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

I have no opinion on this question, as I was taught one way to do it by a veteran Ork player, but have recently been corrected on my play by a stranger. Here is my problem:

Does the Obscured rule granted by the KFF apply to all Killa Kanz within a squadron of Kanz (if one were within 6"), or only to the Kanz that are actually 6" from the Big Mek? Also, is the Cover Save granted to vehicle a 5+ or a 4+?

Smashotron wrote: Does the Obscured rule granted by the KFF apply to all Killa Kanz within a squadron of Kanz (if one were within 6"), or only to the Kanz that are actually 6" from the Big Mek?

For vehicles in a squadron to get a cover save, the majority of the models of the squadron would have to be obscured, just like cover saves for other units. If you had 3 kans in a squadron and only 1 was within range of the KFF, then no cover save because the majority of the squadron is not in cover.

Smashotron wrote:Also, is the Cover Save granted to vehicle a 5+ or a 4+?

4+, refer to BRB page 62, next to last paragragh in the left hand column.

If less than 50% of a squadron (kanz or buggies) are within 6", they all get the 5+ cover save.
If more than 50% are within 6", more than half of them are obscured and thus all of them have a 4+ cover save as per vehicle squadron rules.

It might be debatable in RAW whether the 5+ save can actually be used by vehicles, search for one of the multi-page threads to find your answer there.

Forget what Jidmah says... I don't know where he's getting less than 50% getting a 5+ save from.

Time Wizard has it completely correct. The majority of the models in the squadron must be obscured, and they receive a 4+ save per the BRB.

Interestingly you CAN run into situations where 1 Kan of the squadron is in KFF range, and another Kan is partially hidden behind a barricade. In this case more than 50% of the squadron is obscured, and so they benefit from the 4+ save.

I had this happen once where my Killa Kans ran, but the Big Mek only rolled a "1" for his run, and couldn't keep up. Only 1 Kan was within KFF range. However, another Kan was mostly hidden behind a Deff Dread, so I still got my save for the squad.

Don't forget what Jidmah says. He is correct.

KFF does two things. First, it gives a 5+ cover save to an entire unit if 1 model is within 6" of the Mek. Second, it makes any vehicles within 6" of the Mek obscured.

If you have 3 vehicles in a squadron, and all 3 are outside 6": the unit gets no cover save, and no models are obscured, so you don't get any save.
If you have 3 vehicles in a squadron, and 2 are outside 6" and 1 is within 6": the unit gets a 5+ cover save, and only 1 model is obscured, which isn't enough for the 50% threshold, so the squadron gets a 5+ save.
If you have 3 vehicles in a squadron, and 1 is outside 6" and 2 are within 6": the unit gets a 5+ cover save, and 2 models are obscured, which is enough for the 50% threshold, so the squadron gets a 4+ save.
If you have 3 vehicles in a squadron, and all 3 are within 6": the unit gets a 5+ cover save, and 3 models are obscured, which is enough for the 50% threshold, so the squadron gets a 4+ save.

Grakmar is right in all 4 cases. I had to re-read the KFF rules, missed the "all units within 6" of the Mek" part.
Sorry for confusion.

Grakmar wrote:Don't forget what Jidmah says. He is correct.

KFF does two things. First, it gives a 5+ cover save to an entire unit if 1 model is within 6" of the Mek. Second, it makes any vehicles within 6" of the Mek obscured.

If you have 3 vehicles in a squadron, and all 3 are outside 6": the unit gets no cover save, and no models are obscured, so you don't get any save.
If you have 3 vehicles in a squadron, and 2 are outside 6" and 1 is within 6": the unit gets a 5+ cover save, and only 1 model is obscured, which isn't enough for the 50% threshold, so the squadron gets a 5+ save.
If you have 3 vehicles in a squadron, and 1 is outside 6" and 2 are within 6": the unit gets a 5+ cover save, and 2 models are obscured, which is enough for the 50% threshold, so the squadron gets a 4+ save.
If you have 3 vehicles in a squadron, and all 3 are within 6": the unit gets a 5+ cover save, and 3 models are obscured, which is enough for the 50% threshold, so the squadron gets a 4+ save.

This is why I dont understand the pages upon pages of arguments on how the KFF works. This is exactly how I run them in our group. Seems clear enough to me

While I read it the way you do, my understanding is that the alternate interpretation goes something like this:

Obscured does not grant a 4+ save, obscured lets you take a cover save. And the value of a cover save is not always 4+, it depends on what grants the cover save. And KFF as grants a 5+ cover save. Therefore the cover save you get from being obscured by the KFF is +5.

kmdl1066 wrote:Obscured does not grant a 4+ save, obscured lets you take a cover save. And the value of a cover save is not always 4+, it depends on what grants the cover save. And KFF as grants a 5+ cover save. Therefore the cover save you get from being obscured by the KFF is +5.

