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 don't see why it should give a better save to vehicles than infantry, but there you go.

This being said, I do like the "4+ cover, 5+ invulnerable" suggestion that was made a few pages ago. That works for me and it is probably how I would play it.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:I don't see why it should give a better save to vehicles than infantry, but there you go.

This being said, I do like the "4+ cover, 5+ invulnerable" suggestion that was made a few pages ago. That works for me and it is probably how I would play it.

DoW

You started off good... as it would be pretty weird for vehicles to get a different better save than infantry. But frankly, the Invul save was quite possibly the worst statement/suggestion/interpretation that's been made so far. Including Nosferatu's posts. By no manner could you possibly read that the 5+ cover save granted by the KFF would be invul... nor could you possibly read that obscured, which gives cover saves, would give a invul save.

If you are saying that you want to house rule it that way... by all means... but I hope you aren't saying that's what you think the RAW are.

Lt Lathrop wrote:But frankly, the Invul save was quite possibly the worst statement/suggestion/interpretation that's been made so far. Including Nosferatu's posts.

Was that really necessary? Given that my posts were exactly following what GW specifically told us the save given by KFF is. RAW and RAI agree with me, as does the majority of posters and players (certainly in UK GT)

My posts were a lot better thought out than yours, where you tried to pretend I hadn't posted the rules...and I then proceeded to reduce your argumentt o what it was: I don't think it should work. The weakest argument possible.

I'd suggest laying off the personal attacks.

I think we're about done here. Nobody appears to be adding anything useful, so I'm going to lock the thread before it spirals any further.