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.

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.

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.

Consecutive sentences in the same paragraph do not need a conjunction to be referring to the same idea. Paragraphs exist to connect related sentences.

Im pretty sure it would have to read like this to grant a 5+ not a 4+

"Units within 6 inches are given a 5+ cover save. Vehicles are granted a 5+ obscured save"

But since it says units receive a 5+ cover save PERIOD Vehicles are granted obscured, the obscured isnt specified at all. Therefor, according to the rules, its unspecified and it defaults to a 4+

KingCracker wrote:Im pretty sure it would have to read like this to grant a 5+ not a 4+

"Units within 6 inches are given a 5+ cover save. Vehicles are granted a 5+ obscured save"

But since it says units receive a 5+ cover save PERIOD Vehicles are granted obscured, the obscured isnt specified at all. Therefor, according to the rules, its unspecified and it defaults to a 4+

An obscured save? I can't seem to find that in the rulebook, all i can find is that beiing obscured grants you a cover save, and that cover save is dependent on the type of cover obscuring you (which in the majority of cases is 4+) But, the KFF does say all units recieve a 5+ cover save, arn't vehicles units to?

DR - yes, yes, we've seen your posts before.

It does not alter that no save is specified for the wargear specifically for the "obscured" part.

Look back over the last 3 years on this forum, noone will ever agree that RAW is one way or the other - but luckily we have, for once, clear RAI