Let us keep this simple and declaratory with little to no retort.

A Kustom force field claims that all vehicles within 6" are obscured. Let's say I have a Battle wagon within 6" in a wide open field. A marine also standing in a wide open field shoots my wagon with a lascannon. There is nothing between wagon and marine.

What cover save do you believe that the Battle Wagon would get and why?

My answer: a 4+ cover save. A vehicle who's body is 50% out of LOS is obscured and gets 4+ cover save. If you can't see the armor facing that you intend to shoot but can see another facing, said armor save is now a 3+

Please explain to me why an obscured vehicle would NOT get a 4+ cover save.

I agree, 4+ cover. Should work exactly like a Rhino that has poped smoke....

Pretty much everyone agrees on 4+ save. This debate was settled eons ago I believe.

Also, is someone arguing otherwise?

terranarc wrote:My answer: a 4+ cover save. A vehicle who's body is 50% out of LOS is obscured and gets 4+ cover save.

Incorrect. A vehicle which is 50% obscured gets a cover save of 5+, 4+ or 3+ depending on what's obscuring it.

This is a very common misconception.

Scott-S6 wrote:

terranarc wrote:My answer: a 4+ cover save. A vehicle who's body is 50% out of LOS is obscured and gets 4+ cover save.

Incorrect. A vehicle which is 50% obscured gets a cover save of 5+, 4+ or 3+ depending on what's obscuring it.

This is a very common misconception.

Cite your page number...

Scott-S6 wrote:

terranarc wrote:My answer: a 4+ cover save. A vehicle who's body is 50% out of LOS is obscured and gets 4+ cover save.

Incorrect. A vehicle which is 50% obscured gets a cover save of 5+, 4+ or 3+ depending on what's obscuring it.

This is a very common misconception.

Indeed. The KFF provides a 5+ cover save and make vehicles count as obscured. As a value for the cover save is specified, the default of 4+ doesn't apply.


No one plays it that way though.

It's also optional how you define the cover saves ie terrain. Playing everything as 4+ is very simple and avoids arguments. Do you really want to be arguing about whether that fence is made of metal or wood during a game?

Also, the guy who wrote the codex plays it as 4+, that's good enough for me.

Anubis_513 wrote:I agree, 4+ cover. Should work exactly like a Rhino that has poped smoke....

Wow, I haven't even thought about that. Do smoke launchers specifically say 4+ cover save or just "obscured"?

Scott-S6 wrote:

terranarc wrote:My answer: a 4+ cover save. A vehicle who's body is 50% out of LOS is obscured and gets 4+ cover save.

Incorrect. A vehicle which is 50% obscured gets a cover save of 5+, 4+ or 3+ depending on what's obscuring it.
This is a very common misconception.

Ooooooh I see, so that's where the dispute is coming from. Very clever. So what you're saying is that a vehicle can be "obscured" in multiple ways that give different cover saves yeah? Hm... well.. that still doesn't say what kind of a save they would get. Are you arguing 5+? 4+? 3+? I mean the middle ground is 4+ anyway.

Scott-S6 wrote:

terranarc wrote:My answer: a 4+ cover save. A vehicle who's body is 50% out of LOS is obscured and gets 4+ cover save.

Incorrect. A vehicle which is 50% obscured gets a cover save of 5+, 4+ or 3+ depending on what's obscuring it.

This is a very common misconception.

This does not sound right at all.

Obscured via smoke or KFF is a 4+ by RAW isn't it? The pnly changes to them would be if LoS cannot be drawn to the facing arc but another facing can be seen.

terranarc wrote:Ooooooh I see, so that's where the dispute is coming from. Very clever. So what you're saying is that a vehicle can be "obscured" in multiple ways that give different cover saves yeah? Hm... well.. that still doesn't say what kind of a save they would get. Are you arguing 5+? 4+? 3+? I mean the middle ground is 4+ anyway.

Playing devil's advocate here, as I don't play Orks, and don't really care when I play against Ork players.

Page 62 of the rulebook:

"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."

KFF makes vehicles obscured. It also specifies a cover save. That's all that rule cares about.

Also note that this is the only piece of wargear, special rule, psychic power, etc. (that I can think of) that both specifies that it obscures vehicles and also states a specific cover save.

-Tau can make vehicles count as obscured.
-BA/SW give just a cover save (remember when they came out and people argued vehicles didn't get the save? This is why)
-Smoke Launchers just give obscured status

Scott-S6 wrote:

terranarc wrote:My answer: a 4+ cover save. A vehicle who's body is 50% out of LOS is obscured and gets 4+ cover save.

Incorrect. A vehicle which is 50% obscured gets a cover save of 5+, 4+ or 3+ depending on what's obscuring it.

This is a very common misconception.

While true, the paragraph that immediately follows this (p62, left column, bottom of the page) states that "if a special rule or piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even in the open, this is a 4+ cover save unless otherwise specified in the Codex."

The wording of KFF is not explicitly clear whether or not the 5+ cover save is specifying against the default 4+ cover save, hence why there was a debate about this way back when.

EDIT: Ninja'd

Brother Ramses wrote:This does not sound right at all.

-Turn to page 62.
-Read it, starting at Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets
-???
-Profit!

Doesn't the KFF just give the obscured status to vehicles? It states that it grants units within 6" a 5+ cover save. end of rule. Also all vehicles within 6" count as obscured. The obscured status grants a 4+ save....

The BA and SW powers bypass the general rules on how a vehicle gets a cover save by being obscured and outright grants them a cover save by the RAW in their codexes. This falls under the page 62 reference above as the KFF.

Seems fairly simple;

If a vehicle is 50% obscured by another vehicle or terrain, it gets the standard obscured cover save.

If the vehicle is obscured or granted a cover save by a codex exception to the general rules for granting a cover save to vehicles, it gets the codex specific cover save.

Allied units within range are a 5+ cover, but vehicles become obscured, so 4+ cover.

The KFF affects units and vehicles in a different way. It in no way implies that the obscured vehicle gets a 5+ save. It simply states that the vehicle counts as obscured, which the main rulebook tells us grants a 4+ save.

juraigamer wrote:Allied units within range are a 5+ cover, but vehicles become obscured, so 4+ cover.

Allied units within range are 5+ cover. 5+ cover is specified, as such obscured grants the 5+ save to the vehicles.

Brother Ramses wrote:If a vehicle is 50% obscured by another vehicle or terrain, it gets the standard obscured cover save.

If the vehicle is obscured or granted a cover save by a codex exception to the general rules for granting a cover save to vehicles, it gets the codex specific cover save.

You actually got a lot of details wrong there:

If a vehicle is 50% obscured by other units, it will get a 4+, because that's what the rules are for units granting cover to other units.
If a vehicle is 50% obscured by terrain, it will get a save that is equal to the save provided by the terrain type, i.e. 5+ or hedge, 4+ for buildings, 3+ for fortification. Just because so many people ignore the idea that different terrain gives a different cover save doesn't mean that you can forget important details of the rules.

And as I stated above, the KFF does provide a specific save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anubis_513 wrote:The KFF affects units and vehicles in a different way. It in no way implies that the obscured vehicle gets a 5+ save. It simply states that the vehicle counts as obscured, which the main rulebook tells us grants a 4+ save unless the rule provides a specific save.

Fixed that for you.

AlmightyWalrus ,
Allied units within range are 5+ cover. 5+ cover is specified, as such obscured grants the 5+ save to the vehicles.

but the KFF does not grant a cover save to the vehicle at all, it gives the vehicle the obscured status. It is the status of obscured that grants the cover save, not the KFF itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

somerandomdude,
2011/06/20 14:17:27 Subject: KFF'ed vehicle's cover save. 4+ or not?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brother Ramses wrote:
If a vehicle is 50% obscured by another vehicle or terrain, it gets the standard obscured cover save.

If the vehicle is obscured or granted a cover save by a codex exception to the general rules for granting a cover save to vehicles, it gets the codex specific cover save.


You actually got a lot of details wrong there:

If a vehicle is 50% obscured by other units, it will get a 4+, because that's what the rules are for units granting cover to other units.
If a vehicle is 50% obscured by terrain, it will get a save that is equal to the save provided by the terrain type, i.e. 5+ or hedge, 4+ for buildings, 3+ for fortification. Just because so many people ignore the idea that different terrain gives a different cover save doesn't mean that you can forget important details of the rules.

And as I stated above, the KFF does provide a specific save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anubis_513 wrote:
The KFF affects units and vehicles in a different way. It in no way implies that the obscured vehicle gets a 5+ save. It simply states that the vehicle counts as obscured, which the main rulebook tells us grants a 4+ save unless the rule provides a specific save.

Fixed that for you.

So, you are saying that if the vehicle is obscured by 5+ cover, be it a piece of wargear or terrain, then that is the save it receives. So in effect smoke launchers provide 4+ cover, therefor when they obscure the vehicle, it gets a 4+ save. I can see that logic. I will have to re-read the obscured vehicle section when I get home, I was under the impression that all vehicles with the obscured status received the same save for being obscured, 4+.

terranarc wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

terranarc wrote:My answer: a 4+ cover save. A vehicle who's body is 50% out of LOS is obscured and gets 4+ cover save.

Incorrect. A vehicle which is 50% obscured gets a cover save of 5+, 4+ or 3+ depending on what's obscuring it.
This is a very common misconception.

Ooooooh I see, so that's where the dispute is coming from. Very clever. So what you're saying is that a vehicle can be "obscured" in multiple ways that give different cover saves yeah? Hm... well.. that still doesn't say what kind of a save they would get. Are you arguing 5+? 4+? 3+? I mean the middle ground is 4+ anyway.

Quite so.

The automatic 4+ for being obscured only comes into play if the obscured status is granted by wargear which does not specify a save.

You are then into analysing the specific wording of the KFF rule to determine if the 5+ mentioned applies to vehicles or not - something which has been done to death in other threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anubis_513 wrote:So, you are saying that if the vehicle is obscured by 5+ cover, be it a piece of wargear or terrain, then that is the save it receives. So in effect smoke launchers provide 4+ cover, therefor when they obscure the vehicle, it gets a 4+ save. I can see that logic.

Exactly

Anubis_513 wrote:I will have to re-read the obscured vehicle section when I get home, I was under the impression that all vehicles with the obscured status received the same save for being obscured, 4+

Not at all. As I said, a very common misconception.

The Codex says it gives 5+ cover (pg. 34) and vehicles count as obscured. The rulebook says obscured grants 4+, unless changed by the codex (pg. 62). In this case, doesn't the codex say it is 5+? How could the cover granted by the force field be better for a vehicle than for a grot?

Homer

Homer S wrote:The Codex says it gives 5+ cover (pg. 34) and vehicles count as obscured. The rulebook says obscured grants 4+, unless changed by the codex (pg. 62). In this case, doesn't the codex say it is 5+? How could the cover granted by the force field be better for a vehicle than for a grot?

Homer

Because the codex is not specific about whether the 5+ cover save granted to all nearby units overrides the standard 4+ cover save that applies when a piece of wargear grants "obscured" status.

For example, if I said: "Everyone in the plaza has an apple. My friends in the plaza all have fruit." You could assume that my friends have apples, but they could have something else, and it doesn't specify that they must have only the apple. This is the way KFF is written. "Friendlies in range gets a 5+ cover save. Vehicles in range are treated as obscured." Two separate clauses, leaving it open to interpretation whether the 5+ cover save is the same save that applies to vehicles.

The ork player in my group is going to be very disappointed by this revalation

Anubis_513 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus ,
Allied units within range are 5+ cover. 5+ cover is specified, as such obscured grants the 5+ save to the vehicles.

but the KFF does not grant a cover save to the vehicle at all, it gives the vehicle the obscured status. It is the status of obscured that grants the cover save, not the KFF itself.

...except the part where it grants all units within 6" a 5+ Cover Save. Vehicles are still units.

Actually the ork codex always uses "all units" as "all non-vehicles". See the SAG's 6,6 or Mad Dok Grotzniks "Da Big Dok" rule.

We have also played it as 4+ for all vehicles. Nobody in the group have ever argued it therefore as the only ork player I am certainly not going to argue it either!

Works for me!

Jesus... this one again?

Jidmah wrote:Actually the ork codex always uses "all units" as "all non-vehicles". See the SAG's 6,6 or Mad Dok Grotzniks "Da Big Dok" rule.

Going by the FAQ, the SAG does apply to vehicles. It only specifically excludes Gargantuan Creatures and Super Heavies.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Indeed. The KFF provides a 5+ cover save and make vehicles count as obscured. As a value for the cover save is specified, the default of 4+ doesn't apply.

No one plays it that way though.

I do. So far, nobody has complained about me using the 5+.

There's a common misconception that 'obscured = 4+ save' which simply isn't true.

Obscured vehicles don't get a 4+ cover save. Nor do they get an 'obscured' save. They get the exact same save as an infantry model would get if obscuyred by the same obstruction. That's straight from the vehicle and cover rules.

Vehicles only default to the 4+ if no save is specified in the rules for whatever is obscuring them.

The KFF specifies a 5+ save for all units... so vehicles use that, as any other unit would.

The KFF also counts vehicles as obscured. This makes no difference to the save, since a save is specified in the KFF rules.

insaniak wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Actually the ork codex always uses "all units" as "all non-vehicles". See the SAG's 6,6 or Mad Dok Grotzniks "Da Big Dok" rule.

Going by the FAQ, the SAG does apply to vehicles. It only specifically excludes Gargantuan Creatures and Super Heavies.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Indeed. The KFF provides a 5+ cover save and make vehicles count as obscured. As a value for the cover save is specified, the default of 4+ doesn't apply.

No one plays it that way though.

I do. So far, nobody has complained about me using the 5+.

There's a common misconception that 'obscured = 4+ save' which simply isn't true.

The KFF specifies a 5+ save for all units... so vehicles use that, as any other unit would.

And they do. Vehicles receive a 5+ save from the kff, as they are units within 6".

The KFF also counts vehicles as obscured. This makes no difference to the save, since a save is specified in the KFF rules.

No, there is no save specified by the kff for the obscurement as required by the rules.

Read the rule carefully.
"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"
It does not say that the obscurement save is like any other obscurement and uses the save of the terrain/wargear unless none is provided then defaults to a 4+.
It says "the ability of being obscured even if in the open" is a 4+ save unless "the ability of being obscured even if in the open" is "specified" (as in specifically stated to be) otherwise.
Then it has a half page example of smoke launchers, which clearly stat "count as obscured... receiving a 4+ cover save". And then a few pages later skimmers "counts as obscured (cover save of 4+)". It's clear how specific the BRB states rules should be and shows rules must be when defining a save for an obscurement ability or wargear effect through multiple examples.