Spot on.

While the majority of posters around here seem to feel it should work as described by Grakmar (admittedly backed up at least on the 4+ part by a White Dwarf article from the codex writer, for whatever that's worth to you) I think that this interpretation better fits the rules as they are actually written, and has the added benefit of being less confusing for everyone involved, as the save is always the same value.

The above three posters have got it spot on, if only there was a rep system...

The only way to actually find out the "true" RAI, is to ask the codex writer. If the codex writer tells you how a rule is supposed to work, whatever he tells you is always right, as this is how it is supposed to work, which beats RAW.

If anyone but Phil Kelly had written the article, I couldn't care less. But as he did, the WD article has as much authenticity as a GW FAQ.

Jidmah wrote:The only way to actually find out the "true" RAI, is to ask the codex writer. If the codex writer tells you how a rule is supposed to work, whatever he tells you is always right, as this is how it is supposed to work, which beats RAW.

That's not actually always the case.

GW have at times in the past ruled in favour of RAW where it wound up (for whatever reason) different to the writer's original intention, because that would be the least confusing resolution.

The fact that the writer originally intended something to work a given way doesn't always mean that what he writes actually winds up meaning what he intended. And White Dwarf articles, even when written by the writer of the codex, aren't always spot on with their facts due to articles being written months in advance, and codexes going through multiple revisions before release.

kmdl1066 wrote:While I read it the way you do, my understanding is that the alternate interpretation goes something like this:

Obscured does not grant a 4+ save, obscured lets you take a cover save. And the value of a cover save is not always 4+, it depends on what grants the cover save. And KFF as grants a 5+ cover save. Therefore the cover save you get from being obscured by the KFF is +5.

I believe you are wrong and here's the evidence:

kustom force field per ork codex

"A Kff gives all units within 6" of the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as obscured targets"

I have the assault on black reach book on me and here's a quote from it on obscured targets according to page 62:

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

The ork codex says only that it is obscured so it IS a 4+ cover save... everybody and every tournament I’ve ever watched or read about it is always a 4+ .

*edit*

While I’m cleaning my spelling/ grammar on those may was well make this grammatically correct as well

The intention of the KFF when written was to make vehicles obscured making pen hits glancing (4th ed). Now that obscured means 4+ cover save it means 4+ cover save for vehicles. There is no RAW or RAI arguement that says the intended save for vehicles was 5+, as that rule was not even conceptualized when the codex was written.

An additional peice of evidence that the 4+ cover is correct would be the big dread one from apoc rules.

I am glad I read this thread as KFF acting on both the squad and the vehicle part of KK's had never occured to me.

i think that if a unit of 3 kans has 1 kan in the kff range, then the UNIT is obscured. only 1 has to be within 6 not 50%, as the KFF states "A Kff gives all units in 6" of the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as obscured targets" it is a unit of kans or am i reading it wrong?

Grakmar wrote:Don't forget what Jidmah says. He is correct.

KFF does two things. First, it gives a 5+ cover save to an entire unit if 1 model is within 6" of the Mek. Second, it makes any vehicles within 6" of the Mek obscured.

If you have 3 vehicles in a squadron, and all 3 are outside 6": the unit gets no cover save, and no models are obscured, so you don't get any save.
If you have 3 vehicles in a squadron, and 2 are outside 6" and 1 is within 6": the unit gets a 5+ cover save, and only 1 model is obscured, which isn't enough for the 50% threshold, so the squadron gets a 5+ save.
If you have 3 vehicles in a squadron, and 1 is outside 6" and 2 are within 6": the unit gets a 5+ cover save, and 2 models are obscured, which is enough for the 50% threshold, so the squadron gets a 4+ save.
If you have 3 vehicles in a squadron, and all 3 are within 6": the unit gets a 5+ cover save, and 3 models are obscured, which is enough for the 50% threshold, so the squadron gets a 4+ save.

A Kff gives all units in 6" of the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as obscured targets

Oh man... another KFF debate. But I guess this is an interesting one... something must have changed since the last KFF debate I read.

