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.

Okay so this came up in a game the other day and I pretty much already know the answer but my opponent wanted me to ask anyway.

I was playing an Ork player and he had 3 Killa Kans near his KFF, during his movement he happened to move them so that only 1 Kan was in KFF range. I fired at this Kan Squad with several Bright Lances from various tanks and pennetrated them about 4 times he then proceeded to roll a 5+ cover save instead of a 4+ cover save. When I asked him why he was rolling a 5+ save he said that even though half his Kans are not in KFF range they are a still a "unit" and therefore due to the KFF rules saying that, "Any unit with at least one model in KFF range may take a 5+ cover save." He may still take a 5+ cover save for the Kans because they are a "unit" and that if they aren't considered a "unit" then what are they.

Our local rules guru at our FLGS came and said he was wrong and that a vehicle can only ever take a 4+ cover and that since less than half the Kans were in KFF range that they didn't get the cover save PERIOD. I agreed with the guru and we continued to play it as is, however my opponent wanted me to come on Dakka and ask the question so I'm doing it for his benefit as I think I already know the answer.

So the question is, do Killa Kans or any other vehicle squadron get a 5+ cover save if less than half of them are under the KFF but at least one of the them is under it?

That rule seems pretty self explanatory to me: if one model in a unit is under the KFF, then they all count as being in the KFF. Squadrons are a unit, not unlike infantry squads, and consist of multiple models. So yes, he gets the 5+ save for KFF.

It's ork, don't bother trying to understand it. They think it works so it works.

-cgmckenzie

There is soime debate, as KFF is a bit loosely worded, but as far as one interpretation of RAW goes he's right.

Any unit within 6'' gets a 5+ cover save. This is quite clear in the wording. Vehicles count as obscured if within 6'', which means that any vehicle within 6'' (actually within 6'') is obscured.


The Kanz are a unit. They are also vehicles.

Any unit within 6'' gets a 5+ cover save, regardless of how many people are in the unit or where the others are placed, as log as one model is within 6''

Vehicles within 6'' are obscured. If each vehicle is not within 6'' they are not obscured (4+) save.

As the Kanz are both, and there is no either/or in the text, i'd say both apply.

There are other interpretations, and i'll not argue mine is only 'correct' one, but it does seem to be the one most other ork players and TO's support that i've talked to.

Sanguinis wrote:Our local rules guru at our FLGS came and said he was wrong and that a vehicle can only ever take a 4+ cover

What on earth was he basing that claim on?

So the question is, do Killa Kans or any other vehicle squadron get a 5+ cover save if less than half of them are under the KFF but at least one of the them is under it?

Yes, of course they do. They are a unit within range of the KFF, so they get the save.

First of all-your local rules guru is flatly incorrect. Vehicles-if they qualify for a cover save at all-get the same cover save that anything else would get from whatever is providing cover. There's been a lot of argument around here regarding how that works specifically with the KFF (more on that later), but the basic rule is very clear on that.

Regarding the KFF specifically, the most common interpretation is that since the Ork codex specifies that vehicles are obscured in a separate sentence from the cover save, the cover save for vehicles is not specified and defaults to 4+ (which is the default for wargear items that obscure vehicles without giving a value for the cover). Other people, me included, think you ought to use the 5+ for vehicles.

Further complicating things is the Blood Angel FAQ, which gives a cover save to vehicles in range of Shield of Sanguinus despite not specifying that SoS obscures vehicles. So psychic powers-and by extension wargear-that give cover saves to units apparently gives them to vehicles whether "obscured" is specified or not.

So we end up with the rather frankensteinish interpretation that vehicles within 6" of a KFF are obscured, therefor getting a 4+ cover save, AND vehicle units within 6" get the same 5+ any other unit would get.