This is not unclear. This is people mis-extrapolating from the normal obscured rules to think that because the kff provides a 5+ save that the ability of being obscured even in the open it provides must be a 5+ despite not being specifically defined.

Hard RAW it's a 4+. Per the codex author in a publication it's 4+, and per a GW released sheet it's a 4+. GW has not stated otherwise in any fashion. Per every major event I've been to or heard about it's a 4+. Over 80% of the polled here agree it's a 4+.
It's a 4+. Can we seriously just put this to rest already and stop bringing it up every single day? It's the deff rolla all over again, just let it go.

Gorkamorka wrote:No, there is no save specified by the kff for the obscurement as required by the rules.

Again, being obscured is not a separate mechanic to being in cover. Being obscured is simply what normally allows vehicles to take the cover save.

For that matter, being obscured is what allows any model to take a cover save. The only difference for vehicles (which also applies to MCs) is how much of the model normally needs to be obscured in order to claim that cover.


The actual save that you get for being obscured is the same, whether the model is infantry, jump infantry, a bike, an MC, or a vehicle. In 5th edition 40K, 'Obscured' is not a special status just for vehicles... it is a reference to the model, whatever sort of model it is, being in cover.

There is no such thing as an 'obscured save'... obscured models take cover saves. There is no support in the rules for the vehicle gaining a 4+ save in this situation, as a cover save is specified in the KFF rules.

Yes it's a 4+.

insaniak wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:No, there is no save specified by the kff for the obscurement as required by the rules.

Again, being obscured is not a separate mechanic to being in cover. Being obscured is simply what normally allows vehicles to take the cover save.

For that matter, being obscured is what allows any model to take a cover save. The only difference for vehicles (which also applies to MCs) is how much of the model normally needs to be obscured in order to claim that cover.


The actual save that you get for being obscured is the same, whether the model is infantry, jump infantry, a bike, an MC, or a vehicle. In 5th edition 40K, 'Obscured' is not a special status just for vehicles... it is a reference to the model, whatever sort of model it is, being in cover.

There is no such thing as an 'obscured save'... obscured models take cover saves. There is no support in the rules for the vehicle gaining a 4+ save in this situation, as a cover save is specified in the KFF rules.

You are way off here. The codex talks about 2 different groups. units and Vehicles. Since it does not state the cover save you have to go to page 62 in the BRB. That is where you get your answer. There would be no point in pointing the parts i have underlined out if they are talking about the same thing ???? Here is the quote.......Kustom Force Field: Meks will build or scavenge powerful force field projectors with which to protect their warty hides. A kustom force field gives all units within 6” of the mek a cover save of 5+[/b]. Vehicles within 6” are treated as being obscured targets. The force field has no effect in an assault.

jordan23ryan wrote: The codex talks about 2 different groups. units and Vehicles.

Vehicles are units. Which means the part that applies specifically to 'vehicles' is in addition to the part that applies to 'units'... not instead of it.

Since it does not state the cover save...

There's a 5+ cover save very clearly listed in the KFF rule.

There would be no point in pointing the parts i have underlined out if they are talking about the same thing ????

When the codex was written in 4th edition they weren't talking about the same thing, since vehicles didn't take cover saves but instead being obscured let them downgrade penetrating hits.

In this edition, being obscured just lets them take cover saves... the same cover save that everyone else takes. Again, this is explained quite specifically in the Vehicles & Cover rules.

You dont know what they meant. RAI are always up in there air.

The BRB added the lines on Page 62 for these kinds of reason, like older codex's. When the rules stay vehicles within 6" get counted as obscured and under the vehicle part it does not claim a Cover save then you would have to use page 62 in the BRB.

why go through all of this
A kustom force field gives all units within 6” of the mek a cover save of 5+[/b]. Vehicles within 6” are treated as being obscured targets. The force field has no effect in an assault.


when they could have said this kustom force field gives all units within 6” of the mek a cover save of 5+ ? Why did they point out vehicles like they did saying they are obscured. they could have said they are counted under the KFF ? IMO obscured has different saves and when one is not pointed out it gets a 4+

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Allied units within range are a 5+ cover, but vehicles become obscured, so 4+ cover.

Allied units within range are 5+ cover. 5+ cover is specified, as such obscured grants the 5+ save to the vehicles.

sorry wrong, last time this thread came up, a guy pulled a pic from early 5th white dwarf where the writer of the ork codex was testing it for 5th for the first time. And the way he explained it and what they used was a 4+. Its been proven more than once, so theres no reason to argue against it.

Also 2nd page of the pic you can clearly see 4+ for his trukks.

jordan23ryan wrote:You dont know what they meant. RAI are always up in there air.

The BRB added the lines on Page 62 for these kinds of reason, like older codex's. When the rules stay vehicles within 6" get counted as obscured and under the vehicle part it does not claim a Cover save then you would have to use page 62 in the BRB.

Dude, you're either blind or trolling if you can't see the big 5+ COVER SAVE in the definition of KFF.

And we DO know what they meant. If a rule says that UNLESS cover save is specified, the cover save is 4+ that means that if cover save IS specified you don't get 4+ cover save. There is no logical way to see that rule differently. The cover save IS specified in KFF rules. And we ARE using the rule on page 62 BRB. The one who tells us NOT TO USE 4+ COVER SAVE, because other save have been specified.
There is absolutely no way to see it differently. Prove this wrong with actual rule. Not the shorthand "obscured = 4+ cover save always" which is just not true, is a lie and a source of all misunderstanding when looking at KFF rule.

Besides. Are you telepathic and know what they meant? The rule is so clear about NOT giving ANOTHER 4+ cover save if one is already given, RAI is actually on our side. Rule says exactly that. If what you say is true, the rule would just end after "this is a 4+ cover save".
But somehow you say: well, it SHOULD give ANOTHER 4+ on top of 5+. That part about "unless specified otherwise" is just a typo and there should be a smiley face there. Really. RAI!

Macok wrote:

jordan23ryan wrote:You dont know what they meant. RAI are always up in there air.

The BRB added the lines on Page 62 for these kinds of reason, like older codex's. When the rules stay vehicles within 6" get counted as obscured and under the vehicle part it does not claim a Cover save then you would have to use page 62 in the BRB.

Dude, you're either blind or trolling if you can't see the big 5+ COVER SAVE in the definition of KFF.

And we DO know what they meant. If a rule says that UNLESS cover save is specified, the cover save is 4+ that means that if cover save IS specified you don't get 4+ cover save. There is no logical way to see that rule differently. The cover save IS specified in KFF rules. And we ARE using the rule on page 62 BRB. The one who tells us NOT TO USE 4+ COVER SAVE, because other save have been specified.
There is absolutely no way to see it differently. Prove this wrong with actual rule. Not the shorthand "obscured = 4+ cover save always" which is just not true, is a lie and a source of all misunderstanding when looking at KFF rule.

Besides. Are you telepathic and know what they meant? The rule is so clear about NOT giving ANOTHER 4+ cover save if one is already given, RAI is actually on our side. Rule says exactly that. If what you say is true, the rule would just end after "this is a 4+ cover save".
But somehow you say: well, it SHOULD give ANOTHER 4+ on top of 5+. That part about "unless specified otherwise" is just a typo and there should be a smiley face there. Really. RAI!

ooooh just a feeew seconds to late to save yourself a wrong arguement sorry, ill try and get it in faster next time.

Dude. How is a battle report in White Dwarf more important than the actual rule itself?
Oooooooh, it's not...

Macok wrote:Dude. How is a battle report in White Dwarf more important than the actual rule itself?
Oooooooh, it's not...

a battle report, an official LAUNCH game for 5th ed, so the studio can give examples on how rules work NOW in 5th, with specific examples from the creator of the codex....

how is that....

fail.

Orock wrote:

Macok wrote:Dude. How is a battle report in White Dwarf more important than the actual rule itself?
Oooooooh, it's not...

a battle report, an official LAUNCH game for 5th ed, so the studio can give examples on how rules work NOW in 5th, with specific examples from the creator of the codex....

how is that....

fail.

Yes, creator of the codex. 4Ed codex.
Not the creator of rulebook 5ed.
"Fail" is what all you people trying do to with rules. You don't try do disprove rules that back us up. You are only trying to say that somebody, somewhere played it this way so it must be true.
But that's not how the rules work. This is rules discussion thread. Not: he played it that way so it must be true. Try to think about it.
It's like giving an example: Football / soccer. When a referee is mistaken and gives red card for a fault that didn't happen that doesn't mean that RULES state he should. Your just giving an example which is irrelevant to the source - the RULE ITSELF. You CAN'T disprove my logic so you cling to articles. He may played it this way but it's not what the RULES say. Period.
Edit: slight modification.

he wrote the codex and plays it as 4+, surely that is an excellent argument...

Macok wrote:

Orock wrote:

Macok wrote:Dude. How is a battle report in White Dwarf more important than the actual rule itself?
Oooooooh, it's not...

a battle report, an official LAUNCH game for 5th ed, so the studio can give examples on how rules work NOW in 5th, with specific examples from the creator of the codex....

how is that....

fail.

Yes, creator of the codex. 4Ed codex.
Not the creator of rulebook 5ed.
"Fail" is what all you people trying do to with rules. You don't try do disprove rules that back us up. You are only trying to say that somebody, somewhere played it this way so it must be true.
But that's not how the rules work. This is rules discussion thread. Not: he played it that way so it must be true. Try to think about it.
It's like giving an example: Football / soccer. When a referee is mistaken and gives red card for a fault that didn't happen that doesn't mean that RULES state he should. Your just giving an example which is irrelevant to the source - the RULE ITSELF. You CAN'T disprove my logic so you cling to articles. He may played it this way but it's not what the RULES say. Period.
Edit: slight modification.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnddddddd what is the most important thing about the ork 4th ed codex that anyone can remember? aaannnyyyyonnnnee? Bueler?

it was the first one written with 5th ed in mind. Sounds like your just trying to justify not giving your friend who plays orks a 4+ for his vehicles. And the only place this really matters-aka tournaments for prizes- they have and will rule it as a 4+. Even the guy who runs dakka has chimed in on it being 4+. Im just trying to help you out, If you dig yourself a hole you cant dig your way out of you will lose credability when your argueing something thats actually correct later on.

But obscured and cover are written as two different things in the BRB so wouldnt they be different things. Plus why would they separate specifically the vehicles from unit in the KFF rules unless to denotate separate instances of effects?

Mr.Church13 wrote:But obscured and cover are written as two different things in the BRB so wouldnt they be different things. Plus why would they separate specifically the vehicles from unit in the KFF rules unless to denotate separate instances of effects?

They planned the ork codex to be the first updated for 5th, and left it that way purposly because they knew vehicles would get +4 cover in the new edition. Otherwise they would have written it as vehicles also get a +5.

Another nice thing about saying its a cover save, is when 6th rolls around and they do something like say change vehicle cover saves to a blanket 5+, they have less faqing and errating to do down the road. More general is always easier to correct than more specific.

Orock wrote:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnddddddd what is the most important thing about the ork 4th ed codex that anyone can remember? aaannnyyyyonnnnee? Bueler?

it was the first one written with 5th ed in mind. Sounds like your just trying to justify not giving your friend who plays orks a 4+ for his vehicles. And the only place this really matters-aka tournaments for prizes- they have and will rule it as a 4+. Even the guy who runs dakka has chimed in on it being 4+. Im just trying to help you out, If you dig yourself a hole you cant dig your way out of you will lose credability when your argueing something thats actually correct later on.

Ok. Two things you need to know. First of all I have no Ork in my neighbourhood. Second of all, the more important thing. Here in Poland almost every tournament is using FAQ that states that KFF should give 5+ cover. Don't try to get into my head because you won't succeed.

Now. This is RULES DISCUSSION THREAD, not EXAMPLES PROVE RULES. Again, what you are trying to do is:
a) prove a rule by an example.
b) discredit my logic with petty accusations.
Both should be irrelevant. They don't prove or disprove any rules. They may be used in RAI discussion, but YMDC is no such place. Now. Tell me straight if you still going to try to use those two methods to prove a rule, or are you going to provide me with some actual rule analysis. If not I think we are done here, because we clearly understand rules discussion differently.

As a bonus, could you tell me this. Is it possible that this guy made a mistake? That he didn't use the rule as it was intended in BRB 5ed? So many people still, to this day, months and months after this article was written sometimes play rules not as they should be played - still following some 4ed left overs. Is it possible, just 0.00001% that the guy who wrote that article made a mistake. That he didn't know a rule from a BIG red book that was just released? Would you bet your life about it?

Example is NOT rules discussion. If you state otherwise I don't think I am going to respond to your posts because again, we clearly understand this forum purpose differently.

EDIT: Here, a link for you. I couldn't care less how you play it, because in here Orks get 5+ out of KFF:
PKZ - Polish rules clarification:
http://www.liga40k.com/dload.php?action=category&id=2
PDF link here. Bottom of page 3:
http://liga40k.com/pafiledb/uploads/PKZty_08_02_2011.pdf

After reading that page and finding out the guy that Wrote the Codex plays it that way, well All i can say was I was Right along with the other 65 and counting people. You 13 are just wrong on this ! 4+ cover save for vehicles under the KFF !

Macok wrote:

Orock wrote:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnddddddd what is the most important thing about the ork 4th ed codex that anyone can remember? aaannnyyyyonnnnee? Bueler?

it was the first one written with 5th ed in mind. Sounds like your just trying to justify not giving your friend who plays orks a 4+ for his vehicles. And the only place this really matters-aka tournaments for prizes- they have and will rule it as a 4+. Even the guy who runs dakka has chimed in on it being 4+. Im just trying to help you out, If you dig yourself a hole you cant dig your way out of you will lose credability when your argueing something thats actually correct later on.

Ok. Two things you need to know. First of all I have no Ork in my neighbourhood. Second of all, the more important thing. Here in Poland almost every tournament is using FAQ that states that KFF should give 5+ cover. Don't try to get into my head because you won't succeed.

Now. This is RULES DISCUSSION THREAD, not EXAMPLES PROVE RULES. Again, what you are trying to do is:
a) prove a rule by an example.
b) discredit my logic with petty accusations.
Both should be irrelevant. They don't prove or disprove any rules. They may be used in RAI discussion, but YMDC is no such place. Now. Tell me straight if you still going to try to use those two methods to prove a rule, or are you going to provide me with some actual rule analysis. If not I think we are done here, because we clearly understand rules discussion differently.

As a bonus, could you tell me this. Is it possible that this guy made a mistake? That he didn't use the rule as it was intended in BRB 5ed? So many people still, to this day, months and months after this article was written sometimes play rules not as they should be played - still following some 4ed left overs. Is it possible, just 0.00001% that the guy who wrote that article made a mistake. That he didn't know a rule from a BIG red book that was just released? Would you bet your life about it?

