Ok my understanding is that the KFF gives vehicles a 4+ cover save, as it states in the rule book about wargear and special rules granting an obscured vehicle said cover save. Now Ive made this point clear a few times, and the argument is still going. And so I guess I need better rules lawyering then I have lol. Heres part of an email from the incredibly long argument. Whos right? And if I am right, how can I better argue this?

I knew you would try and throw that quote out there, but your understanding is flawed. Your peice of wargear does specify that it gives a 5+ cover save. When your codex was written vehicle obscured simply meant penetrating hits count as glancing hits, but in the current rules the cover save granted has to be the same as the cover save granted to infantry, which according to your codex is 5+. The example you quoted refers to wargear like smoke launchers which in the older codexes simply state that the vehicle is obscurred without any mention of a cover save in the explaination of the wargear.

Vehicles get both. The KFF grants a 5+ cover save to all units in range and grants vehicles in range "Obscured". Since the obscured save is not specified, it's a 4+.

Thats what Ive been saying the whole time. But as you read what was in the email, apparently thats not enough to prove it lol

KingCracker wrote:Thats what Ive been saying the whole time. But as you read what was in the email, apparently thats not enough to prove it lol

The KFF grants an unspecified obscured bonus. The only save specified is for units within 6".

'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 status to vehicles. It doesn't specify the save the obscured gives, only a value for the cover save given to nearby units. It would have to specifically specify the value for it to be anything other than 4+ (unlike using the save normally given by terrain or models obscuring the vehicle as your opponent argues, as the kff is a piece of wargear and follows the above caveat).

If he still wants to argue that it's specified, hand him the GW 5th ed prep sheet which gave it as 4+.
Google '40kposmajorchangesflyer_1_1.pdf'

Nothing says that it has to be the same save as for infantry. Had it specified that it was 5+ for all units, that's one thing, but it specifically says vehicles count as being obscured.

You're spot on regarding the vehicle obscured by wargear rule.

If your opponent refuses to let you adopt an old codex for the current edition, and there is no codex available for the current edition, I'd tell him that you'll only play against him if he finds himself a codex of the same edition yours is from and you both use the rules for that edition, instead of the current one. Problem solved.

So yeah, if he wants you to use rules for the old edition for your units, tell him you'll play the old edition instead then. Fair's fair.

We had a multi-page thread on this not so long ago, with opinions being pretty well divided.

I'm still going with a 5+ for vehicles. The Obscured rules say that the cover save is 4+ unless otherwise specified by the wargear granting the save... and the wargear in question specifies a 5+ cover save.

Johnno wrote:If your opponent refuses to let you adopt an old codex for the current edition, and there is no codex available for the current edition, I'd tell him that you'll only play against him if he finds himself a codex of the same edition yours is from and you both use the rules for that edition, instead of the current one. Problem solved.

The Ork codex was actually written to be forwards compatible with 5th edition (as stated on release by the designers, who mentioned that there were a couple of rules in there that might look a little wierd under 4th ed, because they were written with 5th ed in mind).

So it's not a matter of adopting an older codex so much as looking at the way a given rule has changed between editions. 'Obscured' is no longer a separate effect, as it was when the codex was written... it simply allows a vehicle to take a cover save.

The KFF rule was (IMO) very carefully written to work wih both 4th and 5th edition Obscured Target rules by specifying the cover save in a separate sentence.

See I dont agree with the 5+ simply because, if it had the same cover save, why would they include the "vehicles counts as obscured"
In my mind, just saying "units get a 5+ cover save" would of been enough, simply because the word "units" is for everything.



But now that I write it out that way, everything makes sense. Insaniack,you convinced me I was in the wrong. That crazy cat avatar and you deserve some type of hug lol

I've got to go with a 4+ save here.

The wargear in question specifies a 5+ cover save to INFANTRY units within six inches. If the developers wanted all units, infantry and otherwise to get a 5+ cover save, then they would not have specifically called out vehicles in the ork KFF entry and noted that it gets a different kind of save; an obscured one.

I didn't play in 4th edition, and I don't care what 4th edition rules were, or 3rd edition, or older editions - arguments based on rules that do not exist have no merit with me. KingCracker, the BRB explicitly defines what obscured means. The ork codex tells you to give vehicles that obscured save. If you have an opponent trying to make up their own rules about what it means, gently remind them that while they're welcome to have a chat with GW about their personal grievances with how the rules are written, you, me, and everyone else still needs to follow them to be playing the same game.

And in this case, the wargear tells you "Give infantry a 5+ cover save." Then its kind enough to go on and basically say, "Do not apply this 5+ cover save rule to vehicles. Instead, give them a different cover save; use the rule for "obscured."

KingCracker wrote:See I dont agree with the 5+ simply because, if it had the same cover save, why would they include the "vehicles counts as obscured"
In my mind, just saying "units get a 5+ cover save" would of been enough, simply because the word "units" is for everything.

That wouldn't work, for two reasons:
- In 4th edition when the codex was written, vehicles didn't get a cover save at all. Obscured instead let them downgrade Pens to Glances. So vehicles would have received no benefit from the KFF.

- In 5th edition, vehicles can only take a cover save if they are obscured. So a rule granting them a cover save without actually also counting them as obscured would do nothing. The rule has to say that they are obscured in order for them to receive any benefit from it.

Dashofpepper wrote:If the developers wanted all units, infantry and otherwise to get a 5+ cover save, then they would not have specifically called out vehicles in the ork KFF entry and noted that it gets a different kind of save; an obscured one.

Sorry, but the rule does nothing of the sort. There is no such thing as an 'obscured save'. The Obscured Target rule simply allows a vehicle to take a cover save.

The KFF rule specifies that units within 6" get a cover save of 5+. It then states that vehicles in range count as obscured... which allows them to take that cover save.

The KFF entry does not state that infantry get the save. It refers to 'units' ... not 'infantry'

And now that Ive seen the error in my thinking I agree with Insaniac.
It says "units" not anything else. If the KFF part in the codex said it this way "All units with in 6 inches of the KFF are granted a 5+ cover save" There would be nor argument at all. Because we all konw and understand that "units" count for everything we play with. The part that trumped me previously was the vehicles being obscured part. That threw me and naturally got me thinking it was a 4+ as the BRB says it does.
But the only reason it brings up "vehicles" is so you understand WHY they are getting a cover save in the open. I think it would of been smarter just writting it as "units" instead of bringing up the vehicles part.

So yea in short, definetly a 5+ on units

Dashofpepper wrote:
The wargear in question specifies a 5+ cover save to INFANTRY units within six inches.

And in this case, the wargear tells you "Give infantry a 5+ cover save."

It doesn't specify infantry anywhere.

KingCracker wrote:
And now that Ive seen the error in my thinking I agree with Insaniac.
It says "units" not anything else. If the KFF part in the codex said it this way "All units with in 6 inches of the KFF are granted a 5+ cover save" There would be nor argument at all. Because we all konw and understand that "units" count for everything we play with. The part that trumped me previously was the vehicles being obscured part. That threw me and naturally got me thinking it was a 4+ as the BRB says it does.
But the only reason it brings up "vehicles" is so you understand WHY they are getting a cover save in the open. I think it would of been smarter just writting it as "units" instead of bringing up the vehicles part.

So yea in short, definetly a 5+ on units

Units, sure. But the obscured status granted by the kff to vehicles does not have an associated specific save, which it would need to have under the obscuring wargear caveat to be non-4+. Wargear specifically doesn't just use the normal general cover value given for obscuring, like terrain or models would.

Arguing how the rule could be better written for either side is pointless, the codex was written last edition anyway.
I'll again point to the 5th ed prep sheet as RAI for 4+, though it's hardly a hardline official ruling.

