Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

does the entire unit have to be within 6 to gain the cover save, just one guy, 50% of the unit or something else?

Just 1 Guy.
Same for Storm Caller, orders or anything else that needs the Unit to be X" from something.

If it said "The ENTIRE unit must be within 6"", then it would need all the models. But it doesn't, so it only needs 1 Guy or 1 Planck Length of hull within 6"

thanks gwar.
this is what i thought but i wanted to run it by you guys.

usernamesareannoying wrote:thanks gwar.
this is what i thought but i wanted to run it by you guys.

I don't have my book handy, but I believe only vehicles actually within 6" get the obscured bonus. Worth noting for squadrons and such if so.

Gorkamorka wrote:

usernamesareannoying wrote:thanks gwar.
this is what i thought but i wanted to run it by you guys.

I don't have my book handy, but I believe only vehicles actually within 6" get the obscured bonus. Worth noting for squadrons and such if so.

Actually, for Squadrons, if 50% of the Squadron is obscured (either by terrain or wargear), the whole squadron gets the save.

Page 64 wrote:Then he takes any cover saves available to the squadron - use the rules for vehicles to determine if each squadron member is in cover (ignoring other members of the squadron, as if they were not there), and then the rules for normal units to work out if the entire squadron is in cover or not.

Page 22 wrote:If half or more of the models in the target unit are in cover, then the entire unit is deemed to be in cover and all of its models may take cover saves.

Gwar! wrote:Actually, for Squadrons, if 50% of the Squadron is obscured (either by terrain or wargear), the whole squadron gets the save.

Yes, but if only say... 1 of 3 vehicles in a squadron is within the KFF then the squadron doesn't get the bonus. Which is the opposite of how it works on infantry, so I figured it was worth mentioning.

However as they are still a UNIT they would get the 5+ cover save.

Quite neat....

nosferatu1001 wrote:However as they are still a UNIT they would get the 5+ cover save.

Quite neat....

Yup, because squadrons count as a unit

So you get a 5+ save instead of a 4+ save

Which is neatly what you get when you can't quite tell if 50% of a unit is in cover...which if a shiummering forcefield is covering a couple of models you probably would question it

nosferatu1001 wrote:However as they are still a UNIT they would get the 5+ cover save.

Quite neat....

And since the KFF specifies that they get a 5+ cover save, no vehicles would ever be entitled to a 4+ save for being obscured, only a 5+ save.

Maybe I'm not in the majority here, but I think this is a case where, if you want to say that the "vehicles count as obscured" statement is entirely seperate to the 5+ cover save statement (meaning obscured vehicles get a 4+ cover save from it) then vehicles shouldn't be trying to claim a cover save from the bit of the rule that doesn't apply to them.

Units always get the bet save available, iirc.

Drunkspleen wrote:And since the KFF specifies that they get a 5+ cover save, no vehicles would ever be entitled to a 4+ save for being obscured, only a 5+ save.

Nope, sorry. It says "Vehicles count as Obscured", not "Vehicles count as obscured with a 5+ save". So they have a 4+ save.

Actually, vehicles that are obscured get the save of whatever is obscuring them.

pg. 62 "...(for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on)."

It goes on to say, "If a special rule of piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured... this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex."

The KFF specifies 5+ right, so it would be 5+ not 4+.

But the 5+ save isn't obscuring them. If it did not mention that vehicles count as obscured, then the save would be 5+ for vehicles. Because it is mentioned separately, it is assumed to be 4+ for vehicles, and the codex does not say to make this obscured save a 5+.

Yeah, it's a 4+. They're said to be obscured targets, not obscured targets with a 5+ cover save.

Drunkspleen - essentially any vehicle would get BOTH a 5+ and a 4+ cover save, but be "forced" to take the 4+ at all times it is applicable.

The two sentences are entirely seperate, and the "obscured" sentence in no way shape or form refers to the 5+ save initially given. Yes, this is a case whre Orks get to have their cake and eat it, too.

Ah, ok, that's not the way my LGS interprets the obscured status. We do a check list style interpretation:

1) Is it obscured? (yes/no)
2) By what? (ruin, other vehicle, wargear, ect.)
3) What's its save? (4+,5+,3+, not specifed [so 4+])

For the KFF specifically, the players agree the wargear's save is 5+ so they convey it to the vehicle in that aspect.

I know this may be different, but the checklist style game play prevents a lot of disagreements.

