Objuration Mechanicum

[Bubble Ghost]

Like I said before. P75 under the title of Vehicles and Cover. It doesnt say shooting and cover, its not in the shooting section, and it refers specifically to Hits. You are the one assuming that it is referring to shooting only.

It says hits, but in a section specifically noted as referring back to the cover rules, which only occur in the shooting section. It's still a grey area.

You're taking the reasonable RaI line when you look at this in general, and I'm just playing devil's advocate here, intentionally being extremely picky for the sake of beefing up one of these interpretations (I don't care whose) into a robust one. The problem is that the reasonable RaI line, that cover saves are allowed unless stated otherwise, becomes cheap rules lawyering in the context of Objuration Mechanicum (and other, hypothetical, unusual types of hit), which should intuitively not allow cover saves.

[IJW]

Why would they get cover saves? This is an effect, not a shooting attack.

You'd think that there would be no cover saves against an Eldar Farseer making your brain dribble out of your ears, yet somehow you get cover saves against Mind War...

[foehammer888]

What about other types of hits that vehicles could just receive wihtout being shot at. If a vehicle/unit moves into a type of terrain which can cause hits, does it get a cover save against those hits? A jink save?

Do models get cover saves against hits caused by dangerous terrain?

My understanding it that only hits caused by shooting attacks (and thus witchfire psychic powers, which act like shooting attacks) can be negated by cover saves.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

Simply being "not shooting" is not, in itself, sufficient to prevent cover or invulnerable saves. Or armor saves, or penetration rolls, or all the other effects and mitigators of damage that are described primarily in the shooting rules. Whether that's intuitive for the stranger cases can be quite subjective; it depends on the exact function of entirely fictional entities not described in sufficient detail. People complain about Mind War, for example, but it's always seemed to me that a wall is a perfectly good defense against something that requires the Farseer to see his target! There are plenty of rules and abilities that explicitly ignore cover, and more than a few of those do not take place in the shooting phase. Furthermore, there are abilities that are noted in FAQ's as allowing cover saves that do not take place in the shooting phase.

So, not only is the "cover is in the shooting phase only" rule not in the rulebook, it's rather extensively contra-indicated.

[Bubble Ghost]

I completely understand all that, but a cover save is not an innate property, it's defined by the disposition of the target and the source of the hit. And as long as some things are just "hits", and have no specified point of origin - some of the conditions on pages 366-367 are decent examples - then we need to know what does. But they never establish it. Common sense says sure, a Malediction quite obviously has a point of origin, the psyker; but common sense also says hiding behind a rock is not going to protect you from voodoo. And neither is a rule. And so we're left with "it doesn't say you do, so you don't" versus "it doesn't say you don't, so you do" when it comes to anything that is not shooting.

(don't take any of this as me disagreeing with you, or trying to be difficult. Quite the opposite, I agree with everything you said there. I just think there's a hole in the rules left by their occasional habit of handholding you through examples rather than actually setting out the mechanics. Same habit that's leading to all the confusion over wound allocation)

[Nurgling Chieftain]

Common sense says sure, a Malediction quite obviously has a point of origin, the psyker; but common sense also says hiding behind a rock is not going to protect you from voodoo. And neither is a rule.

I don't think those are equivalent uses of common sense. The former, as an interpretation, has a substantial body of evidence, in addition to being a reading of the RaW that is frankly no more loose than the assumptions underlying the notion that we use the normal rules to determine the damage. The latter is a completely unsupported assumption regarding barely-existing fluff that could easily be the other way (very easily if the power requires LoS, which I don't remember off-hand).

It's really hard to get anywhere with GW rules without applying a little common sense to basic reading comprehension. (Otherwise, as I keep pointing out, you quickly get absurdities like no damage can be resolved that isn't strictly shooting or close combat.) Bringing in the fluff is, in my opinion, more of a desperation move when the answer really isn't there at all.

don't take any of this as me disagreeing with you...

Okay, I'll keep the burna off. For now.

[Bubble Ghost]

My point has only ever been that by neglecting to include a damage system, as opposed to a shooting damage system which it is then assumed you will use for everything else, they leave stuff open to interpretation, which leads to threads like this. The problem is not so much that you have to use interpretation sometimes - that's a given, and they tell you as much - but that in this case it's totally unnecessary.

So, you're in area terrain when when some lava lands on you, as described on page 367. You fail your Intiative test and suffer "a hit." Cover save!