I can see this battle going either way with no true winner, as usual. The wargear states a 5+, but specifically states that vehicles are treated as obscured. To me that separation of sentences is a 4+ cover as per the rules.

BlueDagger wrote:The wargear states a 5+, but specifically states that vehicles are treated as obscured.

Not trying to be difficult, but why do you feel there should be a 'but' in that sentence? You could as easily say that the wargear states a 5+, and specifically states that vehicles are obscured.


Being obscured, as I said before, is not a separate condition. It's what allows the vehicle to take the cover save.

I honestly think that RAW it could be read as either 5+ or 4+ for vehicles.

On one hand, it says that "units" get a 5+ save, and vehicles are "units." This could be seen as "specifying" that vehicles get a 5+ obscured save.

On the other hand, the second sentence simply says that vehicles are obscured, without specifically saying "vehicles get a 5+ obscured save." So you can argue that the rule does not fulfill the "unless otherwise specified" part of the non-specific-obscured-from-wargear rule.

I also think you can look at the SAG double-six rule for precedent and intention. Disclaimer: this is not RAW at all. On a double six, the SAG says that any models under the blast are removed from the table, and has a second discrete sentence that says vehicles take a penetrating hit.

Technically, the vehicle is both removed from the table and suffers a penetrating hit. However, I think it is clear that the wargear is intended to have an entirely separate effect for vehicle and non-vehicle units.

Because of the nearly identical wording for the KFF, I think that it is intended to have entirely separate effects for vehicle and non-vehicle units as well, granting vehicles within 6" the non-specified-obscured status.

willydstyle wrote:On the other hand, the second sentence simply says that vehicles are obscured, without specifically saying "vehicles get a 5+ obscured save."

This keeps coming back...

There is no such thing as an 'obscured save'...

insaniak wrote:

willydstyle wrote:On the other hand, the second sentence simply says that vehicles are obscured, without specifically saying "vehicles get a 5+ obscured save."

This keeps coming back...

There is no such thing as an 'obscured save'...

Just trying to present both sides of the argument. To be semantically more correct, it would of course have to say "vehicles are obscured and receive a 5+ cover save."

That's the thing, though... I rather suspect that at least some of those arguing for the 4+ save are doing so in the belief that the save that the vehicle gets is a different category of save to that gained by other models (as evidenced by the repeated mention in KFF discussions of this 'obscured save').

If you can accept that the cover save that the vehicle takes is no different to the cover save that an infantry model takes (which the Obscured Target rules actually point out is the case) then there is no need for them to respecify the save again after the mention of vehicle obscurement.

The vehicle is obscured, which means that the vehicle is allowed to take the cover save bestowed by the KFF. The two concepts ('KFF grants 5+ cover save to units' and 'vehicles are obscured') are intrinsically linked.

If the save granted by being obscured was a different type of save, there would be a valid argument. Since the KFF doesn't specify an 'obscured save' you use the save specified by the Obscure rule.

But that's not the case. Being obscured does not grant an obscured save... it allows a vehicle to benefit from the cover save relevant to whatever it is that is causing them to be obscured.

Vehicles in the KFF's area of effect are obscured, and so can take the cover save offered by the KFF. That cover save is specified as being 5+.


- Edited slightly for clarity...

insaniak wrote:
If you can accept that the cover save that the vehicle takes is no different to the cover save that an infantry model takes (which the Obscured Target rules actually point out is the case) then there is no need for them to respecify the save again after the mention of vehicle obscurement.

The vehicle is obscured, which means that the vehicle is allowed to take the cover save bestowed by the KFF. The two concepts ('KFF grants 5+ cover save to units' and 'vehicles are obscured') are intrinsically linked.

They're not. Wargear obscuring is different from other types of obscuring, and doesn't use the value of the cover unless it is specified that it does so.

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 confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even in the open. This save is a 4+, unless the codex specifically says otherwise.
The codex does not specifically or clearly say otherwise.
The fact that it grants a generic cover value to units doesn't mean it uses that value for vehicles it obscures, unless the codex says that it does.
For it to be RAW 5+, the codex would have to directly specify the save given to vehicles it grants obscured to to override the standard value.

Gorkamorka wrote:Wargear obscuring is different from other types of obscuring, and doesn't use the value of the cover unless it is specified that it does so.

Being obscured by wargear is different only in that nothing is physically obscuring the model. Normally, we would just look at what is obscuring the model, and apply the cover save that is appropriate for that cover. Since nothing is physically obscuring the model in this case, the rules give us a set cover save to use if the wargear doesn't specify a cover save of its own.

The KFF does specify a cover save, that applies to all units within 6".

The paragraph before the one you quoted mentions that cover saves taken by vehicles are exactly the same as those taken by infantry. With that in mind, there is no reason to think that vehicles should get a different cover save from the KFF without the KFF entry specifically saying as much.

The KFF is a wargear item that confers a cover save of 5+ on all units, despite not actually physically concealing the model. All the reference to being obscured does is ensure that a vehicle can take that save. It doesn't alter it or ignore it.

Can someone quote the specific rule?

If it says 'counts as' as opposed to simply saying 'obscured' their might be something here.

imweasel wrote:Can someone quote the specific rule?

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

If it says 'counts as' as opposed to simply saying 'obscured' their might be something here.

Why would that make a difference?

The prep sheet stated it was a 4+ - Theres the RAI

The save provided by the wargear FOR VEHICLES is not specified - as you stated you cannot take a save unless you are Obscured, so the initial save cannot define the save in the second, entirely seperate sentence.

It was written to be forward looking into 5th, so it could not specify a save in the second sentence. The second sentence had to be completely divorced from the first, otherwise it would nto have worked in 4th ed - and while they were seemingly willing to do that for Ghazghull, this was a bit more important.

I would not source non-rules documents for rules.

The prep sheet says 4+... but they also play the rules wrong in battlereports all the time.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The save provided by the wargear FOR VEHICLES is not specified - as you stated you cannot take a save unless you are Obscured, so the initial save cannot define the save in the second, entirely seperate sentence.

It doesn't need to define it in the second sentence.

The KFF provides a cover save, which vehicles can only get if they are obscured. The line telling you that vehicles do, in fact, count as obscured doesn't need to restate the cover save, because the cover save is the same for everybody, just like every other cover save is the same for everybody.

A cover save is a cover save. There is no seperate category for 'vehicle cover saves' as opposed to 'regular or infantry cover saves'... if something provides a cover save, then it provides a cover save.

The KFF provides a cover save. That save is, since there are no different categories of cover save, the same for every model that is eligible to take that cover save... which includes vehicles, because they are obscured.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The save provided by the wargear FOR VEHICLES is not specified - as you stated you cannot take a save unless you are Obscured, so the initial save cannot define the save in the second, entirely seperate sentence.

It doesn't need to define it in the second sentence.

A cover save is a cover save. There is no seperate category for 'vehicle cover saves' as opposed to 'regular or infantry cover saves'... if something provides a cover save, then it provides a cover save.

There is when talking about a piece of wargear. Not a separate category, per say, but a separate save value.
The wargear obscuring rules require that the wargear specify the cover save given to units it grants obscured to. The general cover save granted to units separate from the obscured status doesn't cut it, it has to specifically say that the general save value should be used for the obscured vehicles in place of the standard 4+.

Note that vehicle units also get the normal 5+ unit save, it'll just almost never come up.

Gorkamorka wrote:The general cover save granted to units doesn't cut it, it has to specifically say that the general save value should be used for the obscured vehicles in place of the standard 4+.

It's not a general cover save. It's a cover save that applies specifically to that wargear.

To be fair, I can see where you're coming from. But I don't agree that it's what the rule actually says when taken in context with the preceding passage.