As usual, YMMV.

After re-reading the rules, I have to say that if a KFF gives a 5+ cover save, and obscures... it would seem to me that it would give a 5+ obscured saved. The fact that it was mentioned was probably to clarify the fact that even though the shield is invisible, it still covers 50% of a vehicles, and gives obscured.

The idea that it gives a 4+ save because the rulebook didn't state specifically that the 5+ coversave given by the KFF applies to vehicles too is absurd. It is a 5+ save, thus it confers a 5+ save when it obscures too. Because it was specifically stated that the KFF gives a 5+ save... it does not get to take advantage of the it's a 4+ save because its wargear. It was, in fact, stated it is a 5+ save... so there it is.

After looking at the Ork FAQ, I am surprised this hasn't been FAQ'd

Lt Lathrop wrote:After looking at the Ork FAQ, I am surprised this hasn't been FAQ'd

I could understand your reaction if you were talking about the INAT FAQs, but the GW FAQs? Really?

Lt Lathrop - sorry, you are entirely wrong on this. Even the "5th ed prep" sheets mentioned that KFF gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles.

You are told, specificlaly in the rulebook, that "obscured" is a 4+ save unless told otherwise. NOWHERE in the KFF rule does it state that the 5+ save conferred in the first sentence applies to the "obscured" status given in the second sentence. Nothing.

The two sentences are entirely seperate, and do not have any links between them whatsoever. You can only say the save is a 5+ if you have no idea of how the Enlgish language works.

Mek KFF:
A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek
a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as
being obscured targets.

BRB obscured:
If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a
vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the
open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise
in the Codex.

The KFF simply grants obscured, separate from the 5+ cover it gives to infantry. Unspecified obscured wargear = 4+

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lt Lathrop - sorry, you are entirely wrong on this. Even the "5th ed prep" sheets mentioned that KFF gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles.

You are told, specificlaly in the rulebook, that "obscured" is a 4+ save unless told otherwise. NOWHERE in the KFF rule does it state that the 5+ save conferred in the first sentence applies to the "obscured" status given in the second sentence. Nothing.

The two sentences are entirely seperate, and do not have any links between them whatsoever. You can only say the save is a 5+ if you have no idea of how the Enlgish language works.

My interpretation has nothing to do with the entry in the Orks Codex being two separate statements. It has everything to do with the rule that if the save is not specified, then it is a 4+ as it is granted by wargear. It is just as easy to interpret the rule in the Ork Codex as having been 4+ because it was not specifically stated it was also a 5+ cover save, because it was intended to be a 4+ cover save, or that it is a 5+ cover save because the KFF confers 5+ cover... and restating that it confers 5+ cover ALSO to obscured would have been redundant, or just as easy to say that it was a leftover from 4th ed when obscured didn't give cover saves but something completely different... thus not needing any specific clarifications one way or the other... and that it should have been FAQ'd when it was moved to 5th edition where the obscured status did something completely different.

Next time you want to argue my workings of the English language, maybe you should focus on the rules we are discussing and possibly your spelling of the word "Enlgish" while you are at it. (Unless you actually meant Enlgish, in which case I apologize... but I don't speak that. Lol.)

By the lack of logic posted, a unit behind a chain fence (6+cover save) and wall (4+ cover save) has to take the 6+ because the fence was agreed to be 6+? umm no?

Best save = best chance to live on the roll.

If both 5+(kff) and 4+(obscured from anything, including kff) can be applied, the 4+(best) is used.

/shrug

kirsanth wrote:By the lack of logic posted, a unit behind a chain fence (6+cover save) and wall (4+ cover save) has to take the 6+ because the fence was agreed to be 6+? umm no?

Best save = best chance to live on the roll.

If both 5+(kff) and 4+(obscured from anything, including kff) can be applied, the 4+(best) is used.

/shrug

That isn't what Lathrop and the others are arguing.
You don't get a 4+ save from being obscured by anything, only from things that would normally grant 4+ cover and wargear that doesn't have a value specified. (pg62)
He's arguing that the 5+ cover granted by the kff to units IS specifying its value and should be used for the vehicle obscuring save.

I still firmly believe the generic 'obscured' it grants to vehicles wouldn't use the unrelated cover # from the previous sentence, but I can see where they are coming from.

Since vehicles are units, and the KFF gives a 5+ save to units...

