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.

Unless the wargear does not specify the Obscured save. Which it deosnt - it specifies a cover save for units in general, and specificxally states Vehicles as gaining an additional status with no value given.

Making it a 4+

And, as said. This is an old, old, old argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Unless the wargear does not specify the Obscured save.

Ok. Now find a single reference in the rules to something called an 'Obscured Save'

You won't find one. Being obscured lets the vehicle use a cover save. The cover save used is the exact same cover save used by everyone else, unless no save is specified.

Which it deosnt - it specifies a cover save for units in general, and specificxally states Vehicles as gaining an additional status with no value given.

So you're essentially saying that the part where the rules say to use the save specified by the wargear in question actually means 'You know what, don't do that at all...'



On a tangential note, can anyone suggest a good explanation as to why, in a ruleset where vehicles specifically benefit from the exact same cover values as everyone else in every other situation, they would receive a better save than everyone else from this one particular forcefield? Does the forcefield magically become stronger when it detects that there is something with armour plates inside its bubble? Although that would presumably cause problems when there are both vehicles and other models in there...

"If a special rule or 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."

"A kustom forcefield gives all units within 6" a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as obscured targets. The forcefield has no effect in assault."

The 5+ is not specified for vehicles, nor for the obscured ability, but the rule rather lists the obscured ability apart from it.
While reading it the other way might be possible, the evidence against it is crushing: In 4th, when the rule was written, obscured was as separate ability from cover, a GW poster and the author himself confirming the other interpretation.
Anyone still insisting on 5+ cover is playing the game wrong on purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Which it deosnt - it specifies a cover save for units in general, and specificxally states Vehicles as gaining an additional status with no value given.

So you're essentially saying that the part where the rules say to use the save specified by the wargear in question actually means 'You know what, don't do that at all...'

No, nos is saying that the rule does not tell you to use any cover save provided, but that the wargear needs to specify what save the obscure status equals to - if it doesn't, 4+.

insaniak wrote:On a tangential note, can anyone suggest a good explanation as to why, in a ruleset where vehicles specifically benefit from the exact same cover values as everyone else in every other situation, they would receive a better save than everyone else from this one particular forcefield? Does the forcefield magically become stronger when it detects that there is something with armour plates inside its bubble? Although that would presumably cause problems when there are both vehicles and other models in there...

Do not apply common sense to ork technology. There isn't even a description on how the forcefield works. For gork's sake it might become stronger because the thing it's protecting is bigger.

Dear god why has this debate puddled up again? Do I have to post my 4+ kff save picture proofs AGAIN?!?

Yes it appears you do

ok changes from 4th edition to 5th edition flyer, by GW


AND a white dwarf battle with Phil Kelly playing his Orks against someone






*some will argue these are not rules/FAQ material (seriously a WD doesnt count as rules material? Thast new) so I guess if you want take it at face value, but again both a re wrote/printed/distributed by GW

I admit, when I first thought about it I was confused about the +5 vs obscured until

Everyone I played plays it as +4

Every tactics article I read plays it as +4

Every Bat Reps I have seen plays it as +4

So aside from a small minority out there, +4 seems to be the accepted norm

And the above is why is the accepted form

KingCracker wrote:And the above is why is the accepted form

Common application of the rule does not necessarily mean that the interpretation is correct, only that it is popular.

RAW (from the main rules and Ork codex), the "obscured" status should give a 5+. Obscured gives a 4+ unless otherwise specified. The Ork codex specifies that the cover save is 5+.

GW has effectively overruled this with the sources you cite KingCracker (WD & website), so a 4+ is definitely RAI and probably RAW.

biccat wrote:

KingCracker wrote:And the above is why is the accepted form

Common application of the rule does not necessarily mean that the interpretation is correct, only that it is popular.

RAW (from the main rules and Ork codex), the "obscured" status should give a 5+. Obscured gives a 4+ unless otherwise specified. The Ork codex specifies that the cover save is 5+.

GW has effectively overruled this with the sources you cite KingCracker (WD & website), so a 4+ is definitely RAI and probably RAW.

As I pointed out, this is not the case. The "obscured" ability does not have a value attached to it, so it's not specified. You could argue that the second sentence of the KFF rules is just an addition to the first one, but all evidence points against this interpretation.