For what it's worth, I also don't see any way that your interpretation is what was intended. The rules for being obscured by wargear are there purely because there is no physical obscurement. They're not (IMO) intended to make the vehicle be treated differently to other models... they're just supposed to give the vehicles a way to benefit in the same way as infantry would.

The wording of the KFF entry isn't as precise as it could be, due to being worded to work for both 4th and 5th editions. But I believe it fits my take on both the RAW and the RAI. YMMV, obviously... but I think I'm going to bow out of this one at this point for fear of just perpetuating another multi-page merry-go-round thread.

Well, it first your take on RAI - just not the RAI as published by GW in the prep sheet

Honest question, not trying to be snarky-how convinced are you that the person that wrote that prep sheet was really familiar with the Ork codex and the 5th edition rulebook?

insaniak wrote:We had a multi-page thread on this not so long ago, with opinions being pretty well divided.

Opinion in that thread was overwhelming in favor of a 4+ save. There were a few prolific posters who argued for a 5+, but the consensus wa a 4+ and rightly so based on the documentation provided by GW itself.

Ordznik wrote:Honest question, not trying to be snarky-how convinced are you that the person that wrote that prep sheet was really familiar with the Ork codex and the 5th edition rulebook?

Pretty well - and given it went through proof reading with Alessio and / or JJ the chances are it is what was meant.

So you have RAI covered as 4+, the save is not specified at all, certainly not compared to the standards seen elsewhere (Stubborn, SA versus WBB) for what "specified" means, therefore the save is 4+.

I used to be in the 5+ camp a looong time ago.

RAW can be read either way, it's a circular debate and nothing new has been added to the discussion here.

RAI is what I go with - based on docs provided by GW this means a 4+ KFF save for vehicles.

I said this in the last post. In the inaugural White Dwarf battle report for the Ork codex, Phil Kelly (the man who wrote the codex) says he is taking a KFF to give his trucks a 4+ save.

It was stated in previous posts as well that WD has often displayed incorrect rulings. "House Rules" if you will, that make them unreliable for rules judgements for the game at large.

Editing to add:
I am ambivalent about this rule. If it were my own army, I would use 5+ as it is weaker. If it were my opponent claiming 4+, I would have no issue. Then again, most folks I play follow the same logic. In a tourney, I would expect most to use 4+.

As most issues like this end up being responded to: Discuss it with your opponent.

Ordznik wrote:Honest question, not trying to be snarky-how convinced are you that the person that wrote that prep sheet was really familiar with the Ork codex and the 5th edition rulebook?

I'm not trying to be snarky either, but why would you think a GW released document that came out just prior to 5th edition release and includes references to specific ork rules and how they'll work in 5th ed would be written and edited by people unfamiliar with either the codex or rules?
It's certainly not an official errata sheet or a faq, but in the absence of either it's the closest thing we've got to determine the intention of the rule under the new system.

insaniak wrote:

That wouldn't work, for two reasons:
- In 4th edition when the codex was written, vehicles didn't get a cover save at all. Obscured instead let them downgrade Pens to Glances. So vehicles would have received no benefit from the KFF.

- In 5th edition, vehicles can only take a cover save if they are obscured. So a rule granting them a cover save without actually also counting them as obscured would do nothing. The rule has to say that they are obscured in order for them to receive any benefit from it.

I think you're wrong on both counts here, actually.

First off, in 4th Ed. vehicles certainly got a benefit from the KFF: they counted as obscured, as the wargear says they do. That let them downgrade Pens to Glances. You even said that in you very next sentence, not sure why you contradicted yourself.

Second, if the the KFF had granted a cover save to vehicles without explicitly saying they were obscured, why on earth would they not have gotten it? That would be a clear case of specific trumping general; in general vehicles get no cover save unless obscured, but specifically, when near a KFF, they do. In THAT case, I would be in the 5+ camp.

However, it says "obscured", which defaults to a 4+ save in the absence of specific language stating otherwise. Such language is not present.

BeRzErKeR wrote:First off, in 4th Ed. vehicles certainly got a benefit from the KFF: they counted as obscured, as the wargear says they do.

The post you're responding to was in reference to the claim that they could have left the statement about being obscured off the rule...

If they had, then vehicles wouldn't have been obscured, in which case they would have received no benefit from the KFF in 4th edition as they couldn't take cover saves.

Second, if the the KFF had granted a cover save to vehicles without explicitly saying they were obscured, why on earth would they not have gotten it?

Because vehicles can only take cover saves if they are obscured. So giving it a cover save without making it obscured does nothing. It would be like a rule giving a bolter to a model that has a rule saying it can't use ranged weapons... Sure, it has a bolter, but it can't actually use it.

insaniak wrote:

imweasel wrote:Can someone quote the specific rule?

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

If it says 'counts as' as opposed to simply saying 'obscured' their might be something here.

Why would that make a difference?

So if it did not say that "Vehicles within 6" are obscured targets" then they would not get a 5+ cover save?

Because I don't agree with that.

They would get it. They just wouldn't be able to use it. Because 'Vehicles don't benefit from cover in the same way as infantry...'

In order to make use of the cover save, the vehicle must be obscured.

K so did some research and RAW this is a solid 5+ cover save, though the common play method is 4+. (if you said a 5+ to an ork player they'd prob slap ya)

PG 34 Orks: "... A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are counted as being obscured targets" emphisis mine

PG 3 BRB: UNITS "A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank... . In the rules that follow, all of these things are referred to as 'units'."It's very clear from this passage that vehicles are defined as "units".

PG 62 BRB: VEHICLES AND COVER-OBSCURED TARGETS "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obsured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless spcified otherwise on the codex" As per this passage the KFF specifically states that it gives "units" a 5+ and a vehicle as per the BRB is defined as a "unit" whether it is a single model or multiple models.

Units get a 5+ save. Vehicles are "units". The BRB states that if the wargear states a cover save for the vehicle then you use it and not 4+.

RAI can be argued till blue in the face

How is this an argument, it is clearly writen in the codex.

BlueDagger wrote:K so did some research and RAW this is a solid 5+ cover save, though the common play method is 4+. (if you said a 5+ to an ork player they'd prob slap ya)

PG 34 Orks: "... A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are counted as being obscured targets" emphisis mine

PG 3 BRB: UNITS "A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank... . In the rules that follow, all of these things are referred to as 'units'."It's very clear from this passage that vehicles are defined as "units".

PG 62 BRB: VEHICLES AND COVER-OBSCURED TARGETS "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obsured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless spcified otherwise on the codex" As per this passage the KFF specifically states that it gives "units" a 5+ and a vehicle as per the BRB is defined as a "unit" whether it is a single model or multiple models.

Units get a 5+ save. Vehicles are "units". The BRB states that if the wargear states a cover save for the vehicle then you use it and not 4+.

RAI can be argued till blue in the face

None of this cements a RAW argument.
Noone is saying that vehicles are not units or that vehicles don't gain a 5+ cover save. It could even be usable, for example if a vehicle had a squadron member within the KFF but was personally not obscured by it while being obscured by a 6+ fence.

People who care about strict raw are saying that the cover save given by the obscured status from a piece of wargear has to be specifically set to be anything other than 4+. The fact that the KFF grants a cover save to units does not mean that that cover save is automatically used for the save value granted by the obscured status it separately grants to vehicles.

The kff would have to have specific language, like that given in the smoke launchers rules (vehicles 'count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save') that sets the value of the save the obscured status grants to have anything other than the standard number. The kff simply does not, and the extrapolation of the general save, common sense though you might think it is, is not supported by raw.

