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.

I have a thread in Tactics that have changed direction somewhat.

The question , that I feel suits better here, is like this:

How many kans in each squadron have to be inside the KFF 6" radius to make the whole squadron in cover. Some say 1, some say 2.

Can anyone bring any light on this here?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/273521.page#1255980

Units within 6" receive a 5+ cover save. Vehicles count as obscured.

Kans within 6" will count as obscured and receive a 4+ cover save due to the default save for obscurement.

Kans who are not within 6" but in the same unit as a Kan that is will not be obscured, but will get a 5+ cover save for being part of a unit within 6".

There will likely be a lot of dissent, but this is the most literal RAW.

just as a recap so everyone knows...

KFF says...
units that are within 6 get a 5+ cover save.
vehicles within 6 become obscured.

personally... i hate the woring on this thing

sourclams wrote:Units within 6" receive a 5+ cover save. Vehicles count as obscured.

Kans within 6" will count as obscured and receive a 4+ cover save due to the default save for obscurement.

Kans who are not within 6" but in the same unit as a Kan that is will not be obscured, but will get a 5+ cover save for being part of a unit within 6".

There will likely be a lot of dissent, but this is the most literal RAW.

No, the most literal RaW is :
------------------
Units within 6" receive a 5+ cover save. Vehicles count as obscured.

Kans within 6" will count as obscured and receive a 4+ cover save due to the default save for obscurement.

Kans who are not within 6" but in the same unit as a Kan that is will not be obscured, but will get a 5+ cover save for being part of a unit within 6" which they cannot use as this save can only be taken against wounds.
------------------

I've always kinda wondered this myself, seeing as how people jsut assume that it's a 4+ cover for all the Kans.

Personally, I think it comes from the idea that in 4th edition, the whole squadron was counted as obscured as vehicles did not have cover saves (IIRC.) Since it did that, then it must still make them obscured in 5th even though vehicles can have cover saves now.

Gwar! is correct on this one

The default for cover saves, confirmed on pages 20/21 which only deal with wounds AND the rules on page 62, is that they only work against wounds

So any Kan within 6" is obscured. If 1 of 3 is within 6" only 1 is obscured. The rest obtain a 5+ cover save which, as they are not obscured, only works against wounds.

final result: majority of the unit is not obscured so cannot use the 4+ cover save "obscured" from a piece of wargear provides. They also have a 5+ cover save which works against wounds.

THAT is the most literal RAW, anything else requires reading that cover saves work against hits at all times, which ignores the entire context pf pages 20/21 and essentially makes page 62 redundant. It is an interesting reading but not supported.

I disagree (I agree with sourclams).

Vehicles can get cover saves against glancing or penetrating hits as described on page 62.
Normally only obscurement grant these cover saves but the KFF override that by granting a 5+ cover save.

So only one of three Kans is within 6" of the KFF the unit is not obscured but still get a 5+ cover save against glancing and penetrating hits.

OK, so I assume you ignore the part of the sentence that starts "If Obscured...."

If you are not obscured *that sentence does not apply to you* and you therefore *cannot* take cover saves against hits - unless your rule states otherwise.

Please find a rule other than "If obscured..." that lets you take cover saves against hits.

Being "obscured" gives both a cover save AND permission to use it against hits instead of wounds.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please find a rule other than "If obscured..." that lets you take cover saves against hits.

The KFF codex entry says it gives a 5+ cover save no matter what, and codex always overrides the BRB.

Culler wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please find a rule other than "If obscured..." that lets you take cover saves against hits.

The KFF codex entry says it gives a 5+ cover save no matter what,

Wrong.

The exact wording is "A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+."
No mention of your imaginary "no matter what" clause.

and codex always overrides the BRB.

Again, Wrong.

Culler wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please find a rule other than "If obscured..." that lets you take cover saves against hits.

The KFF codex entry says it gives a 5+ cover save no matter what, and codex always overrides the BRB.

Well done. That is *exactly* what I posted.

Now find a rule that lets yOu USE that cover save against *hits* instead of wounds. There is a difference between the two...

Oh, and the words you are looking for is "specific > general" - in this case where is the specific codex rule that overrides the rulebook that states you have to be obscured to *use* a cover save against *hits*?

Oh, really? There's already a thread on Cover saves and vehicles.