Grakmar can you explain your second point above and how that's justified in the rules? I know you know your rules so I'm honestly perplexed as to the reasoning on this. I've never seen it played that way where a VEHICLE squadron that less than 50% of it in cover of the KFF gets a 5+ save, but then when over 50% are covered, they get a 4+ save.

You're arguing that the WHOLE SQUADRON of vehicles counts as a "Unit" and thus they automatically get a 5+ save, but then individual vehicles are obscured, so if 50% of them are obscured they instead get the 4+ save from the BRB for obscured vehicle squadrons?

I suppose I can sort of see that reading, but it sounds overly complex.

Reading the rule in the simplest terms possible, to me it seems obvious that "Unit" in this context means "any non vehicle unit" since the rule goes on to specifically mention "vehicles".

With how generically Games Workshop tosses the term "Unit" around I could argue that a "Unit" is only one vehicle.

I'm really curious if anyone has ever actually played with the KFF this way, or if this is new somehow. I know a LOT of Ork players and I've never heard of the KFF being played this way, either in a tournament or otherwise. Not doubting Grakmar, just curious where this interpretation is coming from. It sounds odd to me.

Pied_Piper11 wrote:i think that if a unit of 3 kans has 1 kan in the kff range, then the UNIT is obscured. only 1 has to be within 6 not 50%, as the KFF states "A Kff gives all units in 6" of the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as obscured targets" it is a unit of kans or am i reading it wrong?

Wrong, which is exactly the point.
The KFF gives all units in range a 5+ cover save, to every single model of the unit.
The KFF gives all vehicles in range a 4+ obscured cover save, only to the model.
Vehicle squadrons only ever get to use a save if at least 50% of the squadron has the save.
Meaning if only one kan is within 6" of a KFF, only he is obscured, but may not use the save because less than 50% of his squadron has it.
However, if even a single kan is withing 6" of the KFF all of them get the 5+ cover save, as squadrons are a unit, too.

To make it even more complicated: If one kan is within 6" of a KFF and another kan is obscured by terrain, all three could still use the 4+ save, as two of them are obscured.

I don't run kans very often, but in the few games that i seen them in, if 1 is within 6 then the unit is obscured. That is how i see it played alot. It might be wrong or right but that is what i see.

G00fySmiley wrote:"if a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if it is in the open, this is a 4+ cover save unless otherwise specified by the codex"

That's the thing: it is specified in this case by the codex.

That's what the debate hinges around. One interpretation assumes that the KFF stating that it grants a 5+ save covers the 'unless otherwise specified' clause, and the other interpretation assumes it doesn't. It all just comes down to a personal interpretation as to whether or not the KFF rule is specific enough to count as 'otherwise specified'...

I guess you could try to argue a 5+ if you really tried... but in all tournament games I’ve seen and youtube stuff with kan walls the kanz always get a 4+ save with the kff. I have a hard time reading it the way your are interpreting it; as they are separate sentences per English language terms it is a separate statements saying that the kff gives units a 5+ and separate sentence says obscured hence unrelated ... but that’s just a degree in English from Northern Illinois University talking (yes I realize I don't type well or use capital letters or punctuation right... but I do know how to us them when I care to )

*edited for grammar since Mr mod seems to think I shouldn't post on my way out the door of work when I just want to bang out not proofread, and be on my way >_<

G00fySmiley wrote: as they are seperate sentances per english langauge terms it is a seperate statment sayign that the kff gives units a 5= and seprate sentance says obscured hence unrelated ...

Separate sentences don't make them unrelated. Separate paragraphs would...

(yes i realise i don't type well or use use capital letters or punctuation right... but i do know how to us ethem wheni care to

Putting the moderator hat on for a moment, I would strongly recommend it if you wish to continue posting. Making your post easily readable for those reading it is both a matter of common courtesy and a subject of the forum rules.

Oi... This is all more complicated then my original impression of the issue..

I think the relevant part of the rule in this case (Against a squadron being a "Unit" and thus getting a 5+ cover save) is that:

"A Kff gives all units in 6" of the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as obscured targets"

Vehicles do not get "cover saves" in the conventional sense of the word. The first sentence specifically says that the unit gets a "Cover Save". If you read the rules for vehicle cover on page 62 of the BRB, it states that "Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry" . . . "If the target is obscured . . . it may take a cover save".

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

So essentially vehicles don't get conventional cover saves. They can be obscured. Only if a vehicle is obscured may it take a cover save. Since the sentence, "A Kff gives all units in 6" of the mek a cover save of 5+", does not grant any vehicle the "Obscured" status, a "unit" of these vehicles doesn't get a save either. They're still vehicles, even if they're a "unit".