RAW it might be 4+ as well as 5+, but we have a handful of undeniable tiebreakers here.

Jidmah wrote:As I pointed out, this is not the case. The "obscured" ability does not have a value attached to it, so it's not specified. You could argue that the second sentence of the KFF rules is just an addition to the first one, but all evidence points against this interpretation.

And as we point out all the time obscurity never will have value attached. There is no such thing as obscured 5+ or obscured 3+ or even obscured 4+ save. There may be however 3+ cover save AND "obscured" property. Those two things don't work like you say. "Obscured" status will then allow you to use given cover save. If cover save is not given then use default 4+ cover save.
Again, you will never get 5+ obscured save because something like that doesn't exist.

FYI I'm not arguing what RAI should look like. This is irrelevant to the rules discussion. Please just read the rule at BRB 62p and try to find "obscured save". There is no such thing. Only obscured and cover save.

Maybe you should really read the rules before putting forth such statements.

Macok wrote:

Jidmah wrote:As I pointed out, this is not the case. The "obscured" ability does not have a value attached to it, so it's not specified. You could argue that the second sentence of the KFF rules is just an addition to the first one, but all evidence points against this interpretation.

And as we point out all the time obscurity never will have value attached. There is no such thing as obscured 5+ or obscured 3+ or even obscured 4+ save.

"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 would(for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for fortifications, and so on)."(BRB pg.62)
RAW says you're wrong.

There may be however 3+ cover save AND "obscured" property. Those two things don't work like you say. "Obscured" status will then allow you to use given cover save. If cover save is not given then use default 4+ cover save.

"If a special rule or 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."(BRB pg.62)
KFF does confer the ability of being obscured in the open, and does not specify that this is the same as the 5+ save it also gives. Ignoring anything but the two books makes it possible to read it either way.

Again, you will never get 5+ obscured save because something like that doesn't exist.

I never talked about obscured saves, please reread my post. I am saying that being obscured in the open is not defined as the ability to use cover saves at all, but rather a 4+ save by itself, unless a value is specified otherwise. The concept of obscured being the ability to take cover saves has been disproven by the dark eldar codex and the blood angels FAQ. The second rule I quoted also proves this in RAW. The only real argument is whether the obscured ability is referring to the 5+ sentence or not. Evidence says not.

FYI I'm not arguing what RAI should look like. This is irrelevant to the rules discussion. Please just read the rule at BRB 62p and try to find "obscured save". There is no such thing. Only obscured and cover save.

I'm not either. I just stated that claiming 5+ cover being the only possible RAW interpretation is definitely wrong. RAW is not 100% clear in this case, but we know what the right interpretation is. Ignoring this knowledge is purposely playing the game wrong.

Jidmah wrote:[..]

Macok wrote:
And as we point out all the time obscurity never will have value attached. There is no such thing as obscured 5+ or obscured 3+ or even obscured 4+ save.

"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 would(for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for fortifications, and so on)."(BRB pg.62)
RAW says you're wrong.

I still don't see value next to the obscured status. All I see is obscured and then cover save provided from some source. There is NO mentioning about obscured 5+ save or even obscured 5+ cover save.
Look at it this way: why on earth would they give examples of COVER SAVES with a value of 5+ and 3+ if by most people KFF logic it would automatically be changed to 4+?

Find me an example in any Codex that say anything about obscured X+.

"If a special rule or 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."(BRB pg.62)
KFF does confer the ability of being obscured in the open, and does not specify that this is the same as the 5+ save it also gives. Ignoring anything but the two books makes it possible to read it either way.

Yes, I agree. It doesn't specify that this is the same thing because obscurity is not a cover save. There is no need for some wargear to state that it gives X+ save and then explicitly say that the "source" or whatever is from obscurity. It just have to provide cover save. And that's it.
If this is not the right way to show the "specified cover save" then give me an example how it should look like.
How many wargear (not with default 4+ cover saves) does state that some cover save is explicitly from obscured status? Can somebody provide few examples?

Again, you will never get 5+ obscured save because something like that doesn't exist.

I never talked about obscured saves, please reread my post. I am saying that being obscured in the open is not defined as the ability to use cover saves at all, but rather a 4+ save by itself, unless a value is specified otherwise. The concept of obscured being the ability to take cover saves has been disproven by the dark eldar codex and the blood angels FAQ. The second rule I quoted also proves this in RAW. The only real argument is whether the obscured ability is referring to the 5+ sentence or not. Evidence says not.

