Triggering Cover Saves

[Saiisil]

A discussion I got into on another site got me thinking on this issue, I looked though a few pages and didn't find it so I am assuming it hasn't been asked.

 

What exactly triggers a cover save?

 

This has come to me during a debate about the KFF and DoG and I have come to the conclusion that cover saves can only be triggered by Ranged attacks, I came to this conclusion by a combination of the wording of rules presented on page 21 and page 39 of the main book. The implication of this is that only wounds from a ranged weapon may grant cover, in other words no KFF against that CC attack of a DoG maneuver and no cover for those saveless models (gretchens ex) from an exploded vehicle.

 

Basically I am curious as to your thoughts on this one. Did I come to the right conclusion or the wrong one?

[timmytool]

actually its the other way around you can get a cover save unless otherwise stated.

 

BRB p39 "taking saves" says you cant take a "cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat"..... which additionally from my interpretation of the wording means you cant take a cover save from a scattered template shot ether(while locked in combat).

 

BRB p69 "death or glory!" says the model that failed to stop the tank is removed regardless of any saves/wounds or any other means of preventing its death (so no we will be back for necrons ether).

 

BRB p14 "dangerous terrain" says "with no armour or cover saves allowed...." but a invulnerable save still works for dangerous terrain B)

 

and wargear like flamers that have special rules that remove/prevent cover saves.

 

 

but in general cover saves can only be used for ranged attacks or special rules/powers coming from another model (would say enemy but a scatted blast from a friend allows cover saves... sometimes)

 

 

 

EDIT: added the "additionally" to the sentence after the first quote

[greatcrusade08]

BRB p39 "taking saves" says you cant take a "cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat"..... which from my interpretation of the wording means you cant take a cover save from a scattered template shot ether(while locked in combat).

 

except that your wrong on this one, if models in cover (in assault or otherwis) are hit by a scattering shooting weapon then they take wounds caused by that shooting weapon and not by close combat.

they may be in CC, but thats not how/why they are taking wounds.

i can understand why you think that, but your not applying the wording properly: "wounds suffered in close combat" does not mean "wounds suffered from shooting whilst locked in B2B with an enemy unit"

RAW is king, the wounds are caused by shooting attacks and therefore you are elligible for cover saves

[timmytool]

BRB p39 "taking saves" says you cant take a "cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat"..... which from my interpretation of the wording means you cant take a cover save from a scattered template shot ether(while locked in combat).

 

except that your wrong on this one, if models in cover (in assault or otherwis) are hit by a scattering shooting weapon then they take wounds caused by that shooting weapon and not by close combat.

they may be in CC, but thats not how/why they are taking wounds.

i can understand why you think that, but your not applying the wording properly: "wounds suffered in close combat" does not mean "wounds suffered from shooting whilst locked in B2B with an enemy unit"

RAW is king, the wounds are caused by shooting attacks and therefore you are elligible for cover saves

 

the reasoning for my comment is the FAQ for the C:GK nemesis warding stave

 

C:GK p54

"A model wielding a nemesis warding stave has a 2+ invulnerable save against wounds caused in close combat."

 

C:GK FAQ p3

"Q: Can the save granted by a Nemesis warding stave

be taken against all Wounds suffered whilst the wielder

is engaged in close combat and not only against

Wounds caused by close combat attacks? (p54)

A: Yes."

 

while "...save against wounds caused in close combat."(C:GK p54) is different

then "...saves against any wounds suffered in close combat....."(BRB p39)

 

the differences are words that have near identical meanings.

[dswanick]

COVER SAVES

A position in cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down Of crawl amongst the rocks and (hopefully) avoid harm. Because of this, units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw.

 

What counts as Cover?

Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots. For example, a soft obstacle (like a hedge) that would hide soldiers behind

it, but would not even slow down enemy shots, confers...

 

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, while none of this on its own says "Cover saves may only be taken against shooting attacks" they do build up a fair RAI argument that such is the case.

TAKING SAVES

Models struck and wounded in close combat can attempt armour saves to avoid becoming casualties. Models usually get to save regardless of the attacker's Strength, but some especially monstrous creatures and powerful dose combat weapons will punch straight through armour. Otherwise, the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for Shooting.

 

Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting. This means that models do not get cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat, and for obvious reasons cannot go to ground.

 

Remember that even if the rules for a weapon or attack states that no armour save is allowed, an invulnerable save may still be made.