Your mileage may vary. Your opponent probably should've had this discussion before the game started,

By RAW:
1 Kan within 6" of a KFF -> unit has a 5+ cover save, one Kan is obscured and thus gets 4+ cover -> majority of the unit has a 5+ cover save

2 Kanz within 6" of a KFF -> unit has a 5+ cover save, two Kanz are obscured and thus get 4+ cover -> majority of the unit has a 4+ cover save

3 Kanz within 6" of a KFF -> unit has a 5+ cover save, three Kanz are obscured and thus get 4+ cover -> majority of the unit has a 4+ cover save

By RAW the 5+ save can only be taken against wounds, not glancing hits, but flickerfields (Dark Eldar vehicle upgrade) and shield of sanguinus(BA power) are clear indications that vehicles can take any cover and invulnerable saves against glancing and penetrating hits.

Also the discussion on whether KFF is 4+ or 5+ for obscured vehicles should be non-existent, as Phil Kelly(the author of the codex) himself stated it as a 4+ save. See here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/268400.page

Jidmah wrote:Also the discussion on whether KFF is 4+ or 5+ for obscured vehicles should be non-existent, as Phil Kelly(the author of the codex) himself stated it as a 4+ save. See here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/268400.page

Yeah... but then, the guys who wrote the Daemon Hunters codex thought that you could take an Assassin in an allied army along with an Inquisitor, until it was pointed out to them on the (now defunct) GW forums that this was actually impossible...

Sometimes, they get it wrong. If it's not an actual rules publication, it doesn't count for a great deal.

Jidmah wrote:By RAW:
1 Kan within 6" of a KFF -> unit has a 5+ cover save, one Kan is obscured and thus gets 4+ cover -> majority of the unit has a 5+ cover save

2 Kanz within 6" of a KFF -> unit has a 5+ cover save, two Kanz are obscured and thus get 4+ cover -> majority of the unit has a 4+ cover save

3 Kanz within 6" of a KFF -> unit has a 5+ cover save, three Kanz are obscured and thus get 4+ cover -> majority of the unit has a 4+ cover save

By RAW the 5+ save can only be taken against wounds, not glancing hits, but flickerfields (Dark Eldar vehicle upgrade) and shield of sanguinus(BA power) are clear indications that vehicles can take any cover and invulnerable saves against glancing and penetrating hits.

Also the discussion on whether KFF is 4+ or 5+ for obscured vehicles should be non-existent, as Phil Kelly(the author of the codex) himself stated it as a 4+ save. See here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/268400.page

But then RAW Invulnerable Saves can only be taken against wounds, not glancing or penetrating hits, so theoretically, Flickerfields, Shield of Sanguinus and Bjorn the Fell Handed can never take a save!

Actually, Bjorn can.

Also note that you are repeating part of my post, without offering a solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, neither KFF nor Shield of Sanguinus are invulnerable saves.

Bjorn definitely CAN take an Inv save, as he has rules that let him do it.

All... there is ambiguity to this...

I've called/emailed 3 separate GT tourny organizer asking them how they rule the KFF +4/+5 query if one Kan is within the KFF mek. All three said only one Kan need to be within 6 inches for the whole squad to get the 4+ coversave.

So my point is really this... simply ask your opponent how you want to play this... and if you're going to a tourny, get it clarified with the TO beforehand.

I play Kanwall and it really doesn't matter all that much which way it's played. I just need to know which interpretation I should go so that I deploy/move accordingly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Bjorn definitely CAN take an Inv save, as he has rules that let him do it.

His rules say he can take an Invulnerable Save, yes. But the rules in the 40K Rulebook state that Invulnerable Saves are taken against Wounds. Since Wounds only happen to models with a Toughness value, never vehicles, theoretically it can never be taken.

Same goes for the Dark Eldar shield.

And you're right, sorry, Shield of Sanguinus is different.

the way I play the KFF with squadron, I need 50% of the squad to get the cover, otherwise I dotn ahve it since a vehicle needs to be 50% obscured to get a cover save.

Ordznik wrote:First of all-your local rules guru is flatly incorrect. Vehicles-if they qualify for a cover save at all-get the same cover save that anything else would get from whatever is providing cover. There's been a lot of argument around here regarding how that works specifically with the KFF (more on that later), but the basic rule is very clear on that.

Regarding the KFF specifically, the most common interpretation is that since the Ork codex specifies that vehicles are obscured in a separate sentence from the cover save, the cover save for vehicles is not specified and defaults to 4+ (which is the default for wargear items that obscure vehicles without giving a value for the cover). Other people, me included, think you ought to use the 5+ for vehicles.