Yes, you didn't. I have a bad habit of quoting first person and then referring to others. That was not pointed at you - my mistake.

Even if I'm wrong It's great to talk here to somebody who actually uses rules in rules dispute.

I think that if the codex author and GW publications use it as a 4+ cover save, why argue with that...? Are you seriously going to tell GW they've got their own rules wrong?

EDIT: Kingcracker could please tell me where you got the GW flier, and also the edition of WD that that bit is in, along with page number if possible! That'd be wonderful, thanks.

The rule specifies that the KFF gives a 5+ cover save to all units. A vehicle would not benefit from a cover save without also being obscured. The rule continues to state that vehicles are obscured. That allows you to apply the cover save.

Having said that, it appears that the RAI is that it is 4+ for vehicles. It would have been a lot easier if GW had stated gives a 5+ to all non-vehicle models or models with a WS.

Homer

Thanks for the images KingCracker

Jidmah wrote:The 5+ is not specified for vehicles, nor for the obscured ability, but the rule rather lists the obscured ability apart from it.

There is no 'obscured ability' any more than there is an 'obscured save'... 'Obscured' is simply what you call it when something is partially hidden from sight. The rules use the exact same word when talking about cover for infantry models.

This is a very large part of the problem here. People have made some very large assumptions about how they think the rules work, and are apparently not willing to stop and actually look at them.

'Obscured' is not an ability. There is no obscured save. There is no requirement in the rules to have a value put on that obscurity.
Being obscured is simply what allows the vehicle (and any other model) to use cover.

No, nos is saying that the rule does not tell you to use any cover save provided, but that the wargear needs to specify what save the obscure status equals to - if it doesn't, 4+.

"A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a 6+ cover save."

That, right there, tells you what cover save value to use.

Do not apply common sense to ork technology. There isn't even a description on how the forcefield works. For gork's sake it might become stronger because the thing it's protecting is bigger.

If that were the case, a mega-armoured Warboss would receive a better save than a Kan.

And before someone points it out, I fully realise that fluff generally has no bearing in rules (although GW somewhat disagree with their latest round of FAQs)... But when the rules appear to offer two different potential interpretations, and one of them leads to a situation that doesn't make any sense, it's often a good indication. And for myself, even aside from the rules issues, I'm not seeing any logical sense to something receiving a better save just because it is called a vehicle.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:Maybe you should really read the rules before putting forth such statements.

Macok wrote:And as we point out all the time obscurity never will have value attached. There is no such thing as obscured 5+ or obscured 3+ or even obscured 4+ save.

"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 would(for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for fortifications, and so on)."(BRB pg.62)
RAW says you're wrong.

The RAW you just quoted actually proves the point I've been making all along: that being obscured simply allows you to take a cover save. You just quoted it yourself... the different save values there are on cover saves, not on some mythical 'obscured save'...

KFF does confer the ability of being obscured in the open, and does not specify that this is the same as the 5+ save it also gives.

...because being obscured is not a save.

It doesn't need to specify again that you should use the save specified in the item's rules. It already told you to do that in the Vehicle & Cover rules in the first place.

I've heard this rule argued both ways. And lets all be honest, both arguments are valid. I does specify a 5+ save in the rule. It does not specifically say that this applies to the the obscurity to vehicles in the next sentence. And everyone could argue until they were blue in the face.

When this fist came up, years ago with my friend who plays orks in my inner circle of friends, myself and my brother (a chaos player) argued for the 5+, and my ork playing friend as well as my necron playing friend argued for the 4+. We decided since it was only a friendly game, an no right or wrong answer could be undoubtedly proven, we decided to follow "the most important rule" on page two. When he played myself or my brother (the necron player would just let him have the 4+ save) we would just roll off the winner deciding. We played a lot of games and to be honest, it really didn't make a noticeable difference as to which of us won.

This was the case until during a tournament the judge showed us the poster that is shown earlier in this topic. The poster was a GW poster that clearly said that the KFF gave a 4+ cover save. He and another player were talking about it (I don't argue with judges, there is really no point) and he told the other player that he was ruling it 5+ until he got the poster. Every tournament since that I've played in or spectated at, in 3 different cities, with dozens of different judges have all rule it that way. All the red shirts rule it that way. Ever since we just let my friend rule it as 4+.

