

 

Special case, when a model is not exactly "behind a piece of terrain" but is instead standing in an abstract "area terrain":

 

"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

 

This is an "exception" to the basic cover rules. Because area terrain is abstract, and you don't go with TLOS. However, cover is still cover. And cover means that a model is shot at over or through an obstructing piece of terrain.

 

The exception for area terrain does not suddenly make cover work against everything, while other types of cover would normally only work against shooting. The exception for area terrain simply explains how the abstract area terrain is treated when models standing in such terrain are being fired at. It still only comes into play when being fired at.

 

If no one is firing, then neither barricades nor area terrain will obstruct the shot, and there is no cover.

 

 

"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."

"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."

[dswanick]

Round and round we go...

And as SeattleDV8 pointed out, Armor saves are written from the point of view of wounds caused by incoming fire. That doesn't negate Armor saves usefullness against non-Shooting wounds such as Dangerous Terrain. But, please, keep beating that dead horse.

[SeattleDV8]

Should we also consider the 'Nid power Spirit Leech?

It happens in each shooting phase(both players), no target required, no weapon profile and could even be used on and in CC.

Certainly not a psychic shooting attack.

Note that wounds from it are allowed cover saves.

[pingo]

Well, what I've learned from this discussion that the problem is really to do with some vagueness in the definition of when a model is classed as being in cover. I always thought that was clear.

 

Also, and I don't mean it as an offence, but saying 'you're allowed cover in this situation, therefore you must be allowed it in this other situation' is a poor argument in terms of logic and does not prove the point, although it might well be a correct interpretation.

 

And as SeattleDV8 pointed out, Armor saves are written from the point of view of wounds caused by incoming fire. That doesn't negate Armor saves usefullness against non-Shooting wounds such as Dangerous Terrain. But, please, keep beating that dead horse.

 

Well, for Assault wounds, the rulebook says models may take armour saves. Dangerous terrain says that may not. So yes, the armour saves in the shooting section deal only with getting them against shooting attacks. But that's fine as it mentions when you can and can't take them elsewhere.

 

I think the use of 'normal saves' allowed is indeed very lax wording in the rule. Dammit.

 

I remain unconvinced a cover save is allowed here. I'm not being a douche by the way; I'm genuinely not convinced by the arguments presented. And I want an answer. Maybe there is no answer.