Further complicating things is the Blood Angel FAQ, which gives a cover save to vehicles in range of Shield of Sanguinus despite not specifying that SoS obscures vehicles. So psychic powers-and by extension wargear-that give cover saves to units apparently gives them to vehicles whether "obscured" is specified or not.

So we end up with the rather frankensteinish interpretation that vehicles within 6" of a KFF are obscured, therefor getting a 4+ cover save, AND vehicle units within 6" get the same 5+ any other unit would get.

Your mileage may vary. Your opponent probably should've had this discussion before the game started,

From a white dwarf battle featuring Phil Kellys Orks.

Wanna try that one again?



How we play it, if 50% or more (so kans squadron is 2 covered if they are 3) they whole unit gets the 4+ cover save. If not 50% or more, then the whole unit gets 5+.

Sanguinis wrote:Okay so this came up in a game the other day and I pretty much already know the answer but my opponent wanted me to ask anyway.

I was playing an Ork player and he had 3 Killa Kans near his KFF, during his movement he happened to move them so that only 1 Kan was in KFF range. I fired at this Kan Squad with several Bright Lances from various tanks and pennetrated them about 4 times he then proceeded to roll a 5+ cover save instead of a 4+ cover save. When I asked him why he was rolling a 5+ save he said that even though half his Kans are not in KFF range they are a still a "unit" and therefore due to the KFF rules saying that, "Any unit with at least one model in KFF range may take a 5+ cover save." He may still take a 5+ cover save for the Kans because they are a "unit" and that if they aren't considered a "unit" then what are they.

Our local rules guru at our FLGS came and said he was wrong and that a vehicle can only ever take a 4+ cover and that since less than half the Kans were in KFF range that they didn't get the cover save PERIOD. I agreed with the guru and we continued to play it as is, however my opponent wanted me to come on Dakka and ask the question so I'm doing it for his benefit as I think I already know the answer.

So the question is, do Killa Kans or any other vehicle squadron get a 5+ cover save if less than half of them are under the KFF but at least one of the them is under it?

The "Vehicles can't take saves because saves only may be taken against wounds" argument was logical until other vehicles were ruled to benefit from "Saves", ie: Bjorn, Flickerfields (DE), Shield of Sanguinius, etc.

The Ork player was playing it right.

Your guru is lacking.

At bare minimum he still gets the 5+, depending on who you talk to he may even get the 4+. Most commonly its played as a 4+ at >=50%, and a 5+ at < 50%.

Fire your guru, outta Killa-Kannon.

KingCracker wrote:From a white dwarf battle featuring Phil Kellys Orks.

Wanna try that one again?

I already addressed that. It wouldn't be the first time someone at the studio got the rules wrong.


For what it's worth, I play it as a 5+ myself (on the basis that the 4+ is only for when no save is specified by whatever is providing it, and the KFF specifies a 5+ save) but would be more than happy to discuss it before the game if an opponent is particularly set against me insisting on the worse save for my own units...

Miraclefish wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Bjorn definitely CAN take an Inv save, as he has rules that let him do it.

His rules say he can take an Invulnerable Save, yes. But the rules in the 40K Rulebook state that Invulnerable Saves are taken against Wounds. Since Wounds only happen to models with a Toughness value, never vehicles, theoretically it can never be taken.

Same goes for the Dark Eldar shield.

And you're right, sorry, Shield of Sanguinus is different.

Reread p49./> It states he can take invulnerable save against glancing and penetrating hits, overriding the rulebook.

insaniak wrote:I already addressed that. It wouldn't be the first time someone at the studio got the rules wrong.

The very rules he wrote? More than unlikely.

Jidmah wrote:the very rules he wrote? More than unlikely.

Do I have to trot out the Codex: Daemon Hunters vs Codex: Assassins story again...?

GW generally screwing up is something else than the actual man writing the two sentences in question telling us what he meant by writing them, especially if his answer is one of two perfectly fine interpretations.