Although the 5+ers make some VERY strong points (as do the 4+ers, don't get me wrong), it is rather obvious, to me at least, that GW has it rule as 4+. Between the white dwarf article(which by itself you might argue could have been a mistake) AND the poster, which I have seen with my own eyes, it's hard to continue to argue what the rule is.

Now that being said, in order to be as objective as possible I will say this. Both sides have made really good points. In a tournament, the judge has the final rule, no matter what else, you don't like that, I guess you could find another tournament to play. If this comes up in a friendly game, calmly debate it. If you can't agree, don't waste your time to play arguing, just roll off and stick to it for the game. If your opponent can't even agree to that fairness, then just don't play with them.

After all, it's a game. The purpose is you and your opponents mutual enjoyment. I don't find winning worth spending 2+ hours with someone while they are bitter.

Anyway, have fun guys.

The reason that some people are unwilling to accept the poster as proof of anything is simply that it's not a rules resource. It was a piece of promotional material, summarising the major changes from the swap to 5th edition.

And anyone who has been playing GW games for more than 5 minutes knows just how reliable GW's summaries are... not to mention how accurate white dwarf articles tend to be.


For myself, I'm willing to accept that people are playing it as a 4+... but I have yet to see an actual rules-based reason for people to think this that makes sense and doesn't ignore half of the KFF's rules.

insaniak wrote:The reason that some people are unwilling to accept the poster as proof of anything is simply that it's not a rules resource. It was a piece of promotional material, summarising the major changes from the swap to 5th edition.

And anyone who has been playing GW games for more than 5 minutes knows just how reliable GW's summaries are... not to mention how accurate white dwarf articles tend to be.

I would maybe see questioning one source as a maybe misprinted promotional piece, but when it starts to say the same thing across multiple separate pieces, it begins to be clear that that is what GW intended. Repetition across multiple texts is one very good reason to suspect the information provided is accurate (ask any history major).

And I can see how people argue a 5+, but the argument for a 4+ seems equally as valid. It's a vague rule with room for interpretation. But considering GW seems pretty clear in other sources that it is supposed to be a 4+ seems to lend a little more credence to the 4+ interpretation than the 5+.

mazik765 wrote:I would maybe see questioning one source as a maybe misprinted promotional piece, but when it starts to say the same thing across multiple separate pieces, it begins to be clear that that is what GW intended.

Without knowing who write those 'multiple' (ie: 2) pieces, it really doesn't mean a great deal. If they were both written by the same person who was simply mistaken on how it worked, then they're going to both say the same thing regardless of what 'GW' intended.

Keep in mind that the guy who wrote the Ork codex wasn't the guy who wrote the 5th edition rulebook. And the studio guys have been shown to get their own rules wrong in the past.

Macok wrote:I still don't see value next to the obscured status. All I see is obscured and then cover save provided from some source. There is NO mentioning about obscured 5+ save or even obscured 5+ cover save.
Look at it this way: why on earth would they give examples of COVER SAVES with a value of 5+ and 3+ if by most people KFF logic it would automatically be changed to 4+?

"Obscured save" is nothing but a shorthand to describe "cover save provided by obscured status". No need to beat a dead horse here. None of the examples are cover saves provided by wargear or abilities, thus the defaulting rule would have no effect.

Find me an example in any Codex that say anything about obscured X+.

You don't even need to go as far as a codex: BRB, pg. 71.

The absence of exceptions does not prove anything. The concept of "counts as obscured"-rules died with 4th, so no codex written after that rule would ever ever need such an exception. The whole purpose of the rule was to catch all the old wargear, powers and special rules. Under the rules the KFF was:
1) Units can take a 5+ cover save.
2) Vehicles are obscured. -> Vehicles downgrade penetrating hits to glancing hits.
3) Does nothing in CC.

With 5th 1) and 3) remained unchanged. 2) was changed to this rule:
"If a special rule or 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."(BRB pg.62)

So it's now:
1) Units can take a 5+ cover save.
2) Vehicles are obscured. -> This is a 4+ cover save(to quote the rule).
3) Does nothing in CC.