We can certainly argue RAI until we're blue in the face.
You have your opinion of how you think the rules should work, and I have mine... and the only printed material released by GW that clarifies the rule, and does so quite specifically as 4+.

I'm not really sure how you stating that it doens't specifically state that it is a 5+ cover save. As posted a vehicle is a unit and units are specifically said to be granted a 5+ cover. The rulesbook states if the gear says a specific save then you use it. Units is a global term for ALL models in either single or multiples and therefor specifically includes vehicles. The reason smoke grenades specifically state "vehicles" is because it can not effect anything but the vehicle. If smoke grenade could effect other models it would probably state "unit" as well.

Then why go on and say that Vehicles are obscured?

BlueDagger wrote: (if you said a 5+ to an ork player they'd prob slap ya)

I'm an ork player, and I think it's a 5+

BlueDagger wrote:I'm not really sure how you stating that it doens't specifically state that it is a 5+ cover save. As posted a vehicle is a unit and units are specifically said to be granted a 5+ cover. The rulesbook states if the gear says a specific save then you use it.

No, the rulebook says that the wargear has to specify the save it is giving with the obscured status, not that a general cover save should be used if no specifics are given in the granting of obscured.

If a piece of wargear grants a vehicle obscured, it SPECIFICALLY has to say what the save it is granting that vehicle via the obscured is if it isn't 4+. Using the general save the KFF is granting to everyone as the value may seem like common sense, but it's not what the wargear obscuring rules say to do.

The KFF:
Grants units 5+ saves.
Grants vehicles obscured status.

The KFF does not:
Grant units 5+ saves.
Grant vehicles obscured status with a 5+ save.

p62 wrote:
If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open,

The kff does this, so...

this [the obscured ability] is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.'

The kff does not specify the save given by the obscured ability it grants, just that it is granting obscured. The rule does not ask for cover given by the wargear otherwise, it specifically says that the obscured ability gives 4+ unless something says otherwise.

Please state to me where in the rules that it must state that the cover save granted and the word obscured mus. be in the same sentence.

Smoke grenades "..but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save."

In this rule obscured and the cover save designated are in the same sentence. In the KFF rule they are seperated by a period, but that doesn't negate the a fore mentioned cover save. A vehicle is a Unit, units get s 5+.

BlueDagger wrote:Please state to me where in the rules that it must state that the cover save granted and the word obscured mus. be in the same sentence.

Smoke grenades "..but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save."

In this rule obscured and the cover save designated are in the same sentence. In the KFF rule they are seperated by a period, but that doesn't negate the a fore mentioned cover save. A vehicle is a Unit, units get s 5+.

The rule does not ask for cover given by the wargear otherwise, it specifically says that the obscured ability gives 4+ unless something says the obscured ability gives otherwise.
Nothing says that you would use any other number, no matter how related it might seem.

The smoke launcher says 'counts as obscured with an x+ save'. It actually specifies the save granted by the obscured it gives, unlike the kff which gives a cover save AND an unspecified obscured.

Gorkamorka wrote:

p62 wrote:
If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open,

The kff does this, so...

this [the obscured ability] is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.'

That would explain where the disagreement is coming from.

Because I read that as:

this [cover save] is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex.

There is no 'obscured ability'... 'Obscured' is a status that allows a vehicle to take a cover save, not an ability or save in its own right.

The save is not affected by being obscured beyond the fact that the vehicle needs to be obscured to take it. It's a simple yes/no operation: Is the vehicle obscured? Yes - It gets the cover save relevant to whatever is providing the cover. No - It doesn't.

Whether or not the vehicle is obscured, the cover bestowed by the wargear (or whatever else is providing a cover save) is unaffected. It's simply whether or not the vehicle can use that cover save that is affected by the vehicle's obscured status, or lack thereof.

So, (and here I am repeating myself, which I said I was going to stop doing...) the KFF bestows a cover save, and being obscured allows the vehicle to use it. As the KFF is a wargear item that specifies a cover save, the generic cover save for wargear obscurement is not referenced.

All IMO, of course. I'm quite happy to accept that some people see it differently. But any KFF's in my own Waaagh will be using the 5+.

Gorkamorka wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:Please state to me where in the rules that it must state that the cover save granted and the word obscured mus. be in the same sentence.

Smoke grenades "..but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save."

In this rule obscured and the cover save designated are in the same sentence. In the KFF rule they are seperated by a period, but that doesn't negate the a fore mentioned cover save. A vehicle is a Unit, units get s 5+.

The rule does not ask for cover given by the wargear otherwise, it specifically says that the obscured ability gives 4+ unless something says the obscured ability gives otherwise.
The smoke launcher says 'counts as obscured with an x+ save'. It specifies the save granted by the obscured, unlike the kff.

Nothing says that you would use any other number, no matter how related it might seem.

First Obscure is not an "ability" it is just a term given for when a vehicle is able to take a cover save. Once again the 5+ is not "related" the wargear specifically states that is the cover given to "units" as which RAW by the BRB includes vehicles.

I'm not arguing RAI to which the separation of sentences leads to a 4+, but as written 5+ would be the "unless specified otherwise in the codex"

insaniak wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

p62 wrote:
If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open,

The kff does this, so...

this [the obscured ability] is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.'

That would explain where the disagreement is coming from.

Because I read that as:

this [cover save] is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex.

There is no 'obscured ability'... 'Obscured' is a status that allows a vehicle to take a cover save, not an ability or save in its own right.

There most certainly is. The rule specifies wargear that 'confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even in the open'. While my wording may not have been perfect, I think my meaning was entirely clear. The 'ability of being obscured even in the open' a piece of wargear gives a vehicle grants a 4+ cover save normally.

insaniak wrote:
The save is not affected by being obscured beyond the fact that the vehicle needs to be obscured to take it. It's a simple yes/no operation: Is the vehicle obscured? Yes - It gets the cover save relevant to whatever is providing the cover. No - It doesn't.

Whether or not the vehicle is obscured, the cover bestowed by the wargear (or whatever else is providing a cover save) is unaffected. It's simply whether or not the vehicle can use that cover save that is affected by the vehicle's obscured status, or lack thereof.

Yes, the save is 'affected'... 'set' is a better word. The wargear obscuring rules state that the obscuring ability the wargear grants normally uses a 4+ save. The relevant outside cover saves also apply, as the vehicle is obscured, but the save granted by the obscuring is 4+ unless specifically stated otherwise.

insaniak wrote:
So, (and here I am repeating myself, which I said I was going to stop doing...) the KFF bestows a cover save, and being obscured allows the vehicle to use it. As the KFF is a wargear item that specifies a cover save, the generic cover save for wargear obscurement is not referenced.

All of this is true, except the last part. The vehicle is indeed obscured, and is indeed given a 5+ cover save by the KFF.
However, the wargear rule doesn't say that it uses the cover save the wargear grants... it says that you have to specify the save given by the obscured (as in the smoke launcher rules). The 5+ cover save is not specified for use in the obscured, the obscured is just a general obscured without any caveats and thus uses the 4+.

The wargear has to say:
Grants a 5+ save to units.
Grants obscured to vehicles with a 5+ save.

For the rule to work like you are saying it does.

Gorkamorka wrote:There most certainly is. The rule specifies wargear that 'confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even in the open'. While my wording may not have been perfect, I think my meaning was entirely clear.

No, that's fair enough. I overlooked that wording. However, I think we still disagree on what that 'obscured ability' actually is. To my mind all that this ability is, is an ability that allows the vehicle to be obscured. The ability itself doesn't bestow the cover save... there is a set cover save that applies (if no other save is specified) if the vehicle is obscured.

insaniak wrote: The wargear obscuring rules state that the obscuring ability the wargear grants normally uses a 4+ save.

