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.

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.