Here we have the part where Cover saves are disallowed in close combat. But what does that mean? As ever - GW is vague and loose with its use of words and their definitions. Just by reading those sections quoted above together a reasonable person could interpret the rules to allow Cover saves against all shooting attacks bbut not against any attacks resolved during step #3 Resolve combats of the Assault Phase. This is how most people play it, in my experience. So cover saves for Shooting Phase attacks, no cover saves for Assault phase attacks, but yes to cover saves from non-CC wounds caused in the Assault phase (ie. from the Explode result of a vehicle.)

An alternative, and equally logical, interpretation would be that the RAI is no cover saves may be taken by models locked in CC. On the theory there that as the game is simulating a fluid battle and the an Assault would be ongoing outside of "the Assault Phase", then those models engaged would be up and about defending themselves and attacking their opponents and unable to make use of cover from an errant explosion. This is bolstered by the prohibition against models Going to Ground because they are locked, even outside of the Assault Phase.

[Saiisil]

Now that I have had some sleep I would like to present something I presented elsewhere in an attempt to further express my point that specific rules need to allow for a cover save. Now this is comparing 2 vehicle upgrades from 2 different codex books, I will be paraphrasing these.

 

Orks: Deffrolla, any units in the path of a battlewagon take a number of hits dependent on whether the unit does a DoG or not. never says anything about allowing cover from these attacks. If under the assumption that cover can be granted by more then just shooting and anything that specifically allows for cover then cover would be allowed against this.

 

Dark Eldar: Chain-Snares any non-vehicle unit that the vehicle moves over takes a number of hits, specifically states that cover saves are allowed.

 

To me the mentioning of a firer, and the notation of shooting and incoming shots in regards to cover was enough to change what I originally believed about cover to coming to the conclusion I did come to.

[Grey Mage]

Id not allow cover saves for a Dethrolla. For the same reason Chain-snares specificly allow it (because otherwise I wouldnt for them either).

 

Its a fluff/rules thing, but your not going to be able to duck out of the way out a giant metal drum.

[nurglez]

how about when a vehicle explodes? does that let you take a cover save?

[Grey Mage]

The way my group plays it- yes. Its an AOE attack, so if it goes into more than 2" of cover it grants a save as normal. We havent seen anything to show otherwise, so were going with the rules we can find- Im interested in other opinions if people have solid facts to back them up.

[Saiisil]

I would say no for 2 reasons. 1 the mention of Firer and shooting/shots under the rules for cover and 2 Vehicle Explodes does not specifically permit cover.

[timmytool]

The way my group plays it- yes. Its an AOE attack, so if it goes into more than 2" of cover it grants a save as normal. We havent seen anything to show otherwise, so were going with the rules we can find- Im interested in other opinions if people have solid facts to back them up.

 

to the explosion result the book gives it to you if your out of close combat (and some would argue inside combat too), but while in combat you cant receive cover saves no mater what is causing the wound(see my above post for the legal text post #4)

 

BTW Saiisil it does not have to permit cover it has to exclude it to stop the ever present cover save(i.e if in a KFF, area terrain etc BRB p21-24[they can go to ground as well])

[Saiisil]

Then wouldn't somebody be able to use that same mindset that the vehicle with the KFF gets cover against a DoA attempt, and that a unit being tank shocked get a cover save against the Deffrolla?

 

The way page 21 is written it from everything I can tell literally says that cover is only good against ranged attacks. How is this wrong? that powerfist against the hull of a tank isn't a shot, that Deffrolla isn't a shot and neither is the exploding tank your standing next to.

 

Besides as I have already pointed out there exists similar equipment to other equipment that doesn't say it grants cover for one while the other specifically does. Another thing I would like to say is that it is my understanding that the rules for 40k are permissive rules meaning that the rules let us know what is permitted to be done, to quote someone else, "If we use the 'it doesn't say this so we can do it type of argument, there is nothing saying I can't paint my space marines blue with a red S on their chest giving them the ability to fly and shoot lasers out of their eyes'".

[greatcrusade08]

The way my group plays it- yes. Its an AOE attack, so if it goes into more than 2" of cover it grants a save as normal. We havent seen anything to show otherwise, so were going with the rules we can find- Im interested in other opinions if people have solid facts to back them up.