Pretty sure the "cover saves are for wounds only!" crowd was shown to be incorrect there, too.

To recap:

The -normal- rules for cover call for 50% of a vehicle's facing to be obscured.

KFF, etc are not "normal" (ie, intervening terrain, models, etc.) means of getting cover.

Therefore, codex specifics > BRB general.

KFF is a non-normal means of getting cover. P62 covers exceptions to "the normal rules for cover". KFF grants a 4+ save if the majority of a squad is within 6", and a 5+ save if at least one is within 6".

kartofelkopf wrote:Oh, really? There's already a thread on Cover saves and vehicles.

Pretty sure the "cover saves are for wounds only!" crowd was shown to be incorrect there, too.

They were actually correct, and shown to be so by RAW, but who cares about the rules amirite?

Gorkamorka wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:Oh, really? There's already a thread on Cover saves and vehicles.

Pretty sure the "cover saves are for wounds only!" crowd was shown to be incorrect there, too.

They were actually correct, and shown to be so by RAW, but who cares about the rules amirite?

Rules? Rules are for WAAC Powergaming TFGs who don't want to have the fun that normal people derive from having to work out house rules each and every time they play!

Gwar! wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote: Noticeable lack of an answer to the points raised, with a side order of ad hom.

Noticeable lack of an answer to the points raised, with a side order of ad hom.

I know you didn't deem it worth your time to actually respond in the other thread, but, could you just possibly make an attempt at discussing the rules issues at question and not spewing forth content-less posts? I believe that's called spamming.

Kthx

kartofelkopf wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote: Noticeable lack of an answer to the points raised, with a side order of ad hom.

Noticeable lack of an answer to the points raised, with a side order of ad hom.

I know you didn't deem it worth your time to actually respond in the other thread, but, could you just possibly make an attempt at discussing the rules issues at question and not spewing forth content-less posts? I believe that's called spamming.

Kthx

KFF gives a cover save.
A cover save is a saving throw.
Saving throw rules state they are taken against wounds.
A single rule in the rulebook gives vehicles permission to take a cover save against a hit, but it quite clearly requires the vehicle to be obscured in the same sentence... which the kff doesn't grant to vehicles unless they are physically within 6".

Glad we had this little talk. Next time try reading the rulebook, or the threads you reference, instead of making unbacked claims about how the kff somehow overrides clear rules it never mentions or conflicts with.

kartofelkopf wrote:Oh, really? There's already a thread on Cover saves and vehicles.

Pretty sure the "cover saves are for wounds only!" crowd was shown to be incorrect there, too.

Only by people ignoring the rules.

To recap:

kartofelkopf wrote:The -normal- rules for cover call for 50% of a vehicle's facing to be obscured.

No, that is entirely missing the point. Same as you did in the other thread.

kartofelkopf wrote:KFF, etc are not "normal" (ie, intervening terrain, models, etc.) means of getting cover.

And? Never said they werent.

kartofelkopf wrote:Therefore, codex specifics > BRB general.

It doesnt give you permission to USE the cover save against HITS. NOTHING you have posted has anything to do with my post, almost as if you never read it. Whoda thunk it?!

Please provide a rule, in KFF, that lets you use the 5+ cover save against HITS.

kartofelkopf wrote:KFF is a non-normal means of getting cover. P62 covers exceptions to "the normal rules for cover". KFF grants a 4+ save if the majority of a squad is within 6", and a 5+ save if at least one is within 6".

Incorrect, please read the rulebook and provide rules that allow you to take cover saves against hits. Being obscured is the only way to do so, but good luck!

You keep touting the need to have 'obscured status' like it's the only means for a vehicle to gain cover- it isn't. Obscured just refers to a vehicle that is 50% covered for purposes of determining if it has a cover save-- KFF, etc... skips the 50% step and jumps to allowing the vehicle the save.

On the very same page as the rules you keep citing, mantra like, the rules for vehicles grant a 3+ cover save for extreme angles-- with nary a mention of obscurement.

Further, the rules for cover never use the term 'wounds.' It does use the term 'damage.' Please, make a "it's in the ____ section" argument-- and I'll point out that Ramming is in the 'Tank Shock' section. Please.... Both other save types specifically mention wounds, while cover saves use the generic term 'damage.' On the other hand, vehicles have not even been introduced in the rules at this point, perhaps that's why they aren't mentioned here.