I don't think there is much point in arguing this, as I've found threads closed about it by you as old as two years, so I guess you're sick of it

Jidmah wrote:GW generally screwing up is something else than the actual man writing the two sentences in question telling us what he meant by writing them, especially if his answer is one of two perfectly fine interpretations.

The point of the Codex: Daemon Hunters anecdote is that the guys who wrote the codex thought that you could take Assassins in allied armies by including an Inquisitor. This was mentioned both on the GW boards and in the White Dwarf designer's notes. It wasn't until it was pointed out to them on the GW Games Development board that this wasn't actually possible that they realised that what they had written in the codex meant that the rules didn't actually work as they thought they did.

The games devs are human like the rest of us. They make mistakes... and sometimes, what winds up in the book doesn't mean what it was originally intended to mean.

Ok I can see both sides of the argument but let me clarify something, you all are attacking my guru (nothing wrong with that he's human and makes mistakes) but he was referring to the part in the rulebook, and I quote, "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."

Now you couple that line with this one, again I quote, "- use the rules for vehicles to determine if each squadron member is in cover (ignoring other members of the squadron, as if they were not there), and then the rules for normal units to work out if the entire squadron is in cover or not." This is referring to the fact that half a unit has to be in cover to gain the save. So by his logic and as it would seem RaW the KFF save does not apply even if 1 Kan is in range because the rulebook says vehicles only get a 4+ cover save from special wargear/items/abilities and that squadrons follow the same rules for non-vehicle units so since a vehicle can only ever have a 4+ cover save from special wargear/items/abilities and that the KFF says a 5+ cover save that it wouldn't apply unless half the models were under the KFF.

I would allow my opponent a cover save if he allocated a wound onto the Kan that was within KFF range because of the way they state the first line of the squadron rules (see above) but the other two Kans would get no save since the rulebook says half the unit must be under the cover to allow the unit to gain the cover save.

However, this still doesn't answer the question of how the 5+ works because the Kans are still a unit but because of the first line of the squadron rules I would be tempted to say either the Kan under the KFF gets a 4+ or 5+ but not the whole unit.

Anyway just my $0.02.

Insaniak I'm curious as to the whole Inquisitor allowing an allied army to take an Assassin debacle. I don't want to go off topic or bring up a moot argument for an out of date Codex I'm just curious where the foulup in the writing is I'm looking at my Daemonhunter Codex (yes I still own one) and I can't see anything wrong. I'm just interested if you don't mind explaining. (I won't argue I promise )

Sanguinis wrote:This is referring to the fact that half a unit has to be in cover to gain the save.

This is true for the normal cover rules. The KFF over-rides this, by conferring the cover save on the unit if a single member is in range of the KFF.

...so since a vehicle can only ever have a 4+ cover save from special wargear/items/abilities...

Not sure where you're getting that from. The rule actually says that it gains a 4+ where no other save is specified, not that they only ever have a 4+ save.

So the argument is that they get the 5+ save by the unit being within range of the KFF, and they gain the 4+ if more than half the unit is within 6", as that means that more than half the unit is obscured (which by this argument means a 4+ save).

I don't personally agree with this argument, as I've said before (the KFF specifies a save, so you use that instead of the default 4+, and I'm extremely doubtful that they would have intended for the save to change in value depending on how much of the unit is in range) but I do see the logic of it.

Insaniak I'm curious as to the whole Inquisitor allowing an allied army to take an Assassin debacle. I don't want to go off topic or bring up a moot argument for an out of date Codex I'm just curious where the foulup in the writing is I'm looking at my Daemonhunter Codex (yes I still own one) and I can't see anything wrong. I'm just interested if you don't mind explaining. (I won't argue I promise )

The issue is simply that if you take DH allies in another army, you can only take 1 Elite unit from Codex: DH. So you needed an Inquisitor Lord and his retinue in order to take the Assassin... It was impossible to take an Assassin and a regular Inqsuitor, as they were both Elite choices.

The real problem is we don't have an example of "Is obscured with a 3+ save". Which really would remove any doubt that it's indeed the save gain from being considered obscured that needs to be specified, not just some number at some arbitrary point in the rules, 'counting-as' specification

insaniak wrote:

KingCracker wrote:From a white dwarf battle featuring Phil Kellys Orks.