Example is NOT rules discussion. If you state otherwise I don't think I am going to respond to your posts because again, we clearly understand this forum purpose differently.

How about this, I let you continue to play wrong, and you dont get mad at me for the 20 people after me who may or may not call you on being wrong with varying degrees of comedy or insults. As you say your in poland, not my problem how poland chooses to interpret rules wrong.

You can try and twist intent all you want but they are written as separate objects therefore they are separate. Also obscured is not cover, obscured is a completely separate entity.

Orock wrote:How about this, I let you continue to play wrong, and you dont get mad at me for the 20 people after me who may or may not call you on being wrong with varying degrees of comedy or insults. As you say your in poland, not my problem how poland chooses to interpret rules wrong.

Yeah, we're done. Even if we in Poland choose to interpret the rules wrong, at least we do try to interpret them. Apparently in USA everything you use as a rules clarification are: irrelevant examples, and trying to "comedy and insult" posts of people who actually look at the RULES. Just look at this page and people who it should be 5+. We talk about rules. People who say that is should be 4+ just say how numerous and smart they are; how they should insult and laugh at people. Well done.

I like Poland they make great sausage, but man they get mad when they're wrong about a game involving plastic army men.

The reason most of us who agree it is 4+ just vote and move on is it is constantly argued. it is two seperate statments. I beleive it means obscured for a 4+ given 5th ed rules and that the ork codex was made with 5th in mind.

I will say i cna see the argument that the 5+ people are sayign and see hwo they can see it that way I just think signifigant evidence exists from WD and the GW 5th ed summary sayign kff is a 4+ that i follow that thought i do hope gw faq's it though so this argument will die already

Next tournament, I will demand that any Ork player playing with a 4+ "because it's in White Dwarf" provide me a copy.

All rules disputes are settled by the rules. Anything other than that is immaterial.

I keep a copy of the article and the 5th ed changes page from official gw site in with my army lists I'd gladly oblige that request

somerandomdude wrote:Next tournament, I will demand that any Ork player playing with a 4+ "because it's in White Dwarf" provide me a copy.

All rules disputes are settled by the rules. Anything other than that is immaterial.

actually you can demand that all you want, but its still up to a judge. Although after calling one over and showing him the link to the pages from google, yahoo, about 40 other ways to find it you may tank your sportsmanship score with anyone within earshot heh.

I dont see where the porblem is. The Guy who wrote the damn ORK codex says this is how it is played ? When i read it, i see it the same way. The writer just prove the point even more.

jordan23ryan wrote:I dont see where the porblem is. The Guy who wrote the damn ORK codex says this is how it is played ? When i read it, i see it the same way. The writer just prove the point even more.

Doesn't matter how the guy who wrote the Codex plays, it's what the Codex says that counts. We also play it as a 4+ cover save, but if I played Orks and someone called me out on it I'd definitely play it as a 5+ as that's what the rules say.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

jordan23ryan wrote:I dont see where the porblem is. The Guy who wrote the damn ORK codex says this is how it is played ? When i read it, i see it the same way. The writer just prove the point even more.

Doesn't matter how the guy who wrote the Codex plays, it's what the Codex says that counts. We also play it as a 4+ cover save, but if I played Orks and someone called me out on it I'd definitely play it as a 5+ as that's what the rules say.

Except it doesn't say that. The rules say all units within range get a 5+ cover save. It also says, completely separately, that vehicles count as obscured. Just because the two things appear in the same paragraph isn't enough to say that the 5+ overrides the default 4+, at least in my book. As insaniak pointed out, the rule was written that way because previously in 4th edition, cover saves and obscured status were separate effects (one being a save, the other downgrading penetrating hits to glancing). The two clauses are simply unrelated, and have been that way since the codex came out. Therefore, you cannot assume that the 5+ save is "specified" over the 4+ default (since the two sentences were originally written to not interact).

oh and hers ANOTHER example of the rules, from this very site, with that very question answered.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/inat_faq.jsp

first link, follow the ork errata, last question.

InB4 2 or 3 pieces of concrete proof arent enough! we want god to come down and clarify it please

edit for misquoting source

Funny thing is, if that's the way the rules would apply, they'd be wrong on the second part of that paragraph.

Here's my question to everyone, why would the author of the ork codex, keeping in mind he wrote it to be 5th ed ready, and not wanting to seem like an idiot so double checking his rules, make a mistake about his 4+ save in his own 5th ed white dwarf launch game. He even says it specifically. If it wasent suposed to be 4+ he would have said "my vehicles should get a +5 save for my kustom force field, as even though they count as obscured the wargear says its a lesser save of 5+"? He dident because he thought that cover save = obscure for a vehicle in 5th, and it was pretty clear to him and the writers of said edition that obscure is a 4+.

So far I have seen specific examples where GW rules in favor of a 4+, I have yet to see one example other than heresay from the 5+ community that its how it should be. And you can argue how someone sees something and someone else sees it another way all you want. If GW says its one way in a magazine article, and multiple sponsored tournaments, then it dosent matter. Its the way it is. Shunt punch is another good example, although it looks like you can shunt off a scout move, GW faq'd that you cant, more than likely for balance purposes. All the logic twisting in the world dosent matter if its official one way and not the other.

Orock wrote:So far I have seen specific examples where GW rules in favor of a 4+, I have yet to see one example other than heresay from the 5+ community that its how it should be.

No hearsay from anyone, only rules citations.

If GW says its one way in a magazine article, and multiple sponsored tournaments, then it dosent matter.

In what tournaments has GW ruled this way? You only linked to INAT, which isn't used in any GW-officiated tournaments as far as I know.

All the logic twisting in the world dosent matter if its official one way and not the other.

That's the thing right there. WD is not official. 'Ard Boyz, for instance, tells you to use your rulebook, codex and GW FAQs for rules disputes. Those are the only official documents for 'Ard Boyz at the moment, which is a GW tournament.

Going by only those items, the rules suggest a 5+ save for vehicles. I don't need to find a game involving a GW employee using it as a 5+ in order to prove my point any more, and if I did, then what? We have two GW players using a rule two different ways, with no resolution.

Use the rules, then there will be no problem.

This one has been debated so many times I'm not sure why it is being brought up again unless there is something new that has surfaced.

This is a 4+ save because the KFF grants the ability to count as obscured even in the open.

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

RAW a KFF grants a 5+ cover save AND a 4+ cover save of which 4+ is always taken by the rule of best save is used. Please refer to the 900 other time this was brought up and this was the resolution.

The intent of the author is not clear and without a GW FAQ a 4+ is how it stands RAW.

jordan23ryan wrote:You dont know what they meant. RAI are always up in there air.

Which is why I don't make arguments based on RAI.

when they could have said this kustom force field gives all units within 6” of the mek a cover save of 5+ ? Why did they point out vehicles like they did saying they are obscured. they could have said they are counted under the KFF ? IMO obscured has different saves and when one is not pointed out it gets a 4+

I already answered this: The codex was written in 4th edition, when vehicles didn't take cover saves. Vehicles being obscured had a different effect. So they couldn't just say that everyone gets a cover save... they listed a separate effect for vehicles.

But that effect was only separate because being obscured, at that point in time, did not provide a cover save for vehicles. Now it does. So saying that the vehicle is obscured in 5th edition does nothing more than confirm that the vehicle gets a cover save. The value of that cover save, as per the Vehicles & Cover rules, will be whatever the rule in question says it is, or a 4+ if no save is specified.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orock wrote:Here's my question to everyone, why would the author of the ork codex, keeping in mind he wrote it to be 5th ed ready, and not wanting to seem like an idiot so double checking his rules, make a mistake about his 4+ save in his own 5th ed white dwarf launch game.

People don't generally make mistakes on purpose.

Why he said it is anybody's guess. He might have been confused about how the obscured rule applies in 5th edition. The battle report may have been written before the rules were finalised. It might be a type. The battle report may have been written by the office intern and just had his name slapped on it at the end. We don't know.

But here's the thing: GW have a long, long history of getting rules wrong in battle reports. Sometimes because they just made a mistake, sometimes because they deliberately changed the rules to keep things interesting, and sometimes because they use pre-release versions of the rules that are often changing along the way.

If a battle report had mentioned that bolters get 3 shots at close range, would we all suddenly start playing that way? I doubt that many would, because the actual rules of the game say otherwise. We would just assume it was a mistake, and move on. The fact that it was a mistake made by one of the writers of the game doesn't make it any less a mistake.

So far I have seen specific examples where GW rules in favor of a 4+, I have yet to see one example other than heresay from the 5+ community that its how it should be.

I'm not sure what the 'hearsay' claim is about. I'm not basing my argument on hearsay... I'm basing it on the fact that the rules say to use whatever save is specified by the item in question, and the KFF specifies a 5+ save.

That's not logic twisting, or seeking an advantage for myself (because it's the exact opposite) or any of the other stereotypical reasons that someone might choose to take an unpopular road in the wonderful game of rules discussions... It's simply what, in my opinion, the book actually and clearly says.

BlueDagger wrote:This one has been debated so many times I'm not sure why it is being brought up again unless there is something new that has surfaced.

This is a 4+ save because the KFF grants the ability to count as obscured even in the open.

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

RAW a KFF grants a 5+ cover save AND a 4+ cover save of which 4+ is always taken by the rule of best save is used. Please refer to the 900 other time this was brought up and this was the resolution.

The intent of the author is not clear and without a GW FAQ a 4+ is how it stands RAW.

I really don't understand how you can say that KFF grant's 5+ cover save and at the same time say that cover save for KFF is not specified. There is no such thing as obscured cover save so it is not being specified in FKK. Being obscured and having cover save are two different things. Being obscured allows vehicles to use given cover save. If it is not given only then it's 4+. You will never find something like "obscurement 5+ cover" because those are two separate things. And that is the reason why those two separate sentences work in KFF entry.
At least that's what I get from it..

Macok wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:This one has been debated so many times I'm not sure why it is being brought up again unless there is something new that has surfaced.

This is a 4+ save because the KFF grants the ability to count as obscured even in the open.

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

RAW a KFF grants a 5+ cover save AND a 4+ cover save of which 4+ is always taken by the rule of best save is used. Please refer to the 900 other time this was brought up and this was the resolution.

The intent of the author is not clear and without a GW FAQ a 4+ is how it stands RAW.

I really don't understand how you can say that KFF grant's 5+ cover save and at the same time say that cover save for KFF is not specified. There is no such thing as obscured cover save so it is not being specified in FKK. Being obscured and having cover save are two different things. Being obscured allows vehicles to use given cover save. If it is not given only then it's 4+. You will never find something like "obscurement 5+ cover" because those are two separate things. And that is the reason why those two separate sentences work in KFF entry.
At least that's what I get from it..

The way the rule is written you are granted 2 cover saves. 5+ is granted due to the fact that you are a unit with 6". The other is a 4+ save due to the ability to be obscured while being out in the open. Without quoting but the rules word for word it is hard to show that it is two different saves. You aren't being granted an "obscure save" but rather the fact you have wargear that grants the ability to count as obscured out in the open grants a 4+ cover save.

The burden of proof falls upon proving that the 5+ cover save replaces this 4+ save without wording directly stating so. The separation between the 5+ save and counts as obscure are two separate sentences and two different bonuses, which RAI may have been meant as a 5+ save for vehicles, but it is not written correctly to provide this. GW has never felt the need (or cared) to clarify this and personally at every tournament I have attended it counts as 4+ as long as part of the vehicle is in and for squadrons at least one vehicle is in.

NEVER EVER trust a White Dwarf Battle Report when it comes to rules. Read any 5 as a random sample and 3 of them will have at least one rule wrong.

Personally, I'd bet on 5+ being correct. A 4+ continuos effect seems a little over powered. But since all of my Orks are sitting in a big box in my basement with only a dozen or so from Gorka-Morka actually off their sprues and painted I just go with whatever my Ork opponent believes. And I've faced both. And I can't say I've noticed too much difference either way. Hit him once and he'll save, regardless of the target number. Hit him six times...

BlueDagger wrote:

Macok wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:This one has been debated so many times I'm not sure why it is being brought up again unless there is something new that has surfaced.

This is a 4+ save because the KFF grants the ability to count as obscured even in the open.

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

RAW a KFF grants a 5+ cover save AND a 4+ cover save of which 4+ is always taken by the rule of best save is used. Please refer to the 900 other time this was brought up and this was the resolution.

The intent of the author is not clear and without a GW FAQ a 4+ is how it stands RAW.

I really don't understand how you can say that KFF grant's 5+ cover save and at the same time say that cover save for KFF is not specified. There is no such thing as obscured cover save so it is not being specified in FKK. Being obscured and having cover save are two different things. Being obscured allows vehicles to use given cover save. If it is not given only then it's 4+. You will never find something like "obscurement 5+ cover" because those are two separate things. And that is the reason why those two separate sentences work in KFF entry.
At least that's what I get from it..

The way the rule is written you are granted 2 cover saves. 5+ is granted due to the fact that you are a unit with 6". The other is a 4+ save due to the ability to be obscured while being out in the open. Without quoting but the rules word for word it is hard to show that it is two different saves. You aren't being granted an "obscure save" but rather the fact you have wargear that grants the ability to count as obscured out in the open grants a 4+ cover save.

The burden of proof falls upon proving that the 5+ cover save replaces this 4+ save without wording directly stating so. The separation between the 5+ save and counts as obscure are two separate sentences and two different bonuses, which RAI may have been meant as a 5+ save for vehicles, but it is not written correctly to provide this. GW has never felt the need (or cared) to clarify this and personally at every tournament I have attended it counts as 4+ as long as part of the vehicle is in and for squadrons at least one vehicle is in.

You have a rule that grants you a 5+ cover save. In addition to that, vehicles count as obscured. How is the 5+ not specified?

90 vs 14............ ?

4+ is how we read it and play it.

The reasons and rules have been covered.

BlueDagger wrote:The way the rule is written you are granted 2 cover saves.

Only if you assume that a cover save is somehow different to the save that you get for being obscured.

It's not. There is no 'obscured save'... Being obscured lets the vehicle use the exact same cover an obscured infantry model would use.

An infantry model obscured by a hedge gets a 5+ cover save.
A vehicle obscured by a hedge gets the same 5+ cover save.

An infantry model obscured by a wall gets a 4+ cover save.
A vehicle obscured by a wall gets the same 4+ cover save.

All that being 'obscured' does is allow the vehicle to use a cover save. The actual save it gets is identical to everyone elses. Only if there is no save specified does the vehicle-specific 4+ kick in.