Or, by my interpretation, the obscuring ability grants the vehicle obscured status, which allows it to take a 4+ save unless the wargear specifies a different save.

The ability itself isn't the save. It just counts the vehicle as obscured.


So, in essense, this would appear to come down to whether you believe that the cover save being referenced by the rule in question is a cover save specifically granted by being obscured, or a cover save specified by an item of wargear that grants obscured status.

The vehicle is indeed obscured, and is indeed given a 5+ cover save by the KFF.
However, the wargear rule doesn't say that it uses the cover save the wargear grants... it says that you have to specify the save given by the obscured (as in the smoke launcher rules). The 5+ cover save is not specified for use in the obscured, the obscured is just a general obscured without any caveats.

So your stating, that because there is a period between the two sentences, the fact that the KFF specifically states it grants a 5+ cover save is negated because it isn't included in the obscured sentence? Obscured is a term not an specific ability, rule, or USR. the sentence you quoted is nothing more then saying it's able to be obscured with proper grammar. There is nothing in the rules that states that an obscured cover save and a cover save are two different things. What it does state is that vehicles can not take advantage of cover in the same way and goes on to list how they may use cover... not "cover saves".

insaniak wrote:
Or, by my interpretation, the obscuring ability grants the vehicle obscured status, which allows it to take a 4+ save unless the wargear specifies a different save.

The ability itself isn't the save. It just counts the vehicle as obscured.


So, in essense, this would appear to come down to whether you believe that the cover save being referenced by the rule in question is a cover save specifically granted by being obscured, or a cover save specified by an item of wargear that grants obscured status.

The 'this' in the sentence has to refer to the 'ability of being obscured', and thus the ability is what gives the 4+ cover save. I can't see how the save would be divorced from the ability and just a freebie that comes with being obscured if there is no other cover save around to take instead.

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.'

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree and call it a night, as we're not convincing eachother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BlueDagger wrote:
So your stating, that because there is a period between the two sentences, the fact that the KFF specifically states it grants a 5+ cover save is negated because it isn't included in the obscured sentence?

I am, because the rule requires specificity. The KFF doesn't give it, it just gives 2 general statements that don't have any interactions specifically stated or defined.

For the hundredth time, the wargear rules are different from normal obscuring cover value rules. The rules for wargear obscuring don't use the cover save normally given by a piece of wargear unless the wargear says to do so.

KingCracker wrote: but in the current rules the cover save granted has to be the same as the cover save granted to infantry, which

What made him arrive at this conclusion. Clearly if it says your vehicle is obscured, then its obscured. In old ED. Obscured meant pens become glances. Now it gives you a +4 save for being obscured. I do not know of an obscured save being modifiable except through things like camo netting for IG making it a +3. I do not know why he would infer that the save becomes +5. If its obscured, then you follow rules for obscured vehicles. Hence a +4. The part of it having to be the same as infantry he is making up.

Gorkamorka wrote:The rules for wargear obscuring don't use the cover save normally given by a piece of wargear unless the wargear says to do so.

Please advise me where any rules state this. Once again there is no "Obscured Cover Save" there is only "Cover Saves" that are granted by being obscured.
.

LOL, after reading blue daggers entry I would like to retract my previous entry.

smart_alex wrote:

KingCracker wrote: but in the current rules the cover save granted has to be the same as the cover save granted to infantry, which

What made him arrive at this conclusion.

It's based on the fact that the Obscured Target rules mention that the cover save taken by an obscured vehicles is the same as for infantry. Was mentioned earlier in the thread.

I do not know of an obscured save being modifiable

There is no 'obscured save'... just a cover save, which the vehicle needs to be obscured to take.

smart_alex wrote:If its obscured, then you follow rules for obscured vehicles. Hence a +4. The part of it having to be the same as infantry he is making up.

PG 62 BRB: VEHICLES AND COVER-OBSCURED TARGETS "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obsured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless spcified otherwise on the codex" What cover save does the Wargear state it gives units, which ARE vehicles by definition?

BlueDagger wrote:

smart_alex wrote:If its obscured, then you follow rules for obscured vehicles. Hence a +4. The part of it having to be the same as infantry he is making up.

PG 62 BRB: VEHICLES AND COVER-OBSCURED TARGETS "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obsured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless spcified otherwise on the codex" What cover save does the Wargear state it gives units, which ARE vehicles by definition?

A big old 5+.
Good thing that isn't the save given by the 'ability of being obscured even in the open' that the wargear grants, which is unspecified.

'[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.
That's how the rule reads to me, unless you have another suggestion for what to replace the 'this' with from the first half that is sensical.
In order to specify a different save, you'd have to specify the save given by the ability of being obscured in the open the wargear grants.

Gorkamorka wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:

smart_alex wrote:If its obscured, then you follow rules for obscured vehicles. Hence a +4. The part of it having to be the same as infantry he is making up.

PG 62 BRB: VEHICLES AND COVER-OBSCURED TARGETS "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obsured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless spcified otherwise on the codex" What cover save does the Wargear state it gives units, which ARE vehicles by definition?

A big old 5+.
Good thing that isn't the save given by the 'ability of being obscured even in the open' that the wargear grants, which is unspecified.

'[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.
That's how the rule reads to me, unless you have another suggestion for what to replace the 'this' with from the first half that is sensical.
In order to specify a different save, you'd have to specify the save given by the ability of being obscured in the open the wargear grants.

"If the target is obscured... ... it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound."
'[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.
'A kustom force field gives all [vehicles] within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+'

BlueDagger wrote:'[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.
'A kustom force field gives all [vehicles] within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+'

How does this show anything at all? Simply quoting rules without context or the argument they support isn't helpful.

The cover save given by the kff is a normal cover save. Noone is saying that vehicles aren't units and hence don't get it, or saying that obscured vehicles don't have this save available to them.

However, the KFF grants the ability of being obscured even in the open and does not specifically define a save for it, the vehicle hence gains a 4+ cover save from the wargear rule.

The more I think about the logic on that the more I believe you are correct. A KFF does not give two different types of cover saves, but rather literally gives two cover saves.

'A kustom force field gives all [models] within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+'

Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets. If a piece of wargear confers to the vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, '[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.

Both of these would mean that the KFF provides both a 5+ and a 4+ cover save, but using the rule about best save possible the KFF would always be a 4+ cover save.


I really can't see any way around this this being pure RAW, GJ Gorkamorka



RAW - KFF gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles within 6" and gives a 5+ cover save to all other units

Ork Codex p.34 wrote:A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+.

I think that the fact it says all units necessarily includes vehicles. The second phrase was evidently functional in 4th but is now simply descriptive. It does not matter that the vehicles is obscured, vehicles are included and thus specified to have a 5+ save.

Dracos - except vehicles cannot take cover saves unless they are Obscured, therfore the second sentence is not redundant - without it vehicles cannot benefit.

The secodn sentence does not specify the save, as required by the wargear rules. As the save is not specified it defaults to a 4+.

Fits the rules and RAI.

Late to the game, but agreed with the above.

"A KFF gives all units within 6" of the Big Mek a 5+ cover save" (Full Stop) "Vehicles within 6" are treated being obscured targets" (Full stop).

Two different clauses, two different saves.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dracos - except vehicles cannot take cover saves unless they are Obscured, therfore the second sentence is not redundant - without it vehicles cannot benefit.

The secodn sentence does not specify the save, as required by the wargear rules. As the save is not specified it defaults to a 4+.

Fits the rules and RAI.

Well said.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Ordznik wrote:Honest question, not trying to be snarky-how convinced are you that the person that wrote that prep sheet was really familiar with the Ork codex and the 5th edition rulebook?