Either way, the intent is painfully clear-- vehicles can get cover saves through normal means (obscurement) or through non-normal means: KFF, extreme angle, stormcaller, etc....

Edit for spelling, html.

Just recapping, what's the verdict on the following situations?

Kan 1 in a squadron is within KFF range. The squadron gets shot with two lascannons. The shots are allocated to Kan 1 and Kan 2 (Kan 2 is out of KFF range, but in the squadron). Kan 3 is also out of range of the KFF, but not shot at. What happens?

Kan 1 and Kan 2 in a squadron are within KFF range. The squadron gets shot with two lascannons. The shots are allocated to Kan 1 and Kan 3 (kan 3 is out of KFF range, but in the squadron). What happens?

As a squadron you assign damage results like allocating wounds, so they dont shoot at any specific can i had thought? so just allocate to the kan thats in kff range.

True, but I was pretty sure you had to divvy them up to where at least one had to go on each one before you could double up. Thus the Kans inside kff range get the 4+ don't give a crap roll and the other sadly must just pray to Gork and Mork to make it out alive.

kartofelkopf wrote:You keep touting the need to have 'obscured status' like it's the only means for a vehicle to gain cover- it isn't. Obscured just refers to a vehicle that is 50% covered for purposes of determining if it has a cover save-- KFF, etc... skips the 50% step and jumps to allowing the vehicle the save.

And yet again THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING. I have stated this *very* clearly now at least 3 times. Please correct your erroneous statement.

Seriously, please read my words here: "obscurement" grants a cover save AND the ability to *use* it against hits.

"Grant" and "Use" are two entirely different things.

kartofelkopf wrote:Further, the rules for cover never use the term 'wounds.'

Vehicles have yet to be introduced, and the entire section states it is to do with wounds.

Context is everything, isnt it?

kartofelkopf wrote: It does use the term 'damage.'

And the "taking saves" section talks about troops taking wounds, and the following being the types of saves.

You cannot remove context and ignore it.

(oh, and the 3+ cover save works becasuse the vehicle is obscured - you cannot see the side you are facing as it is entirely covered. This makes the vehicle "obscured" - you can then shoot the other side, but the vehicle is STILL obscured. Nice try though, shame about the application...)

kartofelkopf wrote:Please, make a "it's in the ____ section" argument-- and I'll point out that Ramming is in the 'Tank Shock' section.

And ramming is a type of tank shock. And?

Your argument relies on ignoring the entire context of how the BRB defines making saves.

kartofelkopf wrote:Please.... Both other save types specifically mention wounds, while cover saves use the generic term 'damage.' On the other hand, vehicles have not even been introduced in the rules at this point, perhaps that's why they aren't mentioned here.

Exactly - nothing states it works against HITS, whereas you know it works against wounds as that is what the Making Saves rules state at the start - so you have no *permission* to use it against hits. That is what you are remiss in your argument: no permission to use against hits, the only place is page 62.

kartofelkopf wrote:Either way, the intent is painfully clear-- vehicles can get cover saves through normal means (obscurement) or through non-normal means: KFF, extreme angle, stormcaller, etc....

No, you are assuming that vehicles should USE cover saves against hits even when you have no rules telling you you can.

Remove frmo your head the concept of "normal" and "special" - I have, at no point (seriously, reread what Ive posted on this) stated they cannot *receive* a cover save. Where you are grossly confused is that just because you can possess something does not necessarily mean you can *use* it.

A vehicle within 6" of a stormcaller RunePriest DOES HAVE A COVER SAVE. OK? Got that? I agree that the vehicle HAS a cover save.

Now - there is nothing stating that the vehicle can USE that cover save against *hits*, only *wounds*

*That* is what you need to show - that something other than "if obscured" grants *permission to use* the save against *hits*. KFF does NOT do this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Culler wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please find a rule other than "If obscured..." that lets you take cover saves against hits.

The KFF codex entry says it gives a 5+ cover save no matter what, and codex always overrides the BRB.

Now find a rule that lets yOu USE that cover save against *hits* instead of wounds. There is a difference between the two...