The KFF specifies a cover save. That cover save applies to all units. Vehicles are units.
The KFF counts vehicles as obscured. Being obscured lets the vehicle use the cover save specified, or a 4+ if none is specified.
Since a cover save is specified, the vehicle uses that cover save.



It's not a matter of the 5+ 'replacing' the 4+. They're not separate rules. Being obscured is not an extra rule on top of the normal cover rules. It's a part of the cover rules. It simply lets the vehicle use the cover that is available... which in this case is a 5+ cover save.

Insaniak wrote:
I already answered this: The codex was written in 4th edition, when vehicles didn't take cover saves. Vehicles being obscured had a different effect. So they couldn't just say that everyone gets a cover save... they listed a separate effect for vehicles.

But that effect was only separate because being obscured, at that point in time, did not provide a cover save for vehicles. Now it does. So saying that the vehicle is obscured in 5th edition does nothing more than confirm that the vehicle gets a cover save. The value of that cover save, as per the Vehicles & Cover rules, will be whatever the rule in question says it is, or a 4+ if no save is specified.

How do you know it was written specifically for 4th edition and not written with 5th editions cover saves in mind?

Because they wrote the codex for the 4th ed rules. Thus it is a 4th ed codex...

DeathReaper wrote:Because they wrote the codex for the 4th ed rules. Thus it is a 4th ed codex...

The codex is what we call a .5 codex. Its 4.5, written to work in 4th but thought through to be 5th ed ready. They knew orks were going to be in the launch box, and were starting to gear 5th up at that point. In fact look for probably the necron codex and the few after that to be 5.5 5th playable but really balanced for 6th ed rules. If we are to believe GW, techincally the first codex written ready for 6th is tyranids. Mabye those 3 wounds on T4 models will make sense if all of a sudden 6th ed instant death is double toughness PLUS one. Suddenly they go from missile fodder to much better and worth the point investment.

Mr.Church13 wrote:How do you know it was written specifically for 4th edition and not written with 5th editions cover saves in mind?

It doesn't matter which edition it was written for. When determining how the rules work now, we look at how the rules function now.

Pointing out that it was written for 4th edition serves no purpose other than to explain why the reference to being obscured is in a separate sentence. Under the 5th edition rules for vehicles and cover, it makes no difference whatsoever whether it's in a separate sentence or not... the vehicle being obscured simply lets it use the cover save.

Ok now that I have my rulebook and my codex I really don't see what the argument is.

A KFF gives all units within 6'' of the Big Mek a cover save of five. Then there is a period separating the two items into two distinct and separate entries and follows that period thusly. Vehicles within 6'' are treated as being obscured targets. Therefore, they do not benefit from the Unit's 5+ cover save but from the obscured status in the second sentence independent of the cover save.

That in turn sends you to Pg62 of the BRB stating that if a vehicle is out in the open and counted as obscured it gets a 4+.

To me that’s surprisingly clear for a GW rule. Suprising because I've seen US tax code that's clearer than most GW rules.

Mr.Church13 wrote:Vehicles within 6'' are treated as being obscured targets. Therefore, they do not benefit from the Unit's 5+ cover save but from the obscured status in the second sentence independent of the cover save.

Obscured status can not be independant of the cover save, because all that being obscured does is let you take the cover save.

That in turn sends you to Pg62 of the BRB stating that if a vehicle is out in the open and counted as obscured it gets a 4+.

If there is no save specified by the item obscuring them. And you just pointed out yourself that the KFF specifies a cover save for all units within 6".

Mr.Church13 wrote:Therefore, they do not benefit from the Unit's 5+ cover save but from the obscured status in the second sentence independent of the cover save.

That in turn sends you to Pg62 of the BRB stating that if a vehicle is out in the open and counted as obscured it gets a 4+.

Actually, pg 62 says vehicles given an obscured bonus from wargear or a special rule get a 4+ unless the codex specifies otherwise.

I also like insaniak's statement that mentions the rules about vehicles receiving the same save as an infantry unit (it's in there, folks, he's not making it up).

But If they were under the same cover it wouldn't separate them with different entries, because vehicles are units.

And the codex does not then go on to apply the 5+ to the vehicle but instead gives the vehicle obstruction.

If they were meant to have the same save it would have just ended at all units.

And in 4ed even if that applied in the twisting way you want it to it was still a 4+ to lower penning hits to glancing so even back then it was a 4+ not a 5+ and therefore separate from the cover save granted by the KFF thereby, they were and still are two separate things.

That period makes all the difference.

Mr.Church13 wrote:But If they were under the same cover it wouldn't separate them with different entries, because vehicles are units.

It 'separates' them for two reasons:
When the codex was printed, vehicles didn't take cover saves. Being obscured let them downgrade penetrating hits instead.
and
In the current rules, being obscured is what allows a vehicle to take cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits. The normal cover rules deal with cover saves taken against wounds. So something granting a cover save to vehicles arguably also has to specify that the vehicle is obscured for that cover save to actually do anything.

(I say 'arguably' because in later codexes GW have moved away from this concept, and in the most recent releases it's sort of just assumed that vehicle can take saving throws.)

And the codex does not then go on to apply the 5+ to the vehicle but instead gives the vehicle obstruction.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that those two sentences are exclusionary. It's not a 'one or the other' situation. It does not state that counting as obscured is instead of taking the 5+ cover save. Vehicles are obscured. And vehicles (as units) get a 5+ cover save.

If they were meant to have the same save it would have just ended at all units.

And then people would be arguing (as they have been for the Dark Eldar and Space Wolves codexes) that vehicles couldn't take the save at all, since they're not obscured. And vehicles wouldn't have benefited from it at all when the codex was originally released.

And in 4ed even if that applied in the twisting way you want it to it was still a 4+ to lower penning hits to glancing so even back then it was a 4+ not a 5+ and therefore separate from the cover save granted by the KFF thereby, they were and still are two separate things.

They were two different things in 4th edition because the vehcle effect wasn't a cover save. That has no bearing on how it works now, since the way cover affects vehicles works differently now to how it did in 4th edition.

That period makes all the difference.

It makes two separate sentences. It doesn't make them completely unrelated to each other... particularly when one of the two statements is about a rule that directly references the other statement.

Ok so let me get this straight.

Obscuring a vehicle forces the vehicle to take the same cover save as any nearby unit even if its out in the open. /end sarcasm

The codex never applies the same cover save to the vehicle that it applies to the unit. In fact it makes it obscured out in the open just like the BRB says and never states that the vehicle get the same 5+.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that those two sentences are exclusionary. It's not a 'one or the other' situation. It does not state that counting as obscured is instead of taking the 5+ cover save. Vehicles are obscured. And vehicles (as units) get a 5+ cover save.

There is also nothing that make the two sentences inclusionary.

The book was written with 5th in mind and therefore they are separate entries applying two different conditions to separate things and not both. Out in the open + Obscured + Obvious separation of vehicles from the unit = 4+.

Mr.Church13 wrote:Obscuring a vehicle forces the vehicle to take the same cover save as any nearby unit even if its out in the open. /end sarcasm

No, it allows the vehicle to take the same save the infantry would in the same situation.

Not really sure what the sarcasm was intended to achieve?

The codex never applies the same cover save to the vehicle that it applies to the unit.

Vehicles are units. When a rule refers to 'units' this inherently includes vehicles.

In fact it makes it obscured out in the open just like the BRB says and never states that the vehicle get the same 5+.

And the rules for being obscured out in the open tell you to refer to whatever is doing that obscuring... and to only apply the 4+ default save if there is no other save specified.

Once again, the KFF specifies a 5+ save for all units. Vehicles are units, so this includes them.

There is also nothing that make the two sentences inclusionary.

Other than the fact that vehicles are units, and that the rules for vehicles being obscured tell you to use the same cover save as everyone else uses...

But since the codex was written with 5th in mind and they did separate the Vehicles specifically it just becomes obscured with no application of the 5+. And since I have 87% of the people voting, GW, and (I beleive) an INAT FAQ agreeing with this interpretation of the rules I'm gonna go with that.

Mr.Church13 wrote:But since the codex was written with 5th in mind and they did separate the Vehicles specifically it just becomes obscured with no application of the 5+.

Why?

Why, when the Vehicles & Cover rules specifically tell you to use the same save as everybody else, and where they tell you to refer to the save specified by the item in question, do you just assume that you should ignore the save specified by the KFF?

This is the part that I'm struggling with: People are reading 'Use a 4+ unless there is a save specified' to mean 'Ignore the save specified and use a 4+'...



Incidentally, repeatedly pointing out that people disagree with me isn't going to change my argument, so you can stop doing that any time now.

Mr.Church13 wrote:But since the codex was written with 5th in mind

You're assuming also that 5th edition rules were finalized then? I don't know enough about GWs development cycle, but I'm not sure if they have everything figured out.

Even so, the Ork codex is technically the only codex written correctly as far as a vehicle being given a specific cover save from a special rule, which is what that rule on page 62 talks about. I could just as easily claim that, since the codex was written with 5th in mind, they made sure to explain that vehicles also benefit (were obscured) from the 5+. Remember, they messed it up when they wrote the SW codex.

I'm not voting I've played Kanwall pretty much exclusively since this edition/codex combination came to be. I interpreted the combined RaW as a 5+, but switched to 4+, since mob rule very rarely loses to rational thought.

That said, there's no winning this argument for either opinion through the use of rationale. It's the Penrose stair of 40K. This debate is going nowhere.

insaniak wrote:

insaniak wrote:
And the rules for being obscured out in the open tell you to refer to whatever is doing that obscuring... and to only apply the 4+ default save if there is no other save specified.

Once again, the KFF specifies a 5+ save for all units. Vehicles are units, so this includes them.

...So saying that the vehicle is obscured in 5th edition does nothing more than confirm that the vehicle gets a cover save. The value of that cover save, as per the Vehicles & Cover rules, will be whatever the rule in question says it is, or a 4+ if no save is specified.

Insaniak has it right, the save is specified in the piece of wargear it is a 5+, this is what the vehicles receive.

I am not sure how anyone can argue against the above points that insaniak has made, RaW is clear.

Then I suggest everyone goes back about 2 years and reads the threads then. This is an old, old argument.

It is a 4+ because A save is specified for units, but that is not THE save specified due to "obscured" - the two are separate.

It also istn just "a" WD bat rep - but the cheat sheet on 5th edition changes AND the posters that went out to many many stores. Unless you are attempting to argue all of those as mistakes then RAI is very, very clear.

To me it seems that if it were 5+ to vehicles they would just cut off at the 'all units withing 6" get a 5+ cover save' as to me, that would say 'ok everything in this range gets a 5+ cover save regardless of unit type. The fact that it goes on to specify that vehicles count as obscured as per the 40k rulebook and this rule is provided by a piece of wargear, that vehicles get 4+. The RAW in the codex seems to me to be making the specific exception of vehicles from the 'all units', otherwise the rest of that block of text is just a redundancy. Just my 2 cents :/

nosferatu1001 wrote:It is a 4+ because A save is specified for units, but that is not THE save specified due to "obscured" - the two are separate.

Have a look at the obscured rule, and point out the part where it tells you that being obscured does anything other than allow you to use the cover save provided by what is obscuring you...

mazik765 wrote:To me it seems that if it were 5+ to vehicles they would just cut off at the 'all units withing 6" get a 5+ cover save' as to me, that would say 'ok everything in this range gets a 5+ cover save regardless of unit type. The fact that it goes on to specify that vehicles count as obscured as per the 40k rulebook and this rule is provided by a piece of wargear, that vehicles get 4+. The RAW in the codex seems to me to be making the specific exception of vehicles from the 'all units', otherwise the rest of that block of text is just a redundancy. Just my 2 cents :/

I've already explained several times now why that extra bit of text is there...

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.

4+ save because it doesn't specify other wise in the codex. Stop reading too much into it.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:4+ save because it doesn't specify other wise in the codex. Stop reading too much into it.

-cgmckenzie

Exept it does specify a 5+ save, which is what the argument is all about.

It only specifies that to infantry and then says that vehicles count as obscured. It doesn't specify what the obscured save is, so it defaults to 4+.

-cgmckenzie

Jidmah wrote: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.

Since you appear to have moved on to willfully misreading the rules, I think we're done.

cgmckenzie wrote:It only specifies that to infantry ...

'Units' does not mean 'infantry'...

You're right, it says units, not infantry. My bad.

Still a 4+ for obscured vehicles, though.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:You're right, it says units, not infantry. My bad.

Still a 4+ for obscured vehicles, though.

-cgmckenzie

Until you read the rules for obscured vehicles and the clause "unless specified otherwise in the Codex"

What save does a KFF give to all units within 6"?

"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."

They specify a 5+ cover save right there in the codex.

Snickerdoodle wrote: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!

Yes but your example is a subjective one. I think the PS3 is better then the 360, I think fish fillets are dog food, I think I should get more during tax season. The problem with the KFF argument, is its been printed a number of times (Check my previous post) that its a 4+. Thats not subjective, thats fact

DeathReaper wrote:

cgmckenzie wrote:You're right, it says units, not infantry. My bad.

Still a 4+ for obscured vehicles, though.

-cgmckenzie

Until you read the rules for obscured vehicles and the clause "unless specified otherwise in the Codex"

What save does a KFF give to all units within 6"?

"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."

They specify a 5+ cover save right there in the codex.

Until you read the rules for obscured vehicles and the clause "unless specified otherwise in the Codex"

"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."
"Vehicles within 6" are treated as obscured targets."
The save from the ability of being obscured in the open granted by the kff is not specified (as in, specifically defined), and thus it uses the standard value listed in the BRB as specified by the BRB.

Not sure what people think is being accomplished by circularly arguing two fairly legitimate readings over and over in thread after thread. After nearly 200 votes this community still sits just under 90% in support of the 4+ reading, we have documents from GW pointing to them supporting 4+ and nothing similar supporting 5+, and at this point there's really no argument about how it is or will be played by the vast vast majority.

Exactly as Gorkamorka said

insaniak wrote:Since you appear to have moved on to willfully misreading the rules, I think we're done.

Not misreading, strictly applying your argument. If interpret a rule and it breaks for any part of the game, this is a good indication of the interpretation to be wrong.

There would not be 2 parts to the sentence if they only need one to make it clear. 165 to 28 says a lot too. 4+ is the save and the BRB states it following what the KFF says.

jordan23ryan wrote:There would not be 2 parts to the sentence if they only need one to make it clear.

If you had read the thread, you would have seen the explanation as to why it is written the way it is. Neither current interpretation would have had any bearing on the need for it to be written that way when the codex was released.

I think the main reason people keep arguing about this is a result of the KFF being written in 4th, and recent codex creep in terms of how rules are written.