I'm not trying to be snarky either, but why would you think a GW released document that came out just prior to 5th edition release and includes references to specific ork rules and how they'll work in 5th ed would be written and edited by people unfamiliar with either the codex or rules?
It's certainly not an official errata sheet or a faq, but in the absence of either it's the closest thing we've got to determine the intention of the rule under the new system.

GW has trouble sometimes keeping rules consistent from codex to codex. I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that a piece of promotional material that was quite possibly written by someone in their advertising department might be a little off.

The way I read it, the first sentence in the KFF rules specifies a 5+ save. The second sentence merely clarifies that the save applies to vehicles, by saying that vehicles are obscured. I'm influenced by the paragraph earlier in the obscured rules (BRB pg 62) which says that obscured vehicles take the same save as an infantry model would for the same cover. I'm with Insaniak in thinking that "obscured" is just a state, and not an ability, and that once a cover save has been specified for "units" it's also been specified for obscured vehicles.

BlueDagger wrote:The more I think about the logic on that the more I believe you are correct. A KFF does not give two different types of cover saves, but rather literally gives two cover saves.

'A kustom force field gives all [models] within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+'

Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets. If a piece of wargear confers to the vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, '[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.

Both of these would mean that the KFF provides both a 5+ and a 4+ cover save, but using the rule about best save possible the KFF would always be a 4+ cover save.


I really can't see any way around this this being pure RAW, GJ Gorkamorka



RAW - KFF gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles within 6" and gives a 5+ cover save to all other units

Holy pop culture reference Batman, did someone just actually change their mind because of a YMDC thread?!

BeRzErKeR wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:The more I think about the logic on that the more I believe you are correct. A KFF does not give two different types of cover saves, but rather literally gives two cover saves.

'A kustom force field gives all [models] within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+'

Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets. If a piece of wargear confers to the vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, '[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.

Both of these would mean that the KFF provides both a 5+ and a 4+ cover save, but using the rule about best save possible the KFF would always be a 4+ cover save.


I really can't see any way around this this being pure RAW, GJ Gorkamorka



RAW - KFF gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles within 6" and gives a 5+ cover save to all other units

Holy pop culture reference Batman, did someone just actually change their mind because of a YMDC thread?!

lol I've always played it 4+ because doing 5+ goes into some rules lawyering which kills the spirit of friendly games. A logical debate back and forth though shows that it's a 4+ until someone can break the logic of how to beat this sentence:
'If a piece of wargear confers to the vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, '[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'. because the 5+ granted by the wargear doesn't state that it is for shear ableness (didn't want to say ability) of being able to claim cover in the wide open. The wargear conferring this ableness gives the wargear a 4+ to vehicles as well as a 5+.

I play SW and I was playing an Ork player last week and we ended up talking about this subject. The Psyker ability that I have specifically states that it provides a "5+ cover save to the target unit", and never says the word "Obscured" or even mentions vehicles. This implies that the cover save is the same no matter what you place it on, Land Raider or GH squad.

Now the KFF says that infantry receive the 5+ while vehicles count as obscured, which is a 4+ save. I know every group will play it their own way, but at my FLGS the vast majority agreed on the 4+ to vehicles with the KFF.

Wow Phill kelly strikes again, with yet ANOTHER perfectly written rule

Im sorry I brought up this insanely crazy Ork rule with no foreseeable answer lol.

I am an Ork player (surprised I know) but I now agree with the 5+ crowd. The period doesnt separate the fact that vehicles count as units, and units get a 5+ cover save when within 6inches of the KFF

Its there in the black and white of the codex. Yes if you count the second sentence about the obscured rules, it does seem like the vehicle gets a 4+, but it does say it depends on what the codex says. And the codex says, and again Ill post it, ALL UNITS GET A 5+ COVER SAVE

Please just lock this before people get murdered over it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaotik wrote:I play SW and I was playing an Ork player last week and we ended up talking about this subject. The Psyker ability that I have specifically states that it provides a "5+ cover save to the target unit", and never says the word "Obscured" or even mentions vehicles. This implies that the cover save is the same no matter what you place it on, Land Raider or GH squad.

Now the KFF says that infantry receive the 5+ while vehicles count as obscured, which is a 4+ save. I know every group will play it their own way, but at my FLGS the vast majority agreed on the 4+ to vehicles with the KFF.

That is completely incorrect. It says the KFF gives all UNITS within 6 inches a cover save. A vehicle is a unit just as you stated about your SW ability. You basically made the same sense about your SW ability as the KFF does. Its a 5+ on ANY UNIT

And as an IG player who has had unbelievable numbers of penetrating shots ignored by a KFF agrees with the 4+ crowd.

My name is KingCracker, and Ive been THREAD LOCKED!!!!! (please?)

KingCracker wrote:
Its there in the black and white of the codex. Yes if you count the second sentence about the obscured rules, it does seem like the vehicle gets a 4+, but it does say it depends on what the codex says. And the codex says, and again Ill post it, ALL UNITS GET A 5+ COVER SAVE

I'm curious who you're arguing with. Neither side is arguing that anyone does not get a 5+ save.
Why would you not count the second sentence about the obscured rules, exactly?

As you yourself said, the vehicles get a 4+ from the wargear obscuring rules. There's no 'seems like'. The codex does not specify the save given by the obscuring it grants at any point, and the 5+ cover save granted separately from the obscuring does not ovveride the 4+ just because you think it should. We're talking about RAW here, not that the saves being the same would make logical sense.

And RAW can easily be read that the 5+ save to units specifies what save vehicles would get by being obscured.

It's not nearly as cut and dry as many of the posters are making it seem.

willydstyle wrote:And RAW can easily be read that the 5+ save to units specifies what save vehicles would get by being obscured.

It's not nearly as cut and dry as many of the posters are making it seem.

No one is contesting that the first sentence gives a 5+. The problem lies in that the second sentence grants a 4+ for the shear ability to claim a cover save despite being in the open. The 5+ cover save given from the wargear does not define that is is give for the shear ability to claim a cover save despite being in the open. While it makes common sense that that is what is happening from a fluff stand point, it isn't RAW.

KFF gives a 4+ cover and a 5+ cover to vehicles, you take the better of the two.

willydstyle wrote:And RAW can easily be read that the 5+ save to units specifies what save vehicles would get by being obscured.

It's not nearly as cut and dry as many of the posters are making it seem.

It is only "easily read" IF you alter the language of the second sentence to make it connected to the first one.

The second sentence deos NOT specify the save itself, nor does it refer to the first sentence. Without either of these two elements it cannot be considered to have specified the save sufficiently well to change it to a 5+.

If you consider it "specified" well enough then please cf to WBB and SA - by your definition of "specific" (ie not at all) you will start allowing WBB from SA.

How we play it locally (and pretty much everywhere I've played without anyone getting bent or even raising an eyebrow):

5+ Cover save to non-vehicles.
4+ Obscurement save to vehicles.

Ok well does anyone have a PDF or something similar of the white dwarf that actually shows them using as 5+ to troops and the 4+ to the vehicles? Im sorry but I wont budge on my view unless I actually see it used like that in a published magazine. Thats all I ask


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:

KingCracker wrote:
Its there in the black and white of the codex. Yes if you count the second sentence about the obscured rules, it does seem like the vehicle gets a 4+, but it does say it depends on what the codex says. And the codex says, and again Ill post it, ALL UNITS GET A 5+ COVER SAVE

I'm curious who you're arguing with. Neither side is arguing that anyone does not get a 5+ save.
Why would you not count the second sentence about the obscured rules, exactly?

As you yourself said, the vehicles get a 4+ from the wargear obscuring rules. There's no 'seems like'. The codex does not specify the save given by the obscuring it grants at any point, and the 5+ cover save granted separately from the obscuring does not ovveride the 4+ just because you think it should. We're talking about RAW here, not that the saves being the same would make logical sense.