Yes, I agree. It doesn't specify that this is the same thing because obscurity is not a cover save. There is no need for some wargear to state that it gives X+ save and then explicitly say that the "source" or whatever is from obscurity. It just have to provide cover save. And that's it.

The rule I just quoted explicitly say "this is a 4+ cover save".

If this is not the right way to show the "specified cover save" then give me an example how it should look like.

"Vehicles within 6" count as obscured, this is a 5+ cover save."
"Vehicles withing 6" count as obscured(5+ cover save)" <- This was even used in the BRB, pg. 71.
"Units within 6" gain a 5+ cover save. Vehicles count as obscured for this purpose."
"Units within 6" gain a 5+ cover save, vehicles count as obscured."
Due to the obscured status being something entirely different when the codex was written, it is obvious that those two parts of the KFF are not connected. It wouldn't even make sense to connect them under the old rules.

How many wargear (not with default 4+ cover saves) does state that some cover save is explicitly from obscured status? Can somebody provide few examples?

As above, conferring "obscured" died when this rule was written, so there can't be something like that. If you'd like to use this as an argument, try to find any wargear, psychic power or special rule conferring anything but 4+ for being obscured.

Homer S wrote:The rule specifies that the KFF gives a 5+ cover save to all units. A vehicle would not benefit from a cover save without also being obscured. The rule continues to state that vehicles are obscured. That allows you to apply the cover save.

The BRB says, without doubt, that being obscured from wargear is an cover save. See rules quote above.
The Blood Angel FAQ also disproves that a vehicle has to be obscured to use a save. It just (usually) has to be obscured in order to gain a save. If you already have a save, you don't need to be obscured.

insaniak wrote:There is no 'obscured ability' any more than there is an 'obscured save'... 'Obscured' is simply what you call it when something is partially hidden from sight. The rules use the exact same word when talking about cover for infantry models.

As above. An obscured save is a cover save gained due to being obscured. The obscured ability is the ability of being obscured in the open. If you have to nitpick that hard on choices of words, isn't that a sign for a weak argument?

This is a very large part of the problem here. People have made some very large assumptions about how they think the rules work, and are apparently not willing to stop and actually look at them.

'Obscured' is not an ability. There is no obscured save. There is no requirement in the rules to have a value put on that obscurity.
Being obscured is simply what allows the vehicle (and any other model) to use cover.

Being obscured in the open is an ability, the BRB even says so. This ability also results into an additional save of 4+, unless specified otherwise.

No, nos is saying that the rule does not tell you to use any cover save provided, but that the wargear needs to specify what save the obscure status equals to - if it doesn't, 4+.

"A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a 6+ cover save."

That, right there, tells you what cover save value to use.

Those are two separate abilities, as pointed out above.
A fictive rule:
"All units gain +2 Attacks when charging. All units with furious charge gain +1 Attack when charging."
Would result in +3 Attacks for units with FC, don't you think? Or maybe just +1? It can be read either way, but in the KFF case we know from multiple sources which way it is to be read.

Do not apply common sense to ork technology. There isn't even a description on how the forcefield works. For gork's sake it might become stronger because the thing it's protecting is bigger.

If that were the case, a mega-armoured Warboss would receive a better save than a Kan.

First, I don't really know if a MA-Warboss would be heavier than a Kan, but that's not the point.
The point is, we don't know what the heck the KFF does. The bigmek himself probably doesn't. In fluff the Arch-Arsonist's KFF is an force field generator of an eldar space ship, in some other fluff, the KFF is a lightning coil, zapping incoming bullets and rockets, and someone else had it put forcefields around anything made of metal, including gold teeth. It could do anything. By common interpretation it might even protect vehicles better just because the orks think it does.

And before someone points it out, I fully realise that fluff generally has no bearing in rules (although GW somewhat disagree with their latest round of FAQs)... But when the rules appear to offer two different potential interpretations, and one of them leads to a situation that doesn't make any sense, it's often a good indication. And for myself, even aside from the rules issues, I'm not seeing any logical sense to something receiving a better save just because it is called a vehicle.

I'm pretty sure there are dozens of rules which make no sense in a similar way. For example, if my trukk goes 13", it's so fast that I can't shoot. But if I jump out while driving, shooting is no problem. Not a grain of sense in that. The KFF fluff even states that the big mek made it especially to protect his inventions, the MA Warboss is most likely not one of them.