In 4th and early 5th it was pretty clear that "Units" referred to essentially "everything that is not a vehicle". Thus the KFF had a different effect on "Units" which get a 5+ save, and "Vehicles" which are obscured. The two are separate.

Then, IMO, GW got lazy.

"Units" became even more of a generic term that can mean ANYTHING. Then we started bringing in pieces of wargear and abilities from recent codexes which quit talking about "Obscuring" vehicles and just flat out says that Vehicles get cover saves, even though the BRB spends a whole lot of time going over rules for "Obscuring" vehicles and doesn't give them a "save" in the same sense that other non-vehicles do.

So now that that lines are blurred... vehicles can get saves and vehicles sound like units. SO now KFF rules don't sound like they are talking about two separate things anymore.

However, it seems clear the INTENT of the rule is that it IS talking about two separate things. Obscured 4+ save for vehicles, 5+ for everything else. This ruling is backed up by all sorts of OTHER GW literature indicating that this is clearly the way they MEAN the rule to be interpreted.

Murrdox wrote:However, it seems clear the INTENT of the rule is that it IS talking about two separate things.

Yes, it used to downgrade penetrating hits to glancing hits.

The rules work totally different now, and the changes effect the KFF in a unique way.

The rules for obscured vehicles say they give a 4+ save "unless specified otherwise in the Codex"

The ork Codex specifies a 5+

Not sure how people are reading this as a 4+

insaniak wrote:

jordan23ryan wrote:There would not be 2 parts to the sentence if they only need one to make it clear.

If you had read the thread, you would have seen the explanation as to why it is written the way it is. Neither current interpretation would have had any bearing on the need for it to be written that way when the codex was released.

Go back to the start and i have been posting all the way. Anyways, i dont care what you are talking about. the guy who wrote the damn books plays it this way and there are other sources showing it. Plus 85% to 15% people agree. What else you got ? Murrdox has it right and so many others. All the details have been covered and the People have Spoke !

Murrdox wrote:However, it seems clear the INTENT of the rule is that it IS talking about two separate things. Obscured 4+ save for vehicles, 5+ for everything else.

See, that's the thing. People keep saying that it's 'obviously the intent'... despite the fact that the current edition specifically changed the way vehicles benefit from cover so that it is in every other situation exactly the same as the way every other unit type benefits from it.

In that light, does it really make sense to anybody for this one specific item to treat vehicles differently? Shouldn't the fact that this one item, for no logical or apparent reason grants vehicles a better save than everyone else, when every other form of cover in the game grants the same save to vehicles as to everyone else, be some sort of hint that you just might be reading it wrong?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

jordan23ryan wrote: Go back to the start and i have been posting all the way.

Then I'm left wondering what on earth you were talking about then since, as I said, there was a reason for the rule to be written as it is which is nothign to do with the current rules of the game.

the guy who wrote the damn books plays it this way

Does he? Has anyone asked him at any point in the several years since that article was published in WD?

We've already covered the fact that the studio guys sometimes get their own rules wrong.

and there are other sources showing it.

There is one other source showing it... and it's a promotional poster, not a rules publication.

This thread right here, I find it interesting. I never usually even consider RAI, ever, since it's impossible to ever really know - it simply doesn't exist to me. However this appears to be the sole exception to that - I think the intention is reasonably clear the codex designer intended it to be a 4+ save. For what that's worth, which is probably nothing.

I think there is a compelling argument to be made for both 5 and 4. As such, I fall back on the INAT, which has it as 4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also:

Ouze wrote:This thread right here, I find it interesting. I never usually even consider RAI, ever, since it's impossible to ever really know - it simply doesn't exist to me. However this appears to be the sole exception to that - I think the intention is reasonably clear the codex designer intended it to be a 4+ save. For what that's worth, which is probably nothing.

I think there is a compelling argument to be made for both 5 and 4. As such, I fall back on the INAT, which has it as 4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also:

Hahhahahahahaha! Awesome!

Who ever said that White Dwarf rules don't count?

Macok wrote:Dude. How is a battle report in White Dwarf more important than the actual rule itself?
Oooooooh, it's not...

somerandomdude wrote:Next tournament, I will demand that any Ork player playing with a 4+ "because it's in White Dwarf" provide me a copy.

All rules disputes are settled by the rules. Anything other than that is immaterial.

Sanguinary Dan wrote:NEVER EVER trust a White Dwarf Battle Report when it comes to rules. Read any 5 as a random sample and 3 of them will have at least one rule wrong.

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.

insaniak wrote: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.

Actually, quite a few people have said things to the effect that things that appear in WD don't really matter, they are usually unreliable, and we have to go by what appears in the Codex or Rulebook. Whatever in WD is likely to just be wrong, and those studio guys don't appear to know what they are doing... right? As such, anyone who produced a WD rules release for Sisters on me is going to be told it's invalid and not a legal army.

Is there anything to be gained from further discussion on this? Because we're not really having a conversation at this point. It feels like you believe this is the rule, and will not be convinced, period. And, you know what? You do have a compelling argument. But absent hearing anything from GWS directly in the form of a new codex, this is your interpretation, the end. I disagree with your interpretation (why still believing it is honest and intelligent), as do a large percentage of players polled, and the INAT. I don't think you can convince me any more then I can convince you.

This thread.

ಠ_ಠ

I will now play it as 4+ cover save.

Now, how do people do obscured? In this case, a squad of 3 killkanz. Since squadrons are obscured if 50% is obscured. If I run 3 kanz, will all 3 get a 4+ cover if one of them is touching the mekboy's 6" mojo or do 2+ have to be touching?

It is quite clearly a 4+. Though this is poor evidence as it is not rules-based, every single opponent I've played against has said its a 4+ and 87% of people on this site say its a 4+. The white dwarf says 4+ (though its a roll of garbage).

If that isn't overwhelming odds, I don't know what is.

Ouze wrote:Actually, quite a few people have said things to the effect that things that appear in WD don't really matter, they are usually unreliable, and we have to go by what appears in the Codex or Rulebook.

And if you go back and read those comments in context, they're talking about White Dwarf articles that aren't actually rules articles. Nobody has said that nothing in WD is acceptable as a source of rules.
A codex or FAQ printed in WD would be every bit as valid as a codex or FAQ published anywhere else by GW. But any other article, in particular battle reports and the like where we know that they have a history of getting stuff wrong and/or changing rules to suit the game being played, is questionable as a source of rules. Which is exactly why we don't include them as an 'official' source in the Tenets of YMDC for the purposes of rules discussions here...

To return to my earlier hypothetical, if a battle report mentioned bolters getting 3 shots, would we all start playing them that way? Or would we just assume it's a mistake?

Well, lets go this way, then. How many battle reports or promotional materials (or indeed, anything else at all) show the KFF as being a 5+?

Ouze wrote: It feels like you believe this is the rule, and will not be convinced, period.

I'm very open to being convinced, just as soon as someone posts a rules-based argument that makes sense.


At the moment, this is what we have:

In favour of a 4+, we have a battle report from the start of 5th edition written by the Codex author and a promotional poster of unknown authorship published at around the same time, and the claim that the KFF rules don't specify a save so we should use the generic 4+.

In favour of the 5+, we have the KFF rules which specify a 5+ save for all units.


Add in the fact that it simply makes no sense for vehicles to get a better save than anybody else from the same cover, and is it really that surprising that I'm not convinced by the 4+ argument so far?

Vehicles are made of metal, and so conduct the energies of the KFF better.

The rule you specify is at least partially ambiguous (it appears to differentiate between "vehicles" and "units"), and your summary of it is incomplete, in that you are omitting the vehicle specific element. It states vehicles are obscured, without specifying further. Hence, we default to the main rulebook, which states equipment which allows something to be obscured in the open (which the rule undeniably does) get a 4+.

We also have the Ork FAQ 4.01, which states - "Mekboy force fields provide concealment to vehicles, and cover to non-vehicles" (full stop). That clarifies... nothing, since "concealment" is not a defined phrase in the 40k rules. Good job you tools. For whatever reason, they are treating "units" and vehicles" as separate things. They clearly state that vehicles are treated differently, though, right? Just like the latter part of the above rule?

My interpretation of the latter is that since it's A.) equipment that allows it B.) equipment that obscures it in the open, and C.) a vehicle, obscured, in the open, by a piece of wargear, then the rule that governs is pp62, which is a 4+.

Ouze wrote:Actually, quite a few people have said things to the effect that things that appear in WD don't really matter, they are usually unreliable, and we have to go by what appears in the Codex or Rulebook. Whatever in WD is likely to just be wrong, and those studio guys don't appear to know what they are doing... right?

This is pretty much the norm, A large number of things that appear in the battle reports and promotional materials in WD have rules errors in them.

Ouze wrote:The rule you specify is at least partially ambiguous (it appears to differentiate between "vehicles" and "units"), and your summary of it is incomplete, in that you are omitting the vehicle specific element. It states vehicles are obscured, without specifying further. Hence, we default to the main rulebook, which states equipment which allows something to be obscured in the open (which the rule undeniably does) get a 4+.

As for the underlined above, they differentiate between "vehicles" and "units" because vehicles in 4th ed(when the dex was written) were not allowed to take cover saves and the KFF downgraded penetrating hits to glancing hits instead.

Now that vehicles are allowed to take cover saves this changes the entire dynamic of the way the KFF interacts with "vehicles" and "units" and they just give them both a cover save and no longer downgrade penetrating hits to glancing hits.

Its a 4+ unless specified in the codex, What save is specified for units within the KFF? 5+

This is RAW, unless you have page numbers to specify otherwise you are playing with house rules.

Ouze wrote:The rule you specify is at least partially ambiguous (it appears to differentiate between "vehicles" and "units"), and your summary of it is incomplete, in that you are omitting the vehicle specific element.

It doesn't differentiate, because vehicles are units. It has an additional statement that applies specifically to vehicles.

It does this because of the way vehicles and cover functioned in 4th edition, and because in the current edition vehicles arguably need to be onscured to benefit from cover saves, where infantry don't. So that extra little line is needed in both editions for vehicles to gain any benefit from the KFF.

It states vehicles are obscured, without specifying further. Hence, we default to the main rulebook, which states equipment which allows something to be obscured in the open (which the rule undeniably does) get a 4+.

...unless otherwise specified.

Nothing in the rulebook entry for vehicles and cover says that the specified save has to be so specified in the same sentence. The vehicle is obscured in the open, and so can make use of the save being provided by whatever is obscuring it.

We also have the Ork FAQ 4.01, which states - "Mekboy force fields provide concealment to vehicles, and cover to non-vehicles" (full stop). That clarifies... nothing, since "concealment" is not a defined phrase in the 40k rules. Good job you tools. For whatever reason, they are treating "units" and vehicles" as separate things. They clearly state that vehicles are treated differently, though, right? Just like the latter part of the above rule?

I'm assuming that's the FAQ that was in place for the change to 5th edition? Because I'm not seeing any such reference in the current FAQ. From memory, the initial 5th edition FAQ was a little confused in several places between 4th and 5th edition rules.

In this particular instance, that description of the KFF effect was correct under 4th edition rules, where vehicles were affected differently by cover to everyone else. But in 5th edition, cover is cover is cover, and being in cover just grants everyone a cover save. The vehicle and cover rules even state outright that vehicles get the same cover save as everyone else.

So there is no longer a distinction between the two. If they are in cover, they are affected the same by that cover.

You just dont want to see it that way. It does not matter when it was written, It is guided by the new Brb rules and it is clearly stated that it would be a 4+

And i will go back to 189 vs 29........ ?

jordan23ryan wrote:You just dont want to see it that way. It does not matter when it was written, It is guided by the new Brb rules and it is clearly stated that it would be a 4+

And i will go back to 189 vs 29........ ?

#1] Opinions of people on a poll =/= rules.

#2] In this case 184 or so are reading it wrong.

We know that a vehicle that is obscured and the save is UNSPECIFIED receives a 4+, this is in the BRB. we see this rule clearly.

Does KFF specify a save?

If so you HAVE to use that value RaW.

Hint: KFF specifies a 5+

5th ed cover rules are the same for all units.

A building gives an infantry unit that is 50% hidden a 4+ cover save, this is the same save as a vehicle.

A fortification gives an infantry unit that is 50% hidden a 3+ cover save, this is the same save as a vehicle.

etc.

terranarc wrote:

This thread.

ಠ_ಠ

I will now play it as 4+ cover save.

Now, how do people do obscured? In this case, a squad of 3 killkanz. Since squadrons are obscured if 50% is obscured. If I run 3 kanz, will all 3 get a 4+ cover if one of them is touching the mekboy's 6" mojo or do 2+ have to be touching?

If I'm not mistaken the rules for KFF say that units with a model within 6". So since it's a squadron, if one is in range, the unit would benefit. Unless I've missed something. If the wording is different and says models in range blah blah then it's on an individual basis... but I believe it is units.

jordan23ryan wrote:You just dont want to see it that way. It does not matter when it was written, It is guided by the new Brb rules and it is clearly stated that it would be a 4+

...unless otherwise stated by the item in question.

You can't take just half of the rule.

mpangelu wrote:

terranarc wrote:

This thread.

ಠ_ಠ

I will now play it as 4+ cover save.

Now, how do people do obscured? In this case, a squad of 3 killkanz. Since squadrons are obscured if 50% is obscured. If I run 3 kanz, will all 3 get a 4+ cover if one of them is touching the mekboy's 6" mojo or do 2+ have to be touching?

If I'm not mistaken the rules for KFF say that units with a model within 6". So since it's a squadron, if one is in range, the unit would benefit. Unless I've missed something. If the wording is different and says models in range blah blah then it's on an individual basis... but I believe it is units.

It says vehicles within 6" are obscured. And units within 6" get 5+ cover save. IIRC, squadron rules declare that the majority have to be obscured before the unit is obscured. I wonder how that works with KFF. If one is obscured, do all of them become obscured? Like, if the opponent gets 3 penetrating hits and I had one kan within 6", would I get 3 cover saves or just 1?
Also, what happens when 2 kanz within 6"? ect.

Hmm... well, a squadron is both isn't it? But that is sort of what most of the thread has become a debate on. I'd 4+ whether or not it was one model gives it to the squad or if its individual based.

as far as if 2 are in range, if majority of the unit has cover then the whole unit has cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry if half

terranarc wrote:It says vehicles within 6" are obscured. And units within 6" get 5+ cover save. IIRC, squadron rules declare that the majority have to be obscured before the unit is obscured. I wonder how that works with KFF. If one is obscured, do all of them become obscured? Like, if the opponent gets 3 penetrating hits and I had one kan within 6", would I get 3 cover saves or just 1?
Also, what happens when 2 kanz within 6"? ect.