Wanna try that one again?

I already addressed that. It wouldn't be the first time someone at the studio got the rules wrong.


For what it's worth, I play it as a 5+ myself (on the basis that the 4+ is only for when no save is specified by whatever is providing it, and the KFF specifies a 5+ save) but would be more than happy to discuss it before the game if an opponent is particularly set against me insisting on the worse save for my own units...

No that just proves that even if your proven wrong in black and white, by the guy that wrote the rules, you still cant admit you were wrong, and so pull out the "well this one time a white dwarf was typed wrong therefor Im right" You are playing it wrong weather you personally play the rule that way or not. Your also dismissing that nice little period in the rules and putting 2 sentences into 1.


BUT if you want FURTHER proof that GW just keep making the same mistake over and over. I guess Ill just leave this here then

KingCracker wrote:No that just proves that even if your proven wrong in black and white, by the guy that wrote the rules, you still cant admit you were wrong, and so pull out the "well this one time a white dwarf was typed wrong therefor Im right" You are playing it wrong weather you personally play the rule that way or not. Your also dismissing that nice little period in the rules and putting 2 sentences into 1.

I suspect that you have rather misinterpreted my point of view on this.

Yes, I think that what GW have said previously about the KFF is wrong. I think that because it doesn't match how I read the rule in question, and because those statements from White Dwarf have not actually made it into the FAQ, which is what would make them actual rules.

I'm perfectly happy to accept that my interpretation of the rule may not be what was intended by the guy who wrote the codex. But what the guy who wrote the codex intended means very little when it differs from the actual rules, unless those rules don't actually work as a result of the way they are written and intention is required to devine how they are supposed to function.

So in this case, because the rules differ from that stated intention, and because playing it as supposedly intended is needlessly confusing, I choose to play by my own interpretation... which benefits my opponents far more than me personally, since in all of my 5th edition games featuring a KFF to date, I've been the one using the Orks.

And your still ignoring the proof I posted. It doesnt matter if your nerfing yourself (congrats on doing that btw, usually people nerf in the other direction) or not, youve been playing it wrong. Obviously your a very generous player (I too wouldnt field deffrollas until they actually FAQ'ed it simply because I didnt want to play them incorrectly) theres 2 forms of proof for ya. They are granted a 4+ off the bat.

Now the argument on how does a squadron play it however, they havnt touched that at all. Im in the more the 50% they get 4+ less then they get 5+ crowd

Jidmah wrote:By RAW:
1 Kan within 6" of a KFF -> unit has a 5+ cover save, one Kan is obscured and thus gets 4+ cover -> majority of the unit has a 5+ cover save

2 Kanz within 6" of a KFF -> unit has a 5+ cover save, two Kanz are obscured and thus get 4+ cover -> majority of the unit has a 4+ cover save

3 Kanz within 6" of a KFF -> unit has a 5+ cover save, three Kanz are obscured and thus get 4+ cover -> majority of the unit has a 4+ cover save

By RAW the 5+ save can only be taken against wounds, not glancing hits, but flickerfields (Dark Eldar vehicle upgrade) and shield of sanguinus(BA power) are clear indications that vehicles can take any cover and invulnerable saves against glancing and penetrating hits.

This is correct.

- KFF rules specify that only one member of the unit has to be within 6" to grant the 5+ cover save. Squadrons are units.
- KFF rules specify that any vehicles within 6" are obscured (4+ cover save).
- Vehicles can have a 5+ and a 4+ cover save; the best save (4+) applies.
- It's well supported in codexes and FAQs that cover and invulnerable saves apply to glancing and penetrating hits against vehicles

KingCracker wrote:And your still ignoring the proof I posted.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying that it doesn't match what the rules actually say.

If the White Dwarf article describing the changes introduced with 5th edition had stated that bolters fire two shots at 13", that wouldn't mean that bolters actually get two shots at 13"... it would mean that whoever write the WD article made a mistake, because the actual rules very clearly say something different. If they subsequently issued an errata to give them that range increase, then it would affect the rules.