The RAW you just quoted actually proves the point I've been making all along: that being obscured simply allows you to take a cover save. You just quoted it yourself... the different save values there are on cover saves, not on some mythical 'obscured save'...

KFF does confer the ability of being obscured in the open, and does not specify that this is the same as the 5+ save it also gives.

...because being obscured is not a save.

Being obscured out in the open is a cover save, by RAW. See above. Can't be any more clear than "this is a 4+ save".

It doesn't need to specify again that you should use the save specified in the item's rules. It already told you to do that in the Vehicle & Cover rules in the first place.

No, you don't use any random value specified by the rule. "Being obscured" is on of the three abilities of the KFF, and thus disconnected from the first ability. Also note that your interpretation would lead the vehicle profit from any cover just like infantry, resulting in a 4+ save anyway if the tiniest part of the vehicle is hidden by terrain or units.

Disclaimer: I am not saying the 5+ interpretation is wrong if you use the rules in a vacuum. In a vacuum it can be read both ways. However, the context of when the rules were written, plus evidence provided by two independent secondary GW sources make it clear that 5+ is not the right interpretation. In order to make 5+ right outside of the vacuum, you'd have to prove, by the rules, that the 4+ interpretation is definitively and unquestionably wrong, which is impossible. "They were wrong before" is not prove enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: Wall of text provides 3+ cover and counts as impassible terrain.

Flyers and such

Sorry fellas but I cant help you out on either. I was sent a PDF of both A LONG time ago when this debate first popped up. Maybe if your lucky you can find the thread, because I know the user that sent them to me originally said what WD and page number it was all in. As for the flyer, I think that was part of a WD as well. So apart from looking at my thread history (as Im fairly sure I wrote the thread in question) I cant help you much, other then I have those pics


Also Id like to point out, in that thread, I started to agree with insaniak on how it works, but once those pics were posted..... Im sorry I just dont see how one could argue with those

I think the following actually hurts the argument you're trying to make, rather than helping it:

Jidmah wrote:Due to the obscured status being something entirely different when the codex was written, it is obvious that those two parts of the KFF are not connected. It wouldn't even make sense to connect them under the old rules.

"If a special rule or piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save"

The intent with this rule was to make clear that "obscured" was changed from "downgrade penetrating hits to glancing" to "model gets a 4+ cover save."

"unless specified otherwise in the Codex"

The intention of this part of the rule is to cover certain wargear or special rules that would give obscured targets something different than a 4+.

Obviously in 4th edition (the Ork codex), no rule would be worded as "Vehicles withing 6" count as obscured(5+ cover save)" because that's not how obscured rules worked in 4th edition. People would look at that rule and assume (incorrectly) that the Ork codex changed "obscured" from the traditional rule (downgrade) to a cover save.

Since in 5th edition "obscured" means "vehicle gets a cover save," we should look to the Codex to determine what degree of cover save the vehicles should get. Since the codex wouldn't specify the cover save for a vehicle (vehicles didn't get cover saves), we should look to the cover save conferred onto non-vehicle models and apply that cover save to the vehicle.

Therefore, since the wargear only confers a 5+ cover save, this should trigger the "unless otherwise specified" exception to the general rule of 4+.

However, like I said, the 4+ interpretation seems to be corroborated by GW in semi-official rules (a poster and WD) that should be enough to satisfy players.

Jidmah wrote:"Obscured save" is nothing but a shorthand to describe "cover save provided by obscured status".

...which is every single cover save in the game...

That's been my point all along. There is no special 'obscured status' or 'obscured ability' that is distinct from other cover saves. Being obscured grants you the ability to take a cover save. Whether you are obscured by terrain, other models, or a wargear effect, the result is the same: the vehicle is obscured, and so can take a cover save.

Trying to make a distinction where none actually exists is exactly where the misunderstanding is coming from here.

As above, conferring "obscured" died when this rule was written, so there can't be something like that. If you'd like to use this as an argument, try to find any wargear, psychic power or special rule conferring anything but 4+ for being obscured.

What, other than the KFF, you mean?

A fictive rule:
"All units gain +2 Attacks when charging. All units with furious charge gain +1 Attack when charging."

What you have created there is a completely different situation, based on the misapprehension that your fictional 'obscured save' is taken instead of a cover save.