The commonly held interpretation is that one squadron member within range is sufficient for the 5+ save, (as the squadron is then a unit within 6"), an when at least half of the squadron is within range ot becomes the 4+ (as half of the squadron is obscured, and so they gain the alleged 4+ save for being obscured).

Personally, I think that is needlessly complicated. If I was playing with the 4+ save in the first place, I would be giving it to squadrons for havign a single member within range just like any other multi-model unit, just for convenience sake.

Under the 'vehicles get a 5+ save, because the KFF says so' interpretation, it's not a problem anyway, since the save is always a 5+ regardless.

I vote the KFF is banned from all play from here on out to avoid complications!.. also I vote to ban GW from doing GW like things.

insaniak wrote:I'm assuming that's the FAQ that was in place for the change to 5th edition? Because I'm not seeing any such reference in the current FAQ. From memory, the initial 5th edition FAQ was a little confused in several places between 4th and 5th edition rules.

hummmm. That's weird. I saved a copy of the 4.01 FAQ, which was superseded by the current one, which indeed makes no reference to the KFF at all. I'd be happy to post it if you like, but what I typed is what it says verbatim.

My view remains that RAW could legitimately be interpreted as either 4 or 5, so just agree with your opponent, and RAI appears to be 4, but of course RAI is always dubious.

Also, don't take this as a provocation, because I don't intend it to be, but I am genuinely curious - why have you allowed this to go on so long without any new info? You've been pretty disinclined to do so, formerly. Do you feel there has been something new that maybe I'm not getting?

Ouze wrote:My view remains that RAW could legitimately be interpreted as either 4 or 5, so just agree with your opponent, and RAI appears to be 4, but of course RAI is always dubious.

It could legitimately be interpreted as either 4 or 5 if you ignore the RAW.

Ouze wrote:
Also, don't take this as a provocation, because I don't intend it to be, but I am genuinely curious - why have you allowed this to go on so long without any new info? You've been pretty disinclined to do so, formerly. Do you feel there has been something new that maybe I'm not getting?

What you are not getting is that Page 62 states:

"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."

Is the KFF a 4+ or is it specified otherwise in the Codex?

DeathReaper wrote:Is the KFF a 4+ or is it specified otherwise in the Codex?

It is not, actually. The codex indicates that units get a 5, and then additionally says vehicles are obscured. At the time of the writing, units and vehicles were not the same thing - this isn't in dispute, right? As such, The rulebook says vehicles, unless specified (which they aren't) get a 4+.

Here's a simple way to put it and I haven't read the whole thread so I apologize if someone's already said this.

The codex overwrites the BRB in this case because the 5+ cover save is clearly stated in the codex and is obviously intended as the save that ALL FRIENDLY units receive be it vehicle, or infantry. The reason that the obscured status is even mentioned in the force field rule is because vehicles could not take a save unless they are covered 50% or counted as "obscured". All the second part of the rule is intended to do is allow the vehicle to take a save in the first place. Taking this as anything else is just working the rules in your favor, it's just ridiculousness to say that a vehicle in open field is getting a 4+ cover save because of an Ork Force Field?

Also, just to mention, it's redicilous that an Ork's force field would provide better cover to vehicles than units. Also consider the fact that even GK's Libby stealth power save only offers vehicles a 6+ unless they're actually obscured by 50%.

Just some food for thought.

The two statements of cover and obscured are two separate clauses, they don't require each other to be complete sentences or to make sense. The rules could be written "...units get a 5+ cover save. Vehicles count as obscured." and it still means the same thing as it does as it is currently written.

So, units are specified but vehicles are merely stated to be obscured.

Sorry about arguing grammar there, but phrasing does matter in a scenario like this.

-cgmckenzie

Ouze wrote:Also, don't take this as a provocation, because I don't intend it to be, but I am genuinely curious - why have you allowed this to go on so long without any new info? You've been pretty disinclined to do so, formerly. Do you feel there has been something new that maybe I'm not getting?

It's gone on for longer than it probably should have, but while everyone was staying on track and civil there was no real reason to close it... And since the more I looked at it the less I could see any actual rules basis in the common interpretation, leaving it open meant that just maybe someone might come up with a new way of looking at it that makes a difference.

I also try not to be in too much of a hurry to close threads that I'm actively arguing in unless there's a good reason to do so, as it can look like trying to win arguments simply through being a Mod. Which is certainly not the case here... I'm happy to accept that my opinion on this topic isn't the commomly held one, even if I don't agree with that commonly held interpretation. So I'm not trying to 'win' the discussion so much as decipher just what on earth people are thinking.


That being said, there are only so many ways that people can say the exact same thing, so this thread is probably not too much longer for this mortal coil unless something remarkable happens...

Was there a different definition of a unit back in Fourth Edition?

Ouze wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Is the KFF a 4+ or is it specified otherwise in the Codex?

It is not, actually. The codex indicates that units get a 5, and then additionally says vehicles are obscured. At the time of the writing, units and vehicles were not the same thing - this isn't in dispute, right? As such, The rulebook says vehicles, unless specified (which they aren't) get a 4+.

"A KFF gives ALL UNITS within 6" of the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets."

So it saying that ALL UNITS get a 5+ is not specified otherwise in the Codex?

I, and insaniak, and the english language disagree with you.

and that is an interesting take on it, and one you will need to show page numbers to prove otherwise.

cgmckenzie wrote:The two statements of cover and obscured are two separate clauses, they don't require each other to be complete sentences or to make sense. The rules could be written "...units get a 5+ cover save. Vehicles count as obscured." and it still means the same thing as it does as it is currently written.

So, units are specified but vehicles are merely stated to be obscured.

Sorry about arguing grammar there, but phrasing does matter in a scenario like this.

-cgmckenzie

Units are specified, Is a vehicle a unit?

Remember that Obscured status did something entirely different in 4th ed when the dex was written.

WarOne wrote:Was there a different definition of a unit back in Fourth Edition?

Not that I can recall. But the ork dex was written in 4th edition, and obscured status for vehicles only downgraded penetrating hits to glancing hits. in 4th ed vehicles could not take cover saves at all.

I'e been following this thread for a while now listening to all the arguments.

Three things I would like to point out:

1. The BRB makes it clear that obscured vehicles are conferred a 4+ cover save unless otherwise specified by the codex.

2. The KFF confers a 5+ save to all units within 6"

3. On pages 3 and 5 of BRB, it is made clear that even though there is a separate section for vehicles and their rules in the BRB, Vehicles for the purposes of the BRB are referred to as 'Units'.

From what I can figure out, even though the wording of the Codex may be a little vague, because the codex stipulates that units within 6" are granted a 5+ save, vehicles in range are granted a 5+ save not a 4+.

As for the save conferred to squadrons, pp64 BRB stipulates squadrons follow the same rules for units with some exceptions. This would mean that as squadrons are considered units, any model within 6" of the KFF confers their obscured status and save onto the rest of the unit.

Anyway, that's my 2c.

DeathReaper wrote:"A KFF gives ALL UNITS within 6" of the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets."

So it saying that ALL UNITS get a 5+ is not specified otherwise in the Codex?

I, and insaniak, and the english language disagree with you.

and that is an interesting take on it, and one you will need to show page numbers to prove otherwise

So what is the significance on the second part of the rule, in your mind? Your argue that it says ALL UNITS (caps yours) within 6" get 5+, indicating that obviously covers vehicles. If that is so, that's all you need. They took the care to specifically indicate that vehicles are obscured. So, what is your interpretation of the latter part of the sentence? Is it because in 4E, they couldn't get cover, and they wanted to downgrade penetrating hits to glances?

Because, were we playing 4th edition, 40K, I'd totally agree with you. But, I typically play 5th, and my interpretation is either vehicles get 4, or that at the most pedantic interpretation, all units get 5, and then the latter part means vehicles ALSO get 4, at which point you must use the best save available.

I'm not listing page numbers (which I already listed some pages back, btw) because the whole of this kerfluffle only covers like... 2 different paragraphs over 2 different pages.

Ouze wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:"A KFF gives ALL UNITS within 6" of the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets."

So it saying that ALL UNITS get a 5+ is not specified otherwise in the Codex?

I, and insaniak, and the english language disagree with you.

and that is an interesting take on it, and one you will need to show page numbers to prove otherwise

So what is the significance on the second part of the rule, in your mind? Your argue that it says ALL UNITS (caps yours) within 6" get 5+, indicating that obviously covers vehicles. If that is so, that's all you need. They took the care to specifically indicate that vehicles are obscured. So, what is your interpretation of the latter part of the sentence? Is it because in 4E, they couldn't get cover, and they wanted to downgrade penetrating hits to glances?

Partly because of 4th edition, partly because vehicles aren't allowed to take cover saves unless they are obscured.

In theory - however GW seem to think otherwise...

DeathReaper, can you actually proof by RAW that the 5+ save is specified for the ability of being obscured in the open, rather than being an entirely disconnected ability?
Can you proof that the 4+ interpretation is actually against the rules?

Unless you can, both interpretations are perfectly fine by RAW.

As above.

KFF specifies *a* save for all units, and then has an entirely unconnected sentence (cannot be connected when they were written, so to argue they are now ignores...lots) talking about being obscured.

This "obscured" save is never specified.

cgmckenzie wrote:
So, units are specified but vehicles are merely stated to be obscured.

A vehicle is a unit, and it is specified, then stated to be obscured.

All vehicles are units, but not all units are vehicles. Vehicles in all purposes count as a unit, and even though something mentions the word Vehicle, it's still both 1. a unit, and 2. a vehicle.
So, by still being counted as a "unit" in the codex (which all entries in the codex are), it still applies that the unit (in this case a vehicle) would receive a 5+ cover save, because in the KFF rule, it clearly states that all friendly units within 6 inches get a 5+ cover save. If the vehicle was not stated to be obscured, it would not be able to take any kind of save at all, cover, KFF or otherwise because of the 50% rule, so the wording (although badly worded) allows the save to be taken in the first place by a vehicle.

So, by this logic, all the codex rule does is 1. State that a 5+ save is given by the KFF, and 2. State that vehicles are obscured so that they can actually use the 5+ save granted to them.

Simple enough, and without the phrase "vehicles are counted as obscured" it breaks the rule for vehicles all together.

Actually, given SoS and various other covers / invulnerables granted to vehicles, apparently you no longer need to be obscured, as a vehicle, to actually USE the save.

Jidmah wrote:DeathReaper, can you actually proof by RAW that the 5+ save is specified for the ability of being obscured in the open, rather than being an entirely disconnected ability?
Can you proof that the 4+ interpretation is actually against the rules?

Unless you can, both interpretations are perfectly fine by RAW.

While fine by RAW, I personally find it a bit fishy to read it as if the 5+ is completely unrelated as they're still part of the same rule. It just smells of Ork players wanting to have 4+ to me. That said, most people play it as 4+ and I'm not gonna be able to do anything about it if I ever want to play an Ork player.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Actually, given SoS and various other covers / invulnerables granted to vehicles, apparently you no longer need to be obscured, as a vehicle, to actually USE the save.

Well this is also a 4th edition codex and not a 5th, they've found ways to work around and improve their broken rules though the new codexes. The Orks coming out in 4th had the rules in mind for 5th, but not quite the correct way to put it.

AW - the codex author states it is a 4+, so its not particularly fair to characterise this as just an Ork player thing.

I'm NOT an ork player, and have always played it as 4+

AlmightyWalrus wrote: I personally find it a bit fishy to read it as if the 5+ is completely unrelated as they're still part of the same rule.

QFT

There's nothing like completely ignoring the first part of the rule to reap the benefit of the second.

Much like allying Vulcan in a Sisters of Battle list, they don't have combat tactics, but they "lose" combat tactics for twin linked flamer/melta. It's ignoring the first part where they don't have combat tactics in the first place, and giving them another for losing the ability they didn't have in the first place.

This is much the same thing.

OMG, this all conclusions and looking for logical answer between RAW in BRB and in Orks Codex is going nowhere.

The simple fact is the guy who wrote the codex plays as a 4+ cover save (obscured) to the squadron if within 6” (no penalties there for 50%+ squadron out of 6”), that is a fact, look at bat rep in WD when Orks where realised 2007. And that is what the codex writer meant.

This discussion about are the “Squadrons” are a “Units” and blab blah blah blah is over “engineered”! Keep it simple don’t try to analyse word after word because this is going nowhere.

The biggest issues is that peoples referring the definition “obscured” (vs KFF rule) as it have to be more than 50% in cover in order to claim it.
C’mon the rules of KFF are simple, if the vehicle (or squadron) within 6” then 4+ cover save (obscured). THERE IS NO RESTRICTION TO THIS RULE (IN CODEX) NOR IS NOT REFERRING TO BRB obscured rules! …… Same as 1 model of unit of boyz in 6” = to the squad gets 5+

I know you hate it but that’s the rule as is written.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I'm NOT an ork player, and have always played it as 4+

And I am an Ork player, and play it as a 5+. So yes, avoiding making sweeping generalisations as to posters' motivations is a good idea.

god.ra wrote:
OMG, this all conclusions and looking for logical answer between RAW in BRB and in Orks Codex is going nowhere.

The simple fact is the guy who wrote the codex plays as a 4+ cover save (obscured) to the squadron if within 6” (no penalties there for 50%+ squadron out of 6”), that is a fact, look at bat rep in WD when Orks where realised 2007. And that is what the codex writer meant.

This discussion about are the “Squadrons” are a “Units” and blab blah blah blah is over “engineered”! Keep it simple don’t try to analyse word after word because this is going nowhere.

The biggest issues is that peoples referring the definition “obscured” (vs KFF rule) as it have to be more than 50% in cover in order to claim it.
C’mon the rules of KFF are simple, if the vehicle (or squadron) within 6” then 4+ cover save (obscured). THERE IS NO RESTRICTION TO THIS RULE (IN CODEX) NOR IS NOT REFERRING TO BRB obscured rules! …… Same as 1 model of unit of boyz in 6” = to the squad gets 5+

I know you hate it but that’s the rule as is written.

Except it isn't. If you had read the thread you'd know that.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Jidmah wrote:DeathReaper, can you actually proof by RAW that the 5+ save is specified for the ability of being obscured in the open, rather than being an entirely disconnected ability?
Can you proof that the 4+ interpretation is actually against the rules?

Unless you can, both interpretations are perfectly fine by RAW.

While fine by RAW, I personally find it a bit fishy to read it as if the 5+ is completely unrelated as they're still part of the same rule. It just smells of Ork players wanting to have 4+ to me. That said, most people play it as 4+ and I'm not gonna be able to do anything about it if I ever want to play an Ork player.