Murrdox wrote:Vehicles do not get "cover saves" in the conventional sense of the word.

Yes, they do. The rules you quoted specifically say they do. It's just how they get cover saves that is different.

So essentially vehicles don't get conventional cover saves. They can be obscured. Only if a vehicle is obscured may it take a cover save.

This is not strictly true. Being obscured allows the vehicle to take a cover save. The rules never state that vehicles can only take cover saves if obscured, though.

The grey area here is that the rules only tell us how to apply that cover save if the vehicle is obscured. Which leaves us only taking cover saves when obscured, or assuming if the vehicle has access to a cover save without being obscured, that the cover save should be assumed to work against hits rather than wounds as it would if the vehicle were obscured.

You can argue that the first option is the 'right' one as per RAW... but that logic also leaves Dark Eldar (and arguably Space Wolves) with Invulnerable Saves for their vehicles that don't actually work.

The second option (that any time a vehicle is granted a save, it should be assumed to negate glancing or penetrating hits instead of wounds), while not being as clear RAW, is the one that keeps the game functional.

The rules seem pretty clear to me that Vehicles only get a cover save when they are Obscured or when a piece of Wargear makes them Obscured. If there's something written elsewhere, I haven't seen it.

I don't own the Dark Eldar codex, but I don't see what bearing something in the Dark Eldar codex would have on how a piece of Ork Wargear works. You'll have to explain to me how that works.

It's nothing to do with an item in the Dark Eldar codex affecting how Ork gear works. It's a matter of the interaction of the basic rules for saves as they apply to vehicles. It goes something like this:

There is no rule that says that vehicles don't get cover saves just like any other model... All models are granted a cover save by being obscured. The Vehicles and Cover rules simply dictate how much of the vehicle has to be hidden in order to be considered obscured, and state that obscured vehicles can use their cover save to negate glancing and penetrating hits.

So what that boils down to is that while being obscured (whether by being 50% hidden, or by an effect that counts them as being obscured) allows a vehicle to take a cover save against glancing and penetrating hits, there is nothing at all preventing a vehicle from also taking a cover save (if it is somehow granted one) when it is not obscured... because being obscured doesn't itself allow the vehicle to use cover saves... the rules for Cover Saves do that. Being obscured allows the vehicle to use cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits.

The problem is then that when not obscured but granted a cover save by some other effect, the vehicle would follow the normal cover save rules, which would allow it to use a cover save to negate wounds... which it will never suffer. So while it is elligible for a cover save in this situation, it doesn't actually gain any benefit from it.


Where Dark Eldar come into this is that their vehicles have access to an Invulnerable Save. Invulnerable saves are likewise only explicitly stated to have an effect in negating wounds... so by strict RAW, that invulnerable save does absolutely nothing.

The work-around for this is to assume that saves for vehicles inherently negate glancing or penetrating hits instead of wounds. This allows the Dark Eldar vehicle upgrade to function as intended... but by extension, allows vehicles to utilise cover saves in situations where a cover save is granted without the vehicle being obscured.

The actual situations where this would have any impact on the game are rare... KFF with squadrons being the most well-discussed one (and the only one I can actually think of off the top of my head, although I'm sure there are others). In the case of the KFF and the squadron, it simply allows the squadron to benefit from the KFF in exactly the same way as any other unit.

Shield of Sanguinius and the Storm power in SW also grant a cover save without providing "obscured"

All would have went well if Murrdox hadn't told everyone to forget my post

Now it turned into "the KFF thread" again.

The part of the debate that we really cant settle at all is whether or not the 5+ part of the rule in the ork codex works to turn the obscured save into a 5+ for vehicles as well.

A good point that has been raised is that in the ork codex case we have no RAI since the vehicle cover save rules in the brb have changed since the ork codex came out. If we went by RAI we would be down grading hits on the cans to glancing which is entirely different from the current rules.


Now we can go with RAI on the possibility of vehicles taking saves vs hits from the SW and DE invulnerable saves for vehicles, which does lend some solid support to the idea that the kff lets vehicles take saves vs hits as well.



Locally what we have gone to now are cans being able to take the 5+ for the unit if even one can is within the 6" range, but even if all three are within 6" its still only a 5+ save.


Sliggoth

You can go with RAI, as the Ork dex was written with 5th edition in mind - for example Ghazzs skull was pointless in 4th edition.

And RAI is: the codex author says it is a 4+

RAW it is a 4+ as the save *for vehicles* is not specified