It's not. Your 'obscured save' is a cover save... but it's a cover save that is taken when no save is specified. Your hypothetical FC rule would be more akin to the issue at hand if it actually said:
"All units gain +2 attacks when charging. Jump Infantry can charge."

The second statement in that case is doing nothing more than clarifying that a specific type of unit can make use of the rule in the first statement. That's exactly what's happening with the KFF... The KFF provides a cover save to all units. It also counts vehicles as obscured, which means that they can use that cover save.

Also note that your interpretation would lead the vehicle profit from any cover just like infantry, resulting in a 4+ save anyway if the tiniest part of the vehicle is hidden by terrain or units.

No it wouldn't, since vehicles have their own rules governing how much of the vehicle needs to be hidden before it is actually considered to be obscured.

insaniak wrote:

Jidmah wrote:"Obscured save" is nothing but a shorthand to describe "cover save provided by obscured status".

...which is every single cover save in the game...

That's been my point all along. There is no special 'obscured status' or 'obscured ability' that is distinct from other cover saves. Being obscured grants you the ability to take a cover save. Whether you are obscured by terrain, other models, or a wargear effect, the result is the same: the vehicle is obscured, and so can take a cover save.

Trying to make a distinction where none actually exists is exactly where the misunderstanding is coming from here.

Sanguine shield is a cover save without being obscured. This disproves your entire argument. You also ignore(once again) that being obscured in the open comes with an additional cover save to any other cover saves by RAW.

As above, conferring "obscured" died when this rule was written, so there can't be something like that. If you'd like to use this as an argument, try to find any wargear, psychic power or special rule conferring anything but 4+ for being obscured.

What, other than the KFF, you mean?

So you prove that KFF is a 5+ by claiming that KFF is a 5+ save? This does not work.

A fictive rule:
"All units gain +2 Attacks when charging. All units with furious charge gain +1 Attack when charging."

What you have created there is a completely different situation, based on the misapprehension that your fictional 'obscured save' is taken instead of a cover save.

So how is this fictional? You are also beating the dead horse again.
"If a special rule or 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."(BRB pg.62)
Seems very non-fictional in my BRB and AOBR rulebooks. Can you quote anything to disprove this?

It's not. Your 'obscured save' is a cover save... but it's a cover save that is taken when no save is specified. Your hypothetical FC rule would be more akin to the issue at hand if it actually said:
"All units gain +2 attacks when charging. Jump Infantry can charge."

The second statement in that case is doing nothing more than clarifying that a specific type of unit can make use of the rule in the first statement. That's exactly what's happening with the KFF... The KFF provides a cover save to all units. It also counts vehicles as obscured, which means that they can use that cover save.

Being obscured in the open is not just the ability to claim cover. You ignore the rule about wargear if you interpret it like this. Thus, your example would be wrong.
You also don't need to be obscured to use a cover save, see SoS.

Also note that your interpretation would lead the vehicle profit from any cover just like infantry, resulting in a 4+ save anyway if the tiniest part of the vehicle is hidden by terrain or units.

No it wouldn't, since vehicles have their own rules governing how much of the vehicle needs to be hidden before it is actually considered to be obscured.

Actually it says: "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, you may take a cover save against it exactly like a non-vehicle would do against a wound[...]."
1)The is Vehicle obscured underneath the KFF.
2)Gretchin standing in front of a non-vehicle model are conferring 4+ cover.
-> Gretchin standin in front of an obscured vehicle are conferring 4+ cover.

Jidmah wrote:Sanguine shield is a cover save without being obscured.

Loose wording on my part. I did point out earlier in the discussion that the requirement for vehicles to be obscured in order to take a cover save had been somewhat relaxed in the last couple of codexes... which had spawned debates as to whether they could actually benefit from them.

You also ignore(once again) that being obscured in the open comes with an additional cover save to any other cover saves by RAW.

Given that it's not true, it shouldn't be surprising that I've ignored it. Being obscured in the open doesn't give you an additional cover save. It gives you a cover save... the value of which is whatever is supplied by whatever is obscuring you, or a 4+ if that 'whatever' does not assign a value.

This is not an additional save. It's just a cover save.

So you prove that KFF is a 5+ by claiming that KFF is a 5+ save? This does not work.