The GK codex and it's FAQ is probably the best demonstration of "fishy" things be right or wrong almost at random.
The real point is, you can read it either way. I'd have no problem playing it the least advantageous way, if the author himself hadn't told us how to play it. I couldn't really care less about a random poster/flyer I've never seen. But the guy who wrote the very codex (and did a pretty good job on most of it) says you're wrong. The codex was written with 5th in mind. The very line in question in the BRB is probably written with the KFF in mind. I agree with the guy who wrote the pages that got me into the hobby. What's his opinion against yours?

I'd also like to point out that accusing people of arguing for their own good adds nothing to the discussion but gasoline and a lighter.

Incidentally...

Ouze wrote:

insaniak wrote:I'm assuming that's the FAQ that was in place for the change to 5th edition? Because I'm not seeing any such reference in the current FAQ. From memory, the initial 5th edition FAQ was a little confused in several places between 4th and 5th edition rules.

hummmm. That's weird. I saved a copy of the 4.01 FAQ, which was superseded by the current one, which indeed makes no reference to the KFF at all. I'd be happy to post it if you like, but what I typed is what it says verbatim.

After a dig back through my archives, that FAQ is for the previous Ork codex, for it's update to 4th edition. So it's referring to the previous version of the KFF, and the 4th edition vehicle rules.

Heh. I guess I should overwrite it with the current one on my local copy.

As to my own motivation, I do play Orks (but consider myself a Necron player)... but I've never fielded a KFF and don't own the model with one (or a proxy). I'm calling it 4+ but I think there is an equivalent argument for 5+ so would just ask if it came up, which it never has.

Man, you remember the Deffrolla threads? Or the "is the ruler off the table, or on the table" one? This isn't directed at anyone specifically, but sometimes it's just best to accept that some of the GWS rules are unclear (even if it doesn't seem so, to you) and reasonable but different conclusions can be reached, and either one is valid until they finally release a FAQ update. That's how I see it, anyway. There sure were a lot of people passionately and intelligently arguing that there was no way that it could do that damage to vehicles, remember? Man, those were the days (of 2 years ago).

Soon will be 6th Edition, and we can do this all again, in the great circle of internet arguing.

What about the fact that there is a period separating the 2 pieces of the rule? While in 4th edition this dropped penetrating hits to glancing hits, you still have to follow the fact that there are 2 parts to the KFF rule (regardless of their bearing between 4th and 5th edition)... The KFF gives a cover save of 5+ to all units within 6 inches (here's the period) and then gives vehicles with no specific value.. So the vehicle has a cover save with a 5+ and is obscured, because we have to follow both parts of the rule (with no value because the rule doesn't state it, and the Ork Errata doesn't correct this). You then go to what happens to something that is obscured due to wargear (KFF is Wargear) and wargear that causes obscured gives a vehicle a 4+ cover save. Now because we have attached a value to this, you have a vehicle that is receiving BOTH a 5+ and a 4+ cover save, then you choose the better of the two.


4+ through RAW, making sure that I follow all parts of the KFF, and all while avoiding the vagaries of the English dictionary.

Alf, it only defaults to 4+ if it isn't specified in the rule. The rule here says all units get a 5+ cover save, but it makes a distinction for vehicles.

Whether or not it was written in the 4th edition rules has no bearing on what is written now. If there was no distinction, it would be 5+ for vehicles. Seeing as how they do make a distinction that vehicles are different than units(at least for this scenario) without elaborating what the vehicle save is, it defaults to 4+.

-cgmckenzie

I edited that part for clarity :(

Alfndrate wrote:What about the fact that there is a period separating the 2 pieces of the rule? While in 4th edition this dropped penetrating hits to glancing hits, you still have to follow the fact that there are 2 parts to the KFF rule (regardless of their bearing between 4th and 5th edition)... The KFF gives a cover save of 5+ to all units within 6 inches (here's the period) and then gives vehicles with no specific value.. So the vehicle has a cover save with a 5+ and is obscured, because we have to follow both parts of the rule (with no value because the rule doesn't state it, and the Ork Errata doesn't correct this). You then go to what happens to something that is obscured due to wargear (KFF is Wargear) and wargear that causes obscured gives a vehicle a 4+ cover save. Now because we have attached a value to this, you have a vehicle that is receiving BOTH a 5+ and a 4+ cover save, then you choose the better of the two.


4+ through RAW, making sure that I follow all parts of the KFF, and all while avoiding the vagaries of the English dictionary.

Only if the wargear doesn't specify otherwise. The KFF does. The fact that the 5+ isn't in the same sentence as the Obscured status doesn't matter, as the wargear is still specifying what kind of save you get. You don't have KFF rule A giving all units a 5+ and KFF rule B giving vehicles Obscured, they're both part of the KFF rules. As such, the 5+is still part of the wargear's overall rules. When we work out if the KFF specifies otherwise, we have to take all of the rules into consideration. Thus, we notice that the KFF states that it's a 5+ cover save and, as 5+ isnt = to 4+, it does in fact specify otherwise.

It specifies, but then makes a distinction between the models receiving the 5+ and vehicles.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:It specifies, but then makes a distinction between the UNITS receiving the 5+ and vehicles.

-cgmckenzie

Fixed that for you

The distinction only shows that vehicles can claim the cover provided in the KFF because vehicles in the open need to be obscured or they can claim no cover.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above.

KFF specifies *a* save for all units, and then has an entirely unconnected sentence (cannot be connected when they were written, so to argue they are now ignores...lots) talking about being obscured.

This "obscured" save is never specified.

It's consecutive sentences in the same paragraph. They are connected. That's what paragraphs do-connect sentences.

204 to 30 in favor.

Go, vocal minority, go!

sourclams wrote:204 to 30 in favor.

Go, vocal minority, go!

Opinions of people on a poll =/= rules.

Especially when they ignore that the KFF specifies a save for UNITS as a 5+

Preach it, brother!

So, in a similar vein, how do you handle the raargh result from the shok attack gun?
Do you remove the vehicle if it is hit?

sourclams wrote:204 to 30 in favor.

Go, vocal minority, go!

If all you guys want is numbers I think I can get much of some 4chan - like board to troll some poll. If I get majority in a poll that states that every MEQ has his save downgraded to 6+ will you make it an official rule? Because I really think I can make it.
Just to be clear - of course I don't want to insult any voter or compare anybody to a troll. Just want to point out the invalidity of poll count alone in a rules discussion/pointless posting/arguing (anybody can pick his/her favorite ).

Alfndrate wrote:What about the fact that there is a period separating the 2 pieces of the rule? While in 4th edition this dropped penetrating hits to glancing hits, you still have to follow the fact that there are 2 parts to the KFF rule (regardless of their bearing between 4th and 5th edition)... The KFF gives a cover save of 5+ to all units within 6 inches (here's the period) and then gives vehicles with no specific value.. So the vehicle has a cover save with a 5+ and is obscured, because we have to follow both parts of the rule (with no value because the rule doesn't state it, and the Ork Errata doesn't correct this). You then go to what happens to something that is obscured due to wargear (KFF is Wargear) and wargear that causes obscured gives a vehicle a 4+ cover save. Now because we have attached a value to this, you have a vehicle that is receiving BOTH a 5+ and a 4+ cover save, then you choose the better of the two.

What you are saying is KFF specifies +5 cover save for units. That means that KFF is specifying 5+ cover for vehicles. Then you are saying that KFF doesn't specify cover save so it gets another 4+ cover save due to being obscured. So the vehicle has specified 5+ cover save and it gets another 4+ cover save because no cover save was specified. Just to be clear - there is no obscured save so there is no need to specify ANOTHER cover save for obscured status because it uses any cover save specified.

Also, anyone who is saying that just because KFF rule is written in two sentences -> those two parts are totally separate and not concerning each other: The whole rulebook would have to be one big sentence to be any good. Or at least each chapter or paragraph. Because now we have hundreds and hundreds of not connected sentences that we can just break apart and make any rule unworkable. Just try it with some BGB pages. This is madness! It's madness, I tell you! for the love of God, don't do it!

I fully understand the usage of periods and commas. They tend to tell a person where a thought ends and a new one picks up...

I would still like to see how someone responds to the question I posed 2 posts ago.

I play Orks, have always used a 4+ (even in tourneys) and have never had a question @ it. I think the poll bears that out. To my reading that is the correct RAW.

I think we have spent more brain cells, time and concern over it in this thread than the fellow did who wrote the rule in the first place. (I have broken my own rule by allowing myself to read past page 3 of a rules debate!)

It is not a 'broken' interpretation either, and lets a semi-competitive 4th edition army have a good day now & then.

I think it will work as played until our updated codex comes out someday - maybe we'll get telly-portas (like D-eldar portals) and can park the wagons.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Only if the wargear doesn't specify otherwise.

This is not a rule. The ability of being obscured out in the open has to specify otherwise, not the source of the ability. So it really does boil down to whether the sentences are disconnected or not. Neither interpretations can be disproven. One has the author backing it up, the other doesn't.

Alfndrate wrote:So, in a similar vein, how do you handle the raargh result from the shok attack gun?
Do you remove the vehicle if it is hit?

Yes. This is clarified somewhat by the FAQ with this:

Ork FAQ wrote:Q. Are models that are immune to instant death
(such as those with eternal warrior) removed
from the table when hit by a Shokk Attack Gun
which rolls a “Raargh” result?
A. Yes, unless they are gargantuan creatures or
super-heavy vehicles (see the Apocalypse book)

...which would have just said 'vehicles' rather than 'super heavy vehicles' if all vehicles were supposed to be immune to the instant removal effect.

So why have the second sentence relating SPECIFICALLY to vehicles?

Also haven't we been taught that specific trumps general? the obvious case is that codex trumps rulebook, but what if there is a specific rule in a codex trumping a general rule within the same codex?

I.e: General: All units within 6 inches get a 5+ cover save
Specific: Vehicles are obscured...

The second sentence is there because that's how it worked in 4th edition.

HOWEVER, we are no longer in 4th edition, so the second sentence merely states that vehicles are obscured without giving them a specific save value.

-cgmckenzie

But it hasn't been errata'd out of existence meaning you still have to follow it... Meaning that if its obscured with no value attached to it, you look in the rulebook... wouldn't you?

Exactly, the sentence is still there. Despite having been written for 4th ed, where it made sense, it is no applicable to 5th. Grammatically, it doesn't specify the save value for vehicles, merely saying that they are obscured.

-cgmckenzie

Alfndrate wrote:So why have the second sentence relating SPECIFICALLY to vehicles?

Because there is an extra effect that applies to vehicles.


Here's a similar structure:
If I say 'People entering my house must remove their hats. Women must remove their high heels.'
That doesn't mean that women don't have to remove their hats as well as their heels. They're covered by both rules, since women are also people... so both statements apply to them.

Also haven't we been taught that specific trumps general? the obvious case is that codex trumps rulebook, but what if there is a specific rule in a codex trumping a general rule within the same codex?

I.e: General: All units within 6 inches get a 5+ cover save
Specific: Vehicles are obscured...

The thing is, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that the second statement is supposed to replace the first. It doesn't say that vehicles count as obscured 'instead'... just that they count as obscured. What does being obscured do? Lets them take a cover save...

To return to my house example, lets say that Women have a rule that they can only remove their shoes if there are slippers to put on instead. Then, we have a rule like this:
'People entering my house must remove their shoes. Women may use the slippers provided.'

Two statements. One of them applies to everybody. One of them applies specifically to women. You don't ignore the first statement just because the second applies to a more specific group, because the second statement works with the first. Specifically, women, who would be unable to take off their shoes without slippers on hand, can use the slippers, and so can remove their shoes.

In the same fashion, cover saves are normally only taken against wounds. At the start of 5th edition it was generally assumed that as vehicles didn't take wounds, so a rule that grants them a cover save wouldn't be of any benefit to them unless it also counts them as obscured (which allows them to use the cover save against glancing and penetrating hits). So the second statement in the KFF rule works with the first, allowing the vehicle to make use of the cover save being granted by the first statement.

In more recent codexes, GW have relaxed the rules where vehicles and saves are concerned, and they have started to just assume that we'll figure out for ourselves that if a vehicle has access to a save that it can use it against damage instead of wounds. But that doesn't change the way the KFF is written. It's not an either/or statement. There is no reason to assume that the second statement replaces the first. In the current ruleset it is simply a clarification as to how the KFF applies to vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alfndrate wrote:But it hasn't been errata'd out of existence meaning you still have to follow it... Meaning that if its obscured with no value attached to it, you look in the rulebook... wouldn't you?

There is nothing in the Vehicles and Cover rules that says that the save value has to be included in the same sentence in order to be valid. It simply tells you to use a 4+ unless otherwise specified in the codex. The codex does otherwise specify.

Yes, it doesn't say that vehicles count as obscured 'with a save value of 5+'... it doesn't need to, because it just told you the save value in the immediately preceding sentence.

insaniak wrote:
And I am an Ork player, and play it as a 5+. So yes, avoiding making sweeping generalisations as to posters' motivations is a good idea.

Seriously, thank you for playing the correct way and not jumping on a bandwagon. Though all the cheese and rule bending I see constantly, it's good to have a bit of fresh air posts from other dakkites =)

Kreedos wrote:

insaniak wrote:
And I am an Ork player, and play it as a 5+. So yes, avoiding making sweeping generalisations as to posters' motivations is a good idea.

Seriously, thank you for playing the correct way and not jumping on a bandwagon. Though all the cheese and rule bending I see constantly, it's good to have a bit of fresh air posts from other dakkites =)

You win for accusing the author of the codex for bending the rules he wrote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
He probably didn't want to have his battle report written as a loss, so he cheated.

Well, this actually came up at my LFGS 2 weeks ago while I was watching a game. And the owner was called in (official tournament judge) After 2 seconds of deep thought the resounding sound of: 4+ has always been used at tournaments came from his lips. So debate all you want, that's how I will use it.(to my disadvantage).

insaniak wrote:
Here's a similar structure:
If I say 'People entering my house must remove their hats. Women must remove their high heels.'
That doesn't mean that women don't have to remove their hats as well as their heels. They're covered by both rules, since women are also people... so both statements apply to them.

I think you just made a rather compelling argument that the KFF gives both a 5+ and a 4+, actually, in which case it must take the best save.

Ouze wrote: think you just made a rather compelling argument that the KFF gives both a 5+ and a 4+, actually, in which case it must take the best save.

Only if you take that comment completely out of context. It was in response to the question about the SAG, and why two different statements would both apply.

The KFF situation is different, as I explained further down that same post.

But the real question now is 'do slippers provide a better cover save than bare feet?'

If the TO's are playing it 4+, 95% of players are doing 4+, and the author of the rule is playing it 4+, I think it is simpler to just go with the 4+ and figure out how to counter that.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:But the real question now is 'do slippers provide a better cover save than bare feet?'