Im curious why you want to leave out the fact that further in the obscured rules it says and I quote "its a 4+ cover save unless specified in the codex" Which it DOES say all units receive a 5+ cover save in the codex. This is why Im getting so confused with you 4+ guys. Its the deff rolla debate all over again

KingCracker wrote:
Im curious why you want to leave out the fact that further in the obscured rules it says and I quote "its a 4+ cover save unless specified in the codex" Which it DOES say all units receive a 5+ cover save in the codex. This is why Im getting so confused with you 4+ guys. Its the deff rolla debate all over again

That is not all of what the rule says or how that half of the sentence works in context, as several of my posts have pointed out.
Please refute the wording I gave at least twice for my reading above with another legitimate reading, not just half the relevant sentence incorrectly quoted.

This is not the deff rolla debate. The 5+ crowd is making a connection in the kff rules where one is not specifically defined as such.

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 grants 'the ability of being obscured even in the open' to a vehicle, so the conditional is satisfied and the rest of the rule applies.
With the only logical reading I can come up with, the 'this' has to refer to the ability. Hence the rule states that '[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex', which requires that the save given by 'the ability of being obscured even in the open' be specifically defined (as it is in the example on that page for smoke launchers).
The rules don't say to use a general cover save value if the wargear gives one, they ask for a directly attached value for the save for this granted obscured status. The general value does not somehow overwrite the 4+ save unless the wargear specifically says that it does, and thus 2 cover save values are granted with the 4+ being the better value.

Gorkamorka wrote:This is not the deff rolla debate.

That is a good thing!

Just saying.

I think the RAW is quite clear.

KFF grants units a 5+ cover save.
Vehicles are obscured. Obscured is a 4+ cover save.

By RAW, a vehicle has access to two different cover saves: a 5+ for being a unit, a 4+ for being obscured.

If KFF was meant to read that vehicles were intended to receive a 5+ save, it would simply say "Units within 6" receive a 5+ cover save" full stop. Vehicles are units so they therefore would get the benefit. Similarly if KFF was meant to specify the Obscurement save, it would say "Vehicles count as Obscured with a 5+ save".

The most literal reading supports 2 separate cover saves at different values. I cannot find a way to interpret it as one universal save at 5+ without injecting further meaning into the rules that I am not sure the writers intended.

Like I said, Someone give me a pdf or somehting similar of the whitedwarf where they played a game using the KFF and it gave vehicles a 4+ cover save
And Gorkamorka, you can write a damn novel about how your right and Im wrong. I have quoted the whole section a couple times in these 3 pages of arguing. And as Im reading it, I see it say in the codex that its a 5+ on units, vehicles count as obscured. And seeing as it SAYS right there "units get a 5+ cover save" Im taking it that vehicles are still considered units.

So again, someone give me a site link, a pdf anything I can use to read said whitedwarf where they do that, and Ill be happy. Until either someone lock this thread or someone please do as Ive asked. Other wise, stop writing the same things over and over again, which is why I said its turning into ANOTHER deff rolla debate

KingCracker wrote:Like I said, Someone give me a pdf or somehting similar of the whitedwarf where they played a game using the KFF and it gave vehicles a 4+ cover save
And Gorkamorka, you can write a damn novel about how your right and Im wrong. I have quoted the whole section a couple times in these 3 pages of arguing. And as Im reading it, I see it say in the codex that its a 5+ on units, vehicles count as obscured. And seeing as it SAYS right there "units get a 5+ cover save" Im taking it that vehicles are still considered units.

Who are you arguing with? You aren't refuting anyones points on either side, with rules or otherwise.
Noone is arguing that vehicles aren't units. Noone is contesting that the kff grants units a 5+ cover save. Repeating these facts isn't doing anything for anyone.
The rules for wargear that grants obscuring are the only things under contention, and they determine whether the 5+ save is used or not as they define the specificity required to make changes to them.
Simply quoting the kff passage we all understand over and over is not useful information or helping your argument.

Find your own pdf or request it without demanding it or shouting in bold text if you want to use it as RAI proof to yourself, we're talking about the rules.

sourclams wrote:I think the RAW is quite clear.

KFF grants units a 5+ cover save.
Vehicles are obscured. Obscured is a 4+ cover save.

Incorrect. Being obscured gives you a cover save, which in turn is specified by which type of cover you're behind.

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

Johnno wrote:

sourclams wrote:I think the RAW is quite clear.

KFF grants units a 5+ cover save.
Vehicles are obscured. Obscured is a 4+ cover save.

Incorrect. Being obscured gives you a cover save, which in turn is specified by which type of cover you're behind.

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

Incorrect. Read the thread and the wargear obscuring rules, which work differently.

Johnno wrote:Incorrect. Being obscured gives you a cover save, which in turn is specified by which type of cover you're behind.

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

Incorrect. Obscurement granted by wargear defaults to a 4+ unless the wargear specifies otherwise. KFF, due to the separation between the two clauses, does not. Therefore it defaults to the 4+ exactly like other wargear, i.e. smoke launchers.

Gorkamorka wrote:Incorrect, read the thread and the wargear obscuring rules.

I have. Several times. "unless specified otherwise in the codex" is where the +4 cover save for being obscured while in the open falls, because it is specified.

sourclams points out that the 4+ is for being obscured. Not for being obscured in the open, without a specific cover save noted by the codex. Being obscured doesn't automatically give you a 4+. Being obscured relies on knowing what cover save you're allowed to take. The codex specifies 5+ cover save for all units. Are vehicles not units?

As has been discussed and pointed out, vehicles have to be obscured to receive a cover save. The same line specifies the cover save as 5+, for all units. You can't just pick and choose single lines or words from a rule, you have to not only put sentences together, but interpret the rule as a whole.

Johnno wrote:
I have. Several times. "unless specified otherwise in the codex" is where the +4 cover save for being obscured while in the open falls, because it is specified.

sourclams points out that the 4+ is for being obscured. Not for being obscured in the open, without a specific cover save noted by the codex. Being obscured doesn't automatically give you a 4+. Being obscured relies on knowing what cover save you're allowed to take. The codex specifies 5+ cover save for all units. Are vehicles not units?

As has been discussed and pointed out, vehicles have to be obscured to receive a cover save. The same line specifies the cover save as 5+, for all units. You can't just pick and choose single lines or words from a rule, you have to not only put sentences together, but interpret the rule as a whole.

Gorkamorka wrote:Incorrect, read the thread and the wargear obscuring rules.

I'm not sure what else I can say.
Wargear that grants 'the ability of being obscured in the open' gives a 4+ save unless specified otherwise, that is what the rule says. The rule says that you have to specify the value of the save for being obscured in the open by wargear to use a different value. Unless you have a logical reading of the rule I'm missing, that is what it says.
The kff does indeed have two sentences right next to eachother that involve cover and obscuring. But without any language that actually links the two, they are not specifically linked to eachother for the purposes of the rules outside of being included in the rules for the same piece of wargear, and the granting of obscured is without caveats.

Yes?

kirsanth wrote:
Yes?

Can you edit it to include a brick wall with "RAW" written on it that most of the 5+ crowd crashes into on each loop?

Gorkamorka wrote:

kirsanth wrote:
Yes?

Can you edit it to include a brick wall with "RAW" written on it that most of the 5+ crowd crashes into on each loop?

Kaotik wrote:I play SW and I was playing an Ork player last week and we ended up talking about this subject. The Psyker ability that I have specifically states that it provides a "5+ cover save to the target unit", and never says the word "Obscured" or even mentions vehicles. This implies that the cover save is the same no matter what you place it on, Land Raider or GH squad.