Thing is, sometimes the common sense answer is obvious but sometimes it isn't - Objuration Mechanicum has two effects, one of which is a "hit" and the other isn't. All there is regarding the cover save is unempirical evidence pointing to a silly RAW answer, that a rock can protect you from a specific half of an ancient gypsy hex. I was just probing for a more definitive resolution than that.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

The fact that Dangerous Terrain wounds explicitly disallow cover saves kind of undercuts your example a bit. Otherwise, I totally agree that a separately referenced damage system would make things easier on the outskirts, even if structurally it would probably have to be in the same place it is now for clarity of reading the first time.

[Bubble Ghost]

The fact that Dangerous Terrain wounds explicitly disallow cover saves kind of undercuts your example a bit.

And the fact that the volcanic eruption is nothing to do with dangerous terrain tests undermines that. There are a few examples on this page of things that come from nowhere and just inflict "hits". So do you go with the RAW-but-not-quite interpretation, and give them a cover save when a pool of lava the size of a bus lands on their heads - i.e., what you believe the silly RAW answer is meant to be? Or do you accept that some interpretation is needed - that you have to make a decision as to where the omission was made, in the cover rules or in the rules for the hit - and therefore accept that interpretation may be needed elsewhere as well? Such as when a vehicle suffers a hit generated by itself?

I just think they've left a hole here, in never stating what you actually get cover saves against. It's usually going to be so intuitive that you won't even think to raise the question, but 1) that doesn't mean that's right, and 2) there's the potential for this sort of question to keep coming up, every time they forget to specify "no cover saves" against some exotic type of hit.

This really has reached the point where I'm carrying on for the sake of the discussion itself though. Apologies to the OP for the semi-hijack.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

Whoops, should've looked up your example before commenting on it. Still, I don't think that disagreeing that a specific attack form should allow a cover save is anything like disagreeing that cover saves are a normal mechanic except where otherwise noted. The former is in no way a refutation of the latter.

[Bubble Ghost]

Still, I don't think that disagreeing that a specific attack form should allow a cover save is anything like disagreeing that cover saves are a normal mechanic except where otherwise noted.

Yeah, I get you. But if you agree to ignore a normal mechanic based only on common sense - as you are doing if you agree that a specific attack form, such as hot, hot lava, should ignore cover despite no statement to that effect - then that opens the door to vagueness and inconsistency over where the line should be drawn. That's all I'm saying here.

[Capt._Jaelinek]

So did we reach a conclusion?

[Bubble Ghost]

Short answer: sort of. My interpretation so far is this:

1) Insofar as you can say there is any RAW at all on this, it comes down on the side of yes, you do get a cover save against Objuration Mechanicum.
2) But this requires a degree of interpretation. There's a way to lawyer it into not getting a cover save. And given that this both seems to make a lot more narrative sense and be the intention, that's what I'll be doing.

I think that as soon as there's a necessity to interpret a rule, you should use it to get to the result that makes the most sense - not the stupid result you think the letter of the rules was supposed to lead to but doesn't quite. That seems a bit self-defeating in a pastime you do for enjoyment.

To be honest, my train of thought on this has gone, though. I could be overlooking something.

[Hawkkf]

RAW you get cover saves against ObMech. There is nothing that has been pointed out to the contrary. There is nothing else to interpret. Does it make sense? No, not really. But then again its all representational so just go with it.

[Elios Harg]

Who is going to risk getting one of the crappy other telekinesis powers to try for OM anyway? Only OM and Gate are at all decent

[Bubble Ghost]

Who is going to risk getting one of the crappy other telekinesis powers to try for OM anyway? Only OM and Gate are at all decent

The way I see it, you might as well take a punt at least once on the Telekinesis table, because you can always swap for Assail, which is brilliant. But that's another thread...

[Capt._Jaelinek]

So you are saying that vehicles get a cover save but other models don't? How do you justify that?

[Mr_Rose]

So you are saying that vehicles get a cover save but other models don't? How do you justify that?

Presumably because Objuration Mechanicum has very different effects on vehicles vs non-vehicles.

[Cthell]

If (for the sake of argument - I have no opinion either way) vehicles do get cover saves against Objura... OM, what happens if a vehicle successfully passes the cover save? Are they still subject to the malediction part (the nerf to shooting)? The Haywire hit is in addition, and non-vehicle models don't get a save against the effect afterall

[Capt._Jaelinek]

That's my point too. How can you get a save against one aspect of the curse but not the other? I just don't understand the logic. Also, why would a vehicle get a save and not other unit types? I really don't think the intention was to allow a save for vehicles.

But this does come back to do you get cover saves against maledictions? It's either yes or no in my opinion, not sometimes or sort of.

I think we have all done a good job on citing the rules related to this issue, so I guess it's up to you and your opponent to discuss it before the game starts. If you can't agree roll for it and have fun.