If the TO's are playing it 4+, 95% of players are doing 4+, and the author of the rule is playing it 4+, I think it is simpler to just go with the 4+ and figure out how to counter that.

-cgmckenzie

True, but to quote numerous posters, "In the Grim Darkness of the 41st Millennium, there is only RAW!"

It has yet to be proven that 5+ is more RAW than 4+.

As above.

There is no *specified* value for the "obscured" part of the KFF. Which is separate and distinct.

"A" save is specified, but it is not "the" save that needs to be specified. A hangover from 4th, maybe, however we know for a fact what the rule designer thinks the rules mean.

Jidmah wrote:It has yet to be proven that 5+ is more RAW than 4+.

I know, I was trying to point out that we discuss the issue despite knowing what the designer thinks it shoud play like because we're interested in working out what the RAW is. Something we disagree on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:There is no *specified* value for the "obscured" part of the KFF. Which is separate and distinct.

"A" save is specified, but it is not "the" save that needs to be specified.

Is it true that vehicles are units?

Is it true that all units within range of a KFF gets a 5+ cover save?

Assume the sentence about obscurement was not present. Would vehicles benefit?

The sentence talking about obscurement, in 5th edition context only, explains how to resolve a cover save being provided to vehicles. Remember the uproar when the SW, BA, and DE books were released? People were suggesting that, unless a vehicle is said to be obscured, it does not benefit from a cover save. The Ork codex is the only one that actually does it correctly. Its also the only one that even comes close to making use of that part of the paragraph (that states that a save would be specifically mentioned if it wasn't a 4+).

The KFF doesn't need to say that the 5+ save is for the obscurement. It already makes it clear that vehicles get a 5+ save, because they are units within range.

insaniak wrote:Who ever said that White Dwarf rules don't count?

How odd, you yourself said that very thing in the OTHER KFF argument we had in some other thread. Because I came back with that very argument, if you say the WD doesnt count as rules literature, then the older BA codex and the soon to be Sisters codex wouldnt count at all. How odd that is

KingCracker wrote:How odd, you yourself said that very thing in the OTHER KFF argument we had in some other thread. Because I came back with that very argument, if you say the WD doesnt count as rules literature, then the older BA codex and the soon to be Sisters codex wouldnt count at all. How odd that is

I said no such thing.

A battle report or a designers notes article is not a source of rules for playing the game. That doesn't mean that a codex published in WD is not a valid codex.

and again .... ok because this so called conclusions are going nowhere lets look at the facts:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/at2/2009/12/4/b3a9ff1fa046d950736f455e927383d8_11188.jpg

here is 1st one, read Matt Ward army info.

http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?p=127054#post127054

there is 2nd fact, read orks change in 5th.

so please now, to those who still believe that it should be (is) 5+ for vehicles, please give some facts! some Bat reps or anything, apart of this twisted logical thinking, that is rly 5+!!

c'mon i said before, this KFF rule is simple.

Please MOD if there is no one with any other prove that it is 5+ please lock it as the trolls must die.

god.ra wrote:and again .... ok because this so called conclusions are going nowhere lets look at the facts:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/at2/2009/12/4/b3a9ff1fa046d950736f455e927383d8_11188.jpg

here is 1st one, read Matt Ward army info.

http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?p=127054#post127054

there is 2nd fact, read orks change in 5th.

These have already been posted. And it's already been pointed out that they are not a valid source of rules. Please see the Tenets of YMDC.

so please now, to those who still believe that it should be (is) 5+ for vehicles, please give some facts! some Bat reps or anything, apart of this twisted logical thinking, that is rly 5+!!

What is so 'twisted' about the idea that the KFF specifies a 5+ save, so units in range should take a 5+ save?

god.ra wrote:and again .... ok because this so called conclusions are going nowhere lets look at the facts:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/at2/2009/12/4/b3a9ff1fa046d950736f455e927383d8_11188.jpg

here is 1st one, read Matt Ward army info.

http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?p=127054#post127054

there is 2nd fact, read orks change in 5th.

so please now, to those who still believe that it should be (is) 5+ for vehicles, please give some facts! some Bat reps or anything, apart of this twisted logical thinking, that is rly 5+!!

c'mon i said before, this KFF rule is simple.

Please MOD if there is no one with any other prove that it is 5+ please lock it as the trolls must die.

Yea gotcha beat on posting those, and it doesnt phase insaniak one bit. We could video tape Phill Kelly saying , no that guy is wrong its a 4+ cover save on vehicles and insaniak would someone come up with a way to say thats not credible. So basically you have to just ignore insaniak if you want any head way in this argument that shouldnt even be an argument in the first place

If you're not interested in actually contributing to the discussion, feel free to stay out of it.

insaniak wrote:

god.ra wrote:and again .... ok because this so called conclusions are going nowhere lets look at the facts:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/at2/2009/12/4/b3a9ff1fa046d950736f455e927383d8_11188.jpg

here is 1st one, read Matt Ward army info.

http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?p=127054#post127054

there is 2nd fact, read orks change in 5th.

These have already been posted. And it's already been pointed out that they are not a valid source of rules. Please see the Tenets of YMDC.

so please now, to those who still believe that it should be (is) 5+ for vehicles, please give some facts! some Bat reps or anything, apart of this twisted logical thinking, that is rly 5+!!

What is so 'twisted' about the idea that the KFF specifies a 5+ save, so units in range should take a 5+ save?

ok, i wont have any argument about the validation of the Official GW prints... for me is simple, the writer of the Codex meant to play as 4+ for vechiles and i will not try to find some unlogic sense in KFF rule jus because i think in overpowered to have this. i know ,i play orks and lots of times peoples complain...

The twisted is this : some one post a official print which state 4+ (in other words,you will be able to play this way), but no is not valid.... because according to " analysis of KFF rule word by word for some lads its not clear" ... this is twsted. over-logically-looked.
ok i am out of this, as i will end up in mental hospital.
have fun in proving the point that white is black.

KingCracker wrote:Yea gotcha beat on posting those, and it doesnt phase insaniak one bit. We could video tape Phill Kelly saying , no that guy is wrong its a 4+ cover save on vehicles and insaniak would someone come up with a way to say thats not credible. So basically you have to just ignore insaniak if you want any head way in this argument that shouldnt even be an argument in the first place

And we could duct tape you to the chair and play on a huge ass screen propaganda type movie that shows 'Tenets of You Make Da Call' and you'd still not get the idea of it. Because you still see no difference to what 4th edition codex author would (presumably) want (in 5th edition) and what is actually written in 5th ed rulebook.

Insaniak is not denying credibility. He is saying that it is irrelevant.

I'm not even here to argue which side is right or wrong now. 'Wants' and 'intentions' are all great but they are irrelevant to the actual written rules.
I will say this again for the Xth time. The discussion is NOT supposed to be about what mr Phill wants. It's supposed to be about what has actually been written in rules source.
Batreps and posters are not rules so they are meaningless in YMDC discussion (or whatever this is now).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

god.ra wrote:have fun in proving the point that white is black.

Isn't is the other way around? Aren't YOU trying to prove that white is black just because author WANTED it to be black but actually used white paint?
Even if rules say that it is white. You must see at the painting to see that colour it is. You won't know it by listening to the painter.
Please stop with this "author wants" nonsense.

Can we please stop picking at other posters, and stick to the topic?

If anyone has anything else relevant to add (as in, an actual rules-based argument one way or the other) feel free to post it.

Otherwise, I think we're about done here.

cgmckenzie wrote:But the real question now is 'do slippers provide a better cover save than bare feet?'

If the TO's are playing it 4+, 95% of players are doing 4+, and the author of the rule is playing it 4+, I think it is simpler to just go with the 4+ and figure out how to counter that.

-cgmckenzie

What if, in the turbulence of war, I lose a slipper? Does my save modify to 5+?

AvatarForm wrote:

cgmckenzie wrote:But the real question now is 'do slippers provide a better cover save than bare feet?'

If the TO's are playing it 4+, 95% of players are doing 4+, and the author of the rule is playing it 4+, I think it is simpler to just go with the 4+ and figure out how to counter that.

-cgmckenzie

What if, in the turbulence of war, I lose a slipper? Does my save modify to 5+?

If at least half your feet have a slipper, I think you are still entitled to the better cover save.

What does it say for obscuring a vehicle and what kind of save you get for it for getting 50 percent covered exactly?

insaniak wrote:Can we please stop picking at other posters, and stick to the topic?

If anyone has anything else relevant to add (as in, an actual rules-based argument one way or the other) feel free to post it.

Otherwise, I think we're about done here.

GW doesn't write tight rules, and especially with regards to the Ork codex ('Ard Boyz 2009: R1, Deff Rollas can Ram, R2, Deff Rollas can Ram, R3, Deff Rollas can no longer ram haha /armylist!) tends to flip flop all about?

Resulting in these debates lasting forever...as nobody is ever right and GW doesn't give enough a damn to clarify.

So, in all practicality, just figure out how your TO is going to rule it and go with that, which given these poll results, is likely to be a 4+ cover save?

The point of this sort of thread isn't for everyone to agree that one side or the other is right. That's not likely to ever happen.

The point is simply to kick the issue around, and explore the various interpretations so that people reading the thread can make up their own minds.

In most cases, it's not going to ever affect your game in the slightest if a few people on the other side of the planet don't agree with you on how any given rule works.

I apologize if this post is empty or invalid to the comment at hand. I am an ork player, and I am understand if it sounds bias but i always found it making the most sense for the 4+ save.

I came to this conclusion completely on my own after my original review of the codex months ago. I am not a rules lawyer but It made itself very clear to me especially in the fluff and I think in all honesty we are arguing more over the poor terminology of the English Language.

My basic understanding of the rule was this; anything that wasn't classified as a vehicle were entitled to a cover save of 5+. The sentence even ends there to note that it's the end of a thought. It then spoke of a status which required the the main rulebook to investigate properly. After reviewing this status my vehicles would have a +4 since it didn't go into detail for that (which lets be honest, GW might not be the best at explaining things but they normal go out of their way for these sort of things to clarify a difference in the status.)

My understanding of the fluff it states the Big mek takes the KFF to protect his precious inventions from any harm. in my opinion the fact it protects orks is kinda a side-effect to that mek's desires. he'd rather his strong metal boxes be defended than his boys.

To help paint a better picture on why it doesn't help troopers as much is imagine a dangerous las cannon shot tearing through a bubble of force. It has more than enough power to kill almost any man or ork. But a vehicle is hard metal and killy plates. Though that las cannon is still dangerous to a boy to the vehicle it's considerable power but softened enough to probably withstand it now.

Another matter that made it a simple understanding is mechanics. While I won';t deny the idea has been spammed now and days 5+ to 180+ models is JUST as broken as 20+ vehicles (9 kans, 2 dreds, 9 buggies) with 4+ no matter how you look at it things like Flame templates, assaults and luck still get through and cause serious damage.

I know it's frustrating to fight against but think about feel no pain, or the vows of the black Templar or well ... everything in every army. These rules are frustrating from the aspect that NO ONE LIKES to assault orks (besides maybe Nids or specialty armies) but look to things as laughable as the Battlewagon, DANGEROUS TILL ENGAGED IN MELEE, then is succumbs to tac marine assaults...

I had no idea such controversy still existed over this rule but I am personally in favor of the material that has been presented to me stating the KFF gives a +4... I hope it helped but I imagine it didn't anyway I wanted to speak my mind so there it was.

insaniak wrote:

The point is simply to kick the issue around, and explore the various interpretations so that people reading the thread can make up their own minds.

In most cases, it's not going to ever affect your game in the slightest if a few people on the other side of the planet don't agree with you on how any given rule works.

I think the poll results show rather definitively, even after 2 or more years of debate on this topic, that people have largely made up their minds?

And that in this case it's not a 'few people on the other side of the planet', but roughly 4/5 people agreeing with 4++ (or disagreeing with 5++) on this side of the planet?

sourclams wrote:

insaniak wrote:
The point is simply to kick the issue around, and explore the various interpretations so that people reading the thread can make up their own minds.

In most cases, it's not going to ever affect your game in the slightest if a few people on the other side of the planet don't agree with you on how any given rule works.

I think the poll results show rather definitively, even after 2 or more years of debate on this topic, that people have largely made up their minds?

And that in this case it's not a 'few people on the other side of the planet', but roughly 4/5 people agreeing with 4++ (or disagreeing with 5++) on this side of the planet?

Agreed. I feel like when over 265 people continuously come up close to ~90% in favor of the 4+ on one of the major rules forums for the game, it may in fact "affect your game in the slightest" when you try to claim that ork opponent doesn't get his save.

Personally, I will quite honestly just pack up and find another opponent if someone tries it on me pregame. And I have already done so, especially after all the flak and losses I went through for putting up with people claiming deffrollas didn't work on vehicles for over a year when they always did. Take from that what you will, but asking me to break out my rulebook and fight tooth and nail (to, best case, eventually be condescendingly told that they'll "let me have it this time") gets old real quick when I can easily find someone else to play with, and when the RAW (or at least the RAI or RAP) is perfectly clear to the overwhelming majority in this case.

The RaI for the KFF points to a 4+ cover save.

But the RaW shows that the KFF gives a 5+ cover save.

So if you are playing RaW then its a 5+

But the orks need an update anyway and this debate should be concluded when the new dex drops, whenever that may be.


IMHO, I don't think taking your ball and going home is the right way to settle it.

DeathReaper wrote:The RaI for the KFF points to a 4+ cover save.

But the RaW shows that the KFF gives a 5+ cover save.

So if you are playing RaW then its a 5+

But the orks need an update anyway and this debate should be concluded when the new dex drops, whenever that may be.


IMHO, I don't think taking your ball and going home is the right way to settle it.

You keep repeating this as if you had shown it to be true. You haven't. RAW can be read as both 4+ and 5+.

DR - except RAW is read as 4+. The save for being obscured is not specified - it needed a conjunction, and there isnt one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - except RAW is read as 4+. The save for being obscured is not specified - it needed a conjunction, and there isnt one.

If you read it as a 4+ you are reading the rule incorrectly.

Here is why:
P.62 says "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"

coupled with the previous paragraph on P.62 "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (For example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on)."

The KFF specifies a 5+ save for all units, a vehicle is a unit.

So the vehicle is hit, "it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound"

What is the cover save provided to a non-vehicle model from the KFF?

We use this value for vehicles as well because vehicles take the save "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound" and a non-vehicle model would take a 5+ against a wound. So the vehicle has to take a 5+ against a glancing or penetrating hit.

The KFF is "specified otherwise in the codex."

It is quite clear that RaW reads as a 5+ for all units under the KFF bubble.

@ Jidmah, If I had not made this clear before, I have now shown it to be true.