I disagree. The SW codex states for stormcaller: "He and all friendly squads within 6" get a 5+ cover save". Besides debating the technical definition of "squad", the BRB specifically states that a vehicle can only benefit from a cover save if the vehicle is obsured, as insaniak has pointed out repeatedly in this thread.

Therefore, for a piece of wargear to provide a cover save, the rules would need to specify that the target unit is obscured. SW stormcaller ability does not mention that vehicles are obscured.

Gorkamorka wrote:
Wargear that grants 'the ability of being obscured in the open' gives a 4+ save unless specified otherwise, that is what the rule says.

Ok put it this way. You read the KFF rule, you get to "vehicles count as obscured". You go to the rulebook, to look up what does it mean that a vehicle is obscured, you find the "obscured in the open" rule, you have to go back to the codex to find if the cover save is specified, you find "all units inside the KFF get a 5+ cover save".

I don't understand how vehicles don't fall under "all units", thus that part of the rule specifying the cover save. Would every single rule have to explain in detail what applies and doesn't apply, in one single sentence, or do you actually have to think and apply other rules as well to how a specific rule should be interpreted?

Logically, to use a rule you have to read everything connected to it, not just one single sentence. Demanding that the cover save is specified in the same sentence as it is noted that the vehicle is obscured is to me absurd.

I dont know how many times I have to say it GorkaMorka, it says in the codex that units get a 5+ cover save. Thats what Ive been arguing about. As I read the line that says units get a 5+ cover save, Im taking it that the obscured result is treated with a 5+ cover save. I think this is the 10th time Ive said that.
Im not arguing that the KFF gives a cover save. Obviously it does as thats what it says. Im not arguing that it gives vehicles the obscured result, obviously because it does. That part I keep saying, is along the same lines of you saying your opinion over and over and over again as well.
The codex says 5+ cover save, and since in the obscured rules says its a 4+ unless stated in the codex, its a 5+ since the codex says it. I should just copy and paste this since you seem to be doing the same.

And I would look for the whitedwarf myself, if I knew what whitedwarf it was in.

Johnno I could hug you Why cant everyone else think like that

Johnno wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:
Wargear that grants 'the ability of being obscured in the open' gives a 4+ save unless specified otherwise, that is what the rule says.

Ok put it this way. You read the KFF rule, you get to "vehicles count as obscured". You go to the rulebook, to look up what does it mean that a vehicle is obscured, you find the "obscured in the open" rule, you have to go back to the codex to find if the cover save is specified, you find "all units inside the KFF get a 5+ cover save".

I don't understand how vehicles don't fall under "all units", thus that part of the rule specifying the cover save. Would every single rule have to explain in detail what applies and doesn't apply, in one single sentence, or do you actually have to think and apply other rules as well to how a specific rule should be interpreted?

Logically, to use a rule you have to read everything connected to it, not just one single sentence. Demanding that the cover save is specified in the same sentence as it is noted that the vehicle is obscured is to me absurd.

You are about the 15th person in the thread to misread the argument. Vehicles are certainly units, and certainly are granted a 5+ save by that part of the kff rules.
But, the strict raw of the wargear rule requires that you specify the save value that you want the ability of granting obscured to use to replace the standard 4+. The kff rules do not link the '5+' and 'obscured' ideas in any rulebinding fashion, and the 'obscured' part defaults to granting a 4+ save in addition to any other appicable saves.

KingCracker wrote:I dont know how many times I have to say it GorkaMorka, it says in the codex that units get a 5+ cover save. Thats what Ive been arguing about. As I read the line that says units get a 5+ cover save, Im taking it that the obscured result is treated with a 5+ cover save. I think this is the 10th time Ive said that.

And I don't know how many times I've said that the language does not support the leap 'you took' to the 5+ applying to the obscuring sentence. Saying that the kff grants 5+ cover alone does not mean that it uses that 5+ save value for the wargear obscuring rule caveats.

sourclams wrote:If KFF was meant to read that vehicles were intended to receive a 5+ save, it would simply say "Units within 6" receive a 5+ cover save" full stop.

I disagree, the BRB states that in order for a vehicle to get a cover save it must be obscured. If the rule for KFF had only read "Units within 6" receive a 5+ cover save" full stop, then vehicles would not have been able to use the 5+ cover save. The second statement in the KFF entry (vehicles count as obscured) is the condition that was needed to be met in order for orc vehicles to be able to use 5+ cover save that KFF grants.

You see what you are doing is the very definition of rules abuse. God forbid the writers actually use punctuation when they write. It does to specify. Its a 5+ cover save. Plain and simply. Thats it. 5+ to all units. You find me a spot in the rulebook where it says that vehicles do not count as units and Ill buy a crate of beer of your choice

KingCracker wrote:You see what you are doing is the very definition of rules abuse. God forbid the writers actually use punctuation when they write. It does to specify. Its a 5+ cover save. Plain and simply. Thats it. 5+ to all units. You find me a spot in the rulebook where it says that vehicles do not count as units and Ill buy a crate of beer of your choice

You are completely misrepresenting the argument, and are making no sense.

Quote the hard and specific rules and make arguments based upon them. You quoting single lines out of context and claiming they apply in situations they do not say they apply in and the situation does not say they apply in is not a solid base for an argument. Post and logically break down the wargear obscuring rule in a way that supports your argument, and I'll be happy to discuss it.

kirsanth wrote:
Yes?

Win

And I don't know how many times I've said that the language does not support the leap 'you took' to the 5+ applying to the obscuring sentence. Saying that the kff grants 5+ does not mean that it uses that 5+ for the wargear obscuring rule caveats.


Wait a minute. Saying that the KFF grants a 5+ does not mean it uses that 5+ for the wargear obscuring rule? So since the RULES stat that this is how it works, by your logic, means that you can pull out a purple crayon and just write how youd like it to work? Thats how your comming off anyways.

And Im also failing to see how I leapt to that conclusion when it says it in the codex. And Im pretty sure I didnt buy a fake codex that was also written in purple crayon either


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:

KingCracker wrote:You see what you are doing is the very definition of rules abuse. God forbid the writers actually use punctuation when they write. It does to specify. Its a 5+ cover save. Plain and simply. Thats it. 5+ to all units. You find me a spot in the rulebook where it says that vehicles do not count as units and Ill buy a crate of beer of your choice

You are completely misrepresenting the argument, and are making no sense.

How am I misrepresenting the argument? Im writing the rules in my books just as you are. But since I disagree with how it works Im not only completely wrong, but just writing nonsense as well apparently

Gorkamorka wrote:You are about the 15th person in the thread to misread the argument.

I am not so sure that he misread the arguement.

Vehicles are certainly units, and certainly are granted a 5+ save by that part of the kff rules.

I disagree. The BRB states that a vehicle must be obscured to get a cover save, so the first sentence alone would not provide orc vehicles with a cover save.

MODQUISTION ON:

Gentlemen, its time everyone takes a breather here. Lets remember Rule #1 and tone it down before it gets out of control, thread gets closed, and I have to start chasing people with a stick.

We don't want a replay of this now do we?

Why not just lock it?

Nobody is adding anything new.

Both camps fail to see the rules that make their own argument ambiguous.

I honestly don't think there's clear RAW here.

I agree. Ive asked a page ago to lock it for the same reason.... AND ITS MY THREAD!

Everytime a thread gets closed, Frazzled beats a teddy bear

Good, I hate teddy bears.

Errm..... if that thing up there is a teddy, I better go take the teddy bear out of my daughters crib........*runs to her room*

Please... lock it.

Just talked to Gorka in private, and I figured out what he is arguing... I will have to update this post later.

Yep, I think we're about done here...