You asked for an example of something that counts a model as being obscured while granting it something other than a 4+ save. I provided such an example.

So how is this fictional? You are also beating the dead horse again.
"If a special rule or 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."(BRB pg.62)
Seems very non-fictional in my BRB and AOBR rulebooks. Can you quote anything to disprove this?

You just quoted a passage that makes no mention of an 'obscured save' to disprove my claim that 'obscured saves' are not present in the rules. In fact, you even highlighted the part that specifically calls it a cover save.

Being obscured in the open is not just the ability to claim cover.

No, that's exactly what it is. Allowing the vehicle to claim cover is what being obscured does. The fact that vehicles may or may not also be able to claim cover in other situations is completely irrelevant to a discussion on what being obscured does.

A hammer is used for bashing in nails. You can use a screwdriver to do the same thing... but that doesn't change the function of the hammer.

Actually it says: "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, you may take a cover save against it exactly like a non-vehicle would do against a wound[...]."

Yeesss... and it also spells out a specific criteria that needs to be met in order to count the vehicle as being obscured. For infantry, any part of the model being obscured is sufficient. For vehicles, a certain amount of the vehicle has to be obscured before it actually counts as obscured.

So you're going to need either a very large Gretchin or a very specific LOS set-up to claim cover on a vehicle from a Gretchin.

*stupid post deleted*

Just because the majority of people say somthing does mean it is true. Many people think Pamela Anderson is hot I think she is a pig!

Loose wording on my part. I did point out earlier in the discussion that the requirement for vehicles to be obscured in order to take a cover save had been somewhat relaxed in the last couple of codexes... which had spawned debates as to whether they could actually benefit from them.

Rules are not timestamped for different codices. If a rule exists stating something, it is universal for all rules not invalidated by GW. BA FAQ states that vehicles do not need to be obscured to use a cover save.

You also ignore(once again) that being obscured in the open comes with an additional cover save to any other cover saves by RAW.

Given that it's not true, it shouldn't be surprising that I've ignored it. Being obscured in the open doesn't give you an additional cover save. It gives you a cover save... the value of which is whatever is supplied by whatever is obscuring you, or a 4+ if that 'whatever' does not assign a value.

This is not an additional save. It's just a cover save.

You realize that it is possible to have multiple cover saves? There even is a rule for handling this.

So you prove that KFF is a 5+ by claiming that KFF is a 5+ save? This does not work.

You asked for an example of something that counts a model as being obscured while granting it something other than a 4+ save. I provided such an example.

Well, that's easily invalidated then. Because KFF is a 4+ save, no wargear is providing any other obscured save but 4+. /sarcasm

So how is this fictional? You are also beating the dead horse again.
"If a special rule or 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."(BRB pg.62)
Seems very non-fictional in my BRB and AOBR rulebooks. Can you quote anything to disprove this?

You just quoted a passage that makes no mention of an 'obscured save' to disprove my claim that 'obscured saves' are not present in the rules. In fact, you even highlighted the part that specifically calls it a cover save.

insaniak, I did not even mention "obscured save" once, but you still insist on it not existing, even though I defined that term for you, as something that does exist - a save that is acquired by being obscured. Any further argument based on this is void.

Being obscured in the open is not just the ability to claim cover.

No, that's exactly what it is. Allowing the vehicle to claim cover is what being obscured does. The fact that vehicles may or may not also be able to claim cover in other situations is completely irrelevant to a discussion on what being obscured does.

A hammer is used for bashing in nails. You can use a screwdriver to do the same thing... but that doesn't change the function of the hammer.

So, how does this invalidate "this ability is a 4+ save", other than you ignoring the line on purpose? Also note that this argument contradicts your next one.

Actually it says: "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, you may take a cover save against it exactly like a non-vehicle would do against a wound[...]."

Yeesss... and it also spells out a specific criteria that needs to be met in order to count the vehicle as being obscured. For infantry, any part of the model being obscured is sufficient. For vehicles, a certain amount of the vehicle has to be obscured before it actually counts as obscured.

So you're going to need either a very large Gretchin or a very specific LOS set-up to claim cover on a vehicle from a Gretchin.

The rule does not state you need to be obscured by the terrain or object that provides the coversave. As soon as a vehicles is obscured for whatever reason(KFF), you can claim cover from regular GW gretchin, just like infantry.