I think I've been playing this wrong. I think it's a 5+ save for vehicles.

Bah.

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:And since the KFF specifies that they get a 5+ cover save, no vehicles would ever be entitled to a 4+ save for being obscured, only a 5+ save.

Nope, sorry. It says "Vehicles count as Obscured", not "Vehicles count as obscured with a 5+ save". So they have a 4+ save.

Yes, all I was saying is, if you want them to be considered entirely seperate statements (which you clearly do, not necessarily for your own benefit, but simply because that is what you think the rules say) then I believe the second statement that vehicles are obscured overrides the first statement that units get a cover save. I can see how the RAW does support a squadron getting a 5+ cover save if only 1 vehicle (of 3) is in range of a KFF, but I feel the more specific rules for vehicles mean the broader rules aren't applied.

Ordznik wrote:Since vehicles are units, and the KFF gives a 5+ save to units...

I think I've been playing this wrong. I think it's a 5+ save for vehicles.

Bah.

It's a 5+ save AND a 4+ save for squadrons.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:And since the KFF specifies that they get a 5+ cover save, no vehicles would ever be entitled to a 4+ save for being obscured, only a 5+ save.

Nope, sorry. It says "Vehicles count as Obscured", not "Vehicles count as obscured with a 5+ save". So they have a 4+ save.

Yes, all I was saying is, if you want them to be considered entirely seperate statements (which you clearly do, not necessarily for your own benefit, but simply because that is what you think the rules say) then I believe the second statement that vehicles are obscured overrides the first statement that units get a cover save. I can see how the RAW does support a squadron getting a 5+ cover save if only 1 vehicle (of 3) is in range of a KFF, but I feel the more specific rules for vehicles mean the broader rules aren't applied.

Except that nowhere in the rules, either BRB or the rules for KFF, does it indicate you may only receive a single save. It is an assumption on your part with absolutely no nasis whatsoever in the rules.

You receive both the 5+ save for being a "unit" and the 4+ save for being a vehicle, and therefore must use the best save. Sometimes squadrons may only get the former save, as only some members of the unit may be within 6" to get the improved "vehicle" save.

Lt Lathrop - you still cannot show how, at any point, the 2 sentences contradict / override / link each other such that "obscured" becomes a 5+ save. If you can do so - then please post some evidence of this. Otherwise you have baseless supposition that they are not "supposed" to get a 5+ save as well. This is why I am saying you need to have a flawed look at the English language, as there is no way, under its current construction, that the two sentences can be said to be linked to eachother.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:And since the KFF specifies that they get a 5+ cover save, no vehicles would ever be entitled to a 4+ save for being obscured, only a 5+ save.

Nope, sorry. It says "Vehicles count as Obscured", not "Vehicles count as obscured with a 5+ save". So they have a 4+ save.

Yes, all I was saying is, if you want them to be considered entirely seperate statements (which you clearly do, not necessarily for your own benefit, but simply because that is what you think the rules say) then I believe the second statement that vehicles are obscured overrides the first statement that units get a cover save. I can see how the RAW does support a squadron getting a 5+ cover save if only 1 vehicle (of 3) is in range of a KFF, but I feel the more specific rules for vehicles mean the broader rules aren't applied.

Except that nowhere in the rules, either BRB or the rules for KFF, does it indicate you may only receive a single save. It is an assumption on your part with absolutely no nasis whatsoever in the rules.

You receive both the 5+ save for being a "unit" and the 4+ save for being a vehicle, and therefore must use the best save. Sometimes squadrons may only get the former save, as only some members of the unit may be within 6" to get the improved "vehicle" save.

Lt Lathrop - you still cannot show how, at any point, the 2 sentences contradict / override / link each other such that "obscured" becomes a 5+ save. If you can do so - then please post some evidence of this. Otherwise you have baseless supposition that they are not "supposed" to get a 5+ save as well. This is why I am saying you need to have a flawed look at the English language, as there is no way, under its current construction, that the two sentences can be said to be linked to eachother.

Wait-are you seriously saying that there's no way two consecutive sentences could possibly be linked? Even if only because of their proximity? Or the fact that they're in the same paragraph?

Think about it for a second.

Ordznik wrote:

Lots of People wrote:Stuff.

Wait-are you seriously saying that there's no way two consecutive sentences could possibly be linked? Even if only because of their proximity? Or the fact that they're in the same paragraph?

Think about it for a second.

+1