The Doom of Malantai

[Shavnir]

The person obv doesnt understand its not a psychic power lol

Honestly anymore I'm convinced GW is about the least valuable resource when it comes to rules for their own game.

[j78]

That depends on whether or not you're within 6" of the internet.

i moved my chair closer.

but if he's not logged in, he's not techincally "on the internet" right? i mean, do we remove him from the internet when he logs off? does anyone have an FAQ?

[HsojVvad]

@ Ferro, thanks for the explanation. That is what I was thinking. I think from reading the interent forums, lots of people here still have the mentality of 3rd and 4th edtion rule set and apply them to 5th edtion. I think lots of 4th edtion players havn't really read the 5th edtion rules because of lots of similarities to 4th edtion that they assume rules work this way because it was the way it was done before and will not accept it could have changed.

[Nabterayl]

While that's probably true, HsojVvad, I'm not sure this is a situation of people just not reading 5th edition. 4th edition didn't actually say what happened to embarked models, or how to deal with them. Nothing said embarked models were taken off the table, or that embarked models couldn't be seen, or shot, or assaulted, or any of that stuff - players just had to use their common sense to infer it.

While it doesn't take a lot of common sense to infer that you can't have a tac squad embark on a Rhino and still keep the models on the table ("But nothing in the 4e rulebook said I couldn't be in two places at one time!" wails the random rules lawyer), it was actually pretty tricky to determine, from the text of the 4e rules, that you couldn't shoot embarked units. I'm pretty sure this (or its equivalent in 3e or 2e) is the genesis of the unwritten rule that units in transports are simply out of play unless a rule specifically allows them to do something.

The trouble with the 5e rules is that it doesn't actually tell us anything to the contrary, and I think a lot of players quite reasonably ask why we should assume that a rule that wasn't written in 4e has gone away simply because it isn't written in 5e either. It doesn't help that GW appears to have adopted the old unwritten 4e rule in at least some cases. How else to explain the FAQ that Hammer of the Witches doesn't affect psykers in transports?

I'm still sticking with the "there is no RAW answer" position.

[DarkLink]

I'm still sticking with the "there is no RAW answer" position.

Me too.

I think people at GW HQ gets into a position where they really do know RAI, unlike us, which makes it tough to see gaps in RAW in cases like this. They write something, and someone comes to a conclusion different from what they intended, and they just think "what are those people smoking?"

Regardless, that phone call just busted anyones chances of me letting them kill my embarked units with Leech, unless an FAQ/Errata comes out saying that they can do it.

[gcsmith]

Customer Helpline shouldnt affect u darklink. after all customer helpliners often dnt play the hobby, hopefully next year ill be working at head office, if cambridge uni dsnt accept me but notingham does

[N.I.B.]

EDIT: I can't tell if your point is that Spirit Leech should ignore cover saves, or that units aren't entitled to a cover save from being in cover on the grounds that Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack and thus the Doom is not a "firer." The latter seems perfectly reasonable to me, but there are ways to get a cover save that have nothing to do with being in cover, and I don't see why, from a RAW standpoint, Spirit Leech would ignore those saves.

It doesn't say so directly as far as I can find it, but it does imply it multiple times on page 21 and page 22.

Firstly, cover is only discussed in the chapter about shooting (and then again in the shooting sections of different unit types such as monstrous creatures and vehicles).

First box on page 21 says ""The great thing about cover saving throws is that they are not affected by the Armour Piercing value of the attacking weapon". Only shooting weapons have an AP value.

second box of text: "Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots". Again, incoming shots or hiding (for los of the firer's purpose).

Below the cover chart, 'when are models in cover?', it says " When any part of the target model's body is ovscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover." The 'target model' actually speaks for the doom's benefit, as it doesn't target, let alone target models, but the main point here is "from the pov of the firer" - ie someone shooting.

More of the 'firer's point of view' and 'stop the shots' is to be found on the right column of page 21, again referring only to shooting attacks. On page 22 it makes some exceptions and once again only points to shooting attacks.

So I say it's fair to assume it only counts for shooting attacks. In any case, it doesn't count for the doom, because for cover you need a target model. The doom affects units, not models (which are not interchangable terms), and the doom doesn't target anything, so it's circumventing cover saves quite nicely.

[Nabterayl]

So I say it's fair to assume it only counts for shooting attacks. In any case, it doesn't count for the doom, because for cover you need a target model. The doom affects units, not models (which are not interchangable terms), and the doom doesn't target anything, so it's circumventing cover saves quite nicely.

You're conflating "being in cover" with having a cover save. They aren't the same thing. It is possible to get a cover save without being in cover, and it is possible to be in cover without getting a cover save. Being in cover is simply the most common way to get a cover save.

Spirit Leech doesn't ignore cover saves. In order to ignore cover saves, a wounding effect must specifically say that it ignores cover saves. What Spirit Leech does do is prevent most units from getting a cover save in the first place.

I agree with you that models are not entitled to claim a cover save against Spirit Leech for being in cover. This is because you are only entitled to claim a cover save for being in cover if certain things are true about the firer's view of you, and as Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack, the Doom is not a firer. So although a victim of Spirit Leech may be in cover, it does not get a cover save for being in cover, and because it does not get a cover save for being in cover, it obviously cannot take a cover save for being in cover.

However, nothing in Spirit Leech's rules says that Spirit Leech ignores cover saves themselves (contrast with page 39, "models do not get cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat"). The nature of Spirit Leech prevents units from getting a cover save from being in cover, but if the unit has a cover save from some other source, it can still take advantage of the save. For instance, an ork kustom force field provides units within 6" with a 5+ cover save. Units under a KFF are not in cover; they simply have a cover save. This would work against Spirit Leech. Similarly, going to ground confers a 6+ cover save, not because a unit that has gone to ground is in cover, but because page 24 says they get a 6+ cover save, period. That would also work against Spirit Leech.

[N.I.B.]

You're right of course, there are exceptions. I'm just getting into 40K and trying to get my head around the ruleset.

[Nabterayl]

No problem. A lot of players confuse being in cover with having a cover save. While most of the time that doesn't do any harm, there are cases (such as this) where it's important to remember the distinction.