 

to the explosion result the book gives it to you if your out of close combat (and some would argue inside combat too), but while in combat you cant receive cover saves no mater what is causing the wound(see my above post for the legal text post #4)

 

again, you cant claim "wounds suffered in close combat" extend beyond the close combat phase, its an interpretation and NOT legal wording.

you cant claim that the wording suggests anything beyond the fact that close combat wounds give no cover saves.

 

edit: show me how shooting wounds are suffered in close combat

[timmytool]

The way my group plays it- yes. Its an AOE attack, so if it goes into more than 2" of cover it grants a save as normal. We havent seen anything to show otherwise, so were going with the rules we can find- Im interested in other opinions if people have solid facts to back them up.

 

to the explosion result the book gives it to you if your out of close combat (and some would argue inside combat too), but while in combat you cant receive cover saves no mater what is causing the wound(see my above post for the legal text post #4)

 

again, you cant claim "wounds suffered in close combat" extend beyond the close combat phase, its an interpretation and NOT legal wording.

you cant claim that the wording suggests anything beyond the fact that close combat wounds give no cover saves.

 

edit: show me how shooting wounds are suffered in close combat

 

the FAQ entry for the warding stave says(not directly I'll admit) that if you get hit by a scatted blast template(does not need to be a scattered blast if fired by C:GK's inquisitor Karamazov) while in close combat you will get the 2++ save, the full test and reasoning is in my above post #4 in this thread

 

the faq for it is

 

Q: Can the save granted by a Nemesis warding stave

be taken against all Wounds suffered whilst the wielder

is engaged in close combat and not only against

Wounds caused by close combat attacks? (p54)

A: Yes.

 

while locked in combat(which is the out of combat phase term for units participating in close combat BRB p35)

non combat attacks are: scatted blasts(that is also a shooting attack), explosion results on the vehicle damage chart, and their is sure to be others(remember tank shock cant be attempted against units locked in combat)

 

 

Saiisil, while I dont like the idea yes a tankshocking tank can receive a KFF save from a DOG attack(yes from the shooting DOG totally unsure about the CC DOG attack, as it is a CC attack but not in the CC phase) Also the Deffrolla attacks are not the same as the failed DOG rules and normal saves do apply.

[timmytool]

Then wouldn't somebody be able to use that same mindset that the vehicle with the KFF gets cover against a DoA attempt, and that a unit being tank shocked get a cover save against the Deffrolla?

 

The way page 21 is written it from everything I can tell literally says that cover is only good against ranged attacks. How is this wrong? that powerfist against the hull of a tank isn't a shot, that Deffrolla isn't a shot and neither is the exploding tank your standing next to.

 

Besides as I have already pointed out there exists similar equipment to other equipment that doesn't say it grants cover for one while the other specifically does. Another thing I would like to say is that it is my understanding that the rules for 40k are permissive rules meaning that the rules let us know what is permitted to be done, to quote someone else, "If we use the 'it doesn't say this so we can do it type of argument, there is nothing saying I can't paint my space marines blue with a red S on their chest giving them the ability to fly and shoot lasers out of their eyes'".

 

 

Going by you logic armour saves cant be taken when in close combat ether as the armour save section clearly says BRB p20 "Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire and compare the results to the model's Sv characteristic." as the CC wound is not from incoming fire the save cant be taken....

 

BTW the only types of cover save that can be gained by a model from non "shooting" attacks (though special abilities and psychic powers may be different) are "inside area terrain" saves (it does not require a firer BRB p22) or special rule/wargear saves like a friendly KFF, thought I'd personally grant cover saves to a enemy if my unit was "blocking" it from a explosion results source.

[Saiisil]

Going by you logic armour saves cant be taken when in close combat ether as the armour save section clearly says BRB p20 "Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire and compare the results to the model's Sv characteristic." as the CC wound is not from incoming fire the save cant be taken....

 

Now turn to page 39 of your rule book, you will see that it clearly states that armour saves may be taken unless of course the attack disallows it.

 

 

BTW the only types of cover save that can be gained by a model from non "shooting" attacks (though special abilities and psychic powers may be different) are "inside area terrain" saves (it does not require a firer BRB p22) or special rule/wargear saves like a friendly KFF, thought I'd personally grant cover saves to a enemy if my unit was "blocking" it from a explosion results source.

 

 

Can you quote that for me because every bullet under exceptions as well and the part about partial cover are talking about Shots and Firing no where do I see mention of non-shooting attacks. BTW thank you for giving me ideas of pages to give more proof to my logic that cover can only be gained against Shooting attacks unless otherwise specified.