OK, if you people are going to be that pants-on-head about it, find me a rule that lets you use cover saves against wounds. Find me in the rulebook somewhere, anywhere that it states that you can take cover saves against wounds. The armor save specifies it works against wounds, invulnerable save specifies that it works on wounds, but cover says nothing about working on wounds. So according to your logic, cover saves don't work on wounds or hits, it's just rolling dice for fun.

If this isn't true, then cover saves must have a little wiggle room on what they work for and aren't well-defined, so you go with what makes the most sense.

POsting on days old thread and ignoring what was posted before? Brilliant.

The *entire taking saves section* deals with taking saves against wounds. That is what "taking saves" is defined as the purpose of - saving wounds.

You can ignore context all you like, doesnt make you right.

Finally: that is not my logic, please retract it, I have posted repeatedly on this and provided rules quotes to back myself up. You have...?

Culler wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Culler wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please find a rule other than "If obscured..." that lets you take cover saves against hits.

The KFF codex entry says it gives a 5+ cover save no matter what, and codex always overrides the BRB.

Now find a rule that lets yOu USE that cover save against *hits* instead of wounds. There is a difference between the two...

OK, if you people are going to be that pants-on-head about it, find me a rule that lets you use cover saves against wounds. Find me in the rulebook somewhere, anywhere that it states that you can take cover saves against wounds. The armor save specifies it works against wounds, invulnerable save specifies that it works on wounds, but cover says nothing about working on wounds. So according to your logic, cover saves don't work on wounds or hits, it's just rolling dice for fun.

If this isn't true, then cover saves must have a little wiggle room on what they work for and aren't well-defined, so you go with what makes the most sense.

I can certainly show you the rules:

"Take saving throws: Each wound suffered
may be cancelled by making a saving throw.
Saving throws usually derive from the armour
worn by each model, from being in cover, or
some other piece of wargear or ability."

"Cover Saves:
A position in cover shields troops against flying debris
and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads
down or crawl amongst the rocks and (hopefully) avoid
harm. Because of this, units in or behind cover receive
a cover saving throw. The great thing about cover
saving throws is that they are not affected by the
Armour Piercing value of the attacking weapon, so
units in cover will normally get a saving throw
regardless of what’s firing at them."

"Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets:
If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or
penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it,
exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a
wound"

In simple terms since the squad is a unit the kans get a 4+ save.

orkcommander wrote:In simple terms since the squad is a unit the kans get a 4+ save.

That is not what the rules say, sorry.

OP's question has been answered, the RAW idolaters have had their say, and the (blatantly obvious) RAI/RAP has been addressed.

Lock it on down- about all that can be said has been.


Edited by Waaagh_Gonads to remove the more provocative language

Gorkamorka wrote:
"Take saving throws: Each wound suffered
may be cancelled by making a saving throw.
Saving throws usually derive from the armour
worn by each model, from being in cover, or
some other piece of wargear or ability."

Here it defines what a "saving throw" is but says nothing about how it's used.

Gorkamorka wrote:
"Take Saving Throws: Before he removes any models as casualties, the
owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid
the damage by making a saving throw. This could be
because of the target’s armour, some other protective
device or ability, or intervening models or terrain."

This just reiterates the first.

Gorkamorka wrote:
"Cover Saves:
A position in cover shields troops against flying debris
and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads
down or crawl amongst the rocks and (hopefully) avoid
harm. Because of this, units in or behind cover receive
a cover saving throw. The great thing about cover
saving throws is that they are not affected by the
Armour Piercing value of the attacking weapon, so
units in cover will normally get a saving throw
regardless of what’s firing at them."

They receive a "cover saving throw", not a "saving throw." "Chaos space marine" doesn't mean "space marine", greater and lesser daemons aren't daemons, why should a cover saving throw be considered a saving throw if we're going by strict specific wordings? They will normally get a saving throw no matter what's firing at them, but clearly that must be an armor or invuln, if we're talking nail-bitingly specific semantics.

Ignore the rules in front of you all you want, they say what they say.

Play by RAI if you want, but the RAW is clear.

Gorkamorka wrote:KFF gives a cover save.
A cover save is a saving throw.
Saving throw rules state they are taken against wounds.
A single rule in the rulebook gives vehicles permission to take a cover save against a hit, but it quite clearly requires the vehicle to be obscured in the same sentence... which the kff doesn't grant to vehicles unless they are physically within 6".