Do formations defending in an assault who use their counter charge move still get a cover save if in cover?

I know that an attacking formation never uses cover saves but can't find anywhere that explicitly states yes or no on the above.

Appreciated,
Ryan

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

If the target units remain in cover at the end of their counter-charge, AFAIK they still get the cover save.
Put another way, why would they lose their cover save under these circumstances?

I've previously played opponents who tried having me believe otherwise against my siege list, I gave them the benefit of the doubt but this essentially pinned my troops in place and meant that the flanks of trenches.or indeed many formations became very vulnerable to assault.
Cheers for clearing it up Gavin!

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

Because they are charging and "all the normal charge move rules apply...".

We were confused about this a couple of weeks ago too, and the rules are definitely not as clear as they could be on this I think. Couldn't find anything in the FAQ but it may have been an old one we were looking at.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

This does pop up often and I believe has been added to the FAQ updates for better wording.
I think the main problem comes from players mis-reading the rules.
I've had games where players claim the rules say no cover save for "a charge move" and believe a counter charge comes under this move but the rules are actually no cover saves for "Taking a charge action" with the charge action being the engage action and defenders do not take an engage (or charge) action.

From 1.12.5

Cheers dptdexys, though if that is the best argument in favour of this ruling then the rules could definitely do with being clarified in the FAQ I think.

I would suggest the main problem is not at all players misreading, but rules being miswritten, hence why this issue often pops up as you say. The problem is that there is no such thing as a "charge action"! "Engage" is an action. whereas "Charge" is a move - the normal rules of which also apply to a counter charge. Hence the confusion. I don't think players can be blamed for misreading a passage that conflates both an action and move in the same sentence.

I suppose the interesting question is whether or not the rule designers intended the lack of cover saves to apply to an "engage action" or to a "charge move"? I expect only to an engage action but I don't know this many years down the track... and both interpretations could make sense in terms of fluff.

Anyway, I suspect the confusion could be rectified by something like the following(?):

"Infantry units from formations taking an engage action may not take cover saves (they are assumed to have left cover to charge the enemy), but other infantry units may take cover saves normally."

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Indeed. Earlier bits of the assault rules make quite a big thing of distinguishing between the two phrases:

'1.12.3 Make Charge Move

A formation undertaking an engage action is allowed to make one move (not a double distance move as is the case in many sets of wargame rules, not least many Games Workshop games), and then fights an assault against the enemy formation that was chosen as the target of the charge. This move is known as the charge move.'

Emphasis not added by me.

So 1.12.5 contains a typo one way or another, either it's 'charge move' or 'engage action'. Given that the justification is leaving cover to charge the enemy I still think 'charge move' makes more sense in the context.

Also, if it's 'engage action' you get the absurd situation where an engaging formation that didn't move at all (already in firefight range) doesn't get cover saves while units counter-charging 10cm get cover saves. That's the kind of rule that destroys suspension of disbelief during a game.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

The NetEA rules include this:

'Q: Do the Cover Save and Cover to-hit modifier apply in Assaults?

A: Defenders in an Assault get the Cover Save from any terrain they are in but attackers never get a Cover Save from terrain. The -1 to-hit modifier is not applied as there are never any modifiers to attack rolls in Assaults.'

Which I suppose has the advantage of being very clear.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

Thanks folks: I would also read 'charge action' as 'engage action'.
R>

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

I think that if you say "charge action" it's much more likely mean "engage action" than "charge move".

The distinction between actions and moves is pretty clear and never used interchangeably, whereas people often say "my tacticals are going to charge your scouts" when they declare an action.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Even if I agree with you, "you think" still doesn't help much when people could justifiably have exactly the opposite interpretation, especially when this actually makes more sense in some circumstances, like that Wartrader just mentioned.

And the distinction is not clear at this point in the rules because the terms are conflated - that's the problem. I'd still recommend that this is clarified further in the FAQ, if not the rules themselves, given one word change would appear to eliminate the problem. If it keeps popping up despite the FAQ (with the FAQ ruling Wartrader refers to having been in place at least 5-6 years now), then clarifying the wording may be worthwhile.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Calling the Engage Action move a Charge Move (to differentiate between a normal move) is what allows you to enter a ZofC to get into base contact.


The engage whilst staying still is already covered in the overwatch and movement FAQ sections.
A move, even if the player moves 0 is still considered a move.

From overwatch section,


From Movement scetion,

You're missing my point - regardless of the rules about 0cm moves, it 'feels' wrong to have a formation that moved further keep it's cover saves and a formation that moved 0cm automatically lose it's cover saves.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

I don't see how it feels wrong because to me it doesn't, your engaging another formation and know the positives and negatives of that action.
For me it stops gamey situations of players trying to take advantage of rules and situations and negates having to track which units have or haven't moved.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion