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.

Hello,

The question is actually straight forward : does the KFF provide a 4+ or 5+ cover save for vehicules ?

The BBB reads that :

page 62 wrote: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.

The thing is that in the Ork Codex the below-mentioned sentance is not totally clear for me :

page 34 of the Ork Codex wrote:A KFF gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicules within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.

Vs

BBB page 3 wrote:A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous alien creature or a lone hero. In the rules that follow, all of these things are referred to as ‘units’.

So, since according to the BBB, a tank is also a unit, the first part of the above-quoted KFF rule would suggest that the vehicule would get a 5+ cover save just like other troops now. That being said, the second part of the KFF rule about being obscured can create some confusion...

Wilme

*Scratches head, then kicks a grot* good question, hard, i would, if faced and by opponent asked, i would give him the 4+ cover save even though the kkf only gives a 5+ [hell, remember only the orks know how that stuff works, well sorta] ^^

While it is written badly, it says the unit of vehicles get a 5+ cover save, and count as obscured.
Obscured vehicles get a 4+ cover save.
I suppose you can choose which save to take ...

I believe Phil Kelly forgot that vehicles are units when he wrote the rule.

He also forgot that vehicles are models when he wrote the 6, 6 restult for the Shokk Attack Gun.

Sorry about reviving this but the question came up agian and I was wondering if Webbe oppinion here is correct? Does the Vehicle get the 4+?

Yes. 4+ because it's obscured. I'm sure that vehicles don't get a cover save, just an obscurity save.

Ok thanks just checking.

Yes, it is 4+. This has been dealt with about 9001 times in the time since this thread was posted. The search will help ya know

This was the first one on the list so I thought it was the last post listed. Sorry

No problem, just make sure to check the date of any threads you come across

BlackSpike wrote:While it is written badly, it says the unit of vehicles get a 5+ cover save, and count as obscured.
Obscured vehicles get a 4+ cover save.
I suppose you can choose which save to take ...

While KFF-protected vehicles do get a 4+ cover save, it is not for the above reason. Obscured grants the same cover save that an infantry unit would gain from the obscuring terrain. While this is 4+ almost all of the time, a vehicle obscured by tall grass would only have a 6+ cover save.

Webbe wrote:I believe Phil Kelly forgot that vehicles are units when he wrote the rule.

He also forgot that vehicles are models when he wrote the 6, 6 restult for the Shokk Attack Gun.

This is the reason that the KFF gives a 4+ cover save. In this and other rules worded like it, the piece of wargear has different, and mutually exclusive benefits or effects for vehicle and non-vehicle units. No, it doesn't make sense from an English-language perspective, but that's how it is.

No, "obscured" [i]when conferred by an ability[/b] confers a 4+ cover save; it is why smoke launchers give a 4+

They could have said "obscured with a 5+"and it would have been a 5+.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, "obscured" [i]when conferred by an ability[/b] confers a 4+ cover save; it is why smoke launchers give a 4+

They could have said "obscured with a 5+"and it would have been a 5+.

nos has it spot on its acts like smoke launchers for ork stuff kans trucks etc even stompers!!!!!..

p.s.
stompers with a cover save is truly sick, my buddy uses kan mobs with a big mech in the middle and a stompa just for giggles

god it took some getting rid of but it went down !!!

only bloody just but down it went



.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, "obscured" when conferred by an ability confers a 4+ cover save; it is why smoke launchers give a 4+

They could have said "obscured with a 5+"and it would have been a 5+.

Obscured when granted by a piece of wargear, when it does not otherwise specify, grants 4+. I think that there is a solid argument that since KFFs specify that they give a 5+ save to "units" within range, so that it actually does specify that it gives a 5+ obscurement save, but the fact of the matter is that it is supposed to have a different effect on vehicles than other units, despite the poor wording of the codex.

willydstyle wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, "obscured" when conferred by an ability confers a 4+ cover save; it is why smoke launchers give a 4+

They could have said "obscured with a 5+"and it would have been a 5+.

Obscured when granted by a piece of wargear, when it does not otherwise specify, grants 4+. I think that there is a solid argument that since KFFs specify that they give a 5+ save to "units" within range, so that it actually does specify that it gives a 5+ obscurement save, but the fact of the matter is that it is supposed to have a different effect on vehicles than other units, despite the poor wording of the codex.

I am afraid that you are wrong.
If we look at the KFF rule, it says:

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

Notice the Period between the two clauses, which means they are seperate statements and are not linked in any way.
Therefore, when the KFF is affecting a vehicle we have two rules in effect:

A KFF gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+.

All well and good. A vehicle is a Unit, so it has a 5+ Cover save.

Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.

Again, all well and good. As it does not specify a save, it is treated as a 4+.

Therefore, any vehicle affected by a KFF has both a 5+ cover save and a 4+ cover save, but since you must always use the best save available, the 5+ Cover save becomes a moot point.

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, "obscured" when conferred by an ability confers a 4+ cover save; it is why smoke launchers give a 4+

They could have said "obscured with a 5+"and it would have been a 5+.

Obscured when granted by a piece of wargear, when it does not otherwise specify, grants 4+. I think that there is a solid argument that since KFFs specify that they give a 5+ save to "units" within range, so that it actually does specify that it gives a 5+ obscurement save, but the fact of the matter is that it is supposed to have a different effect on vehicles than other units, despite the poor wording of the codex.

I am afraid that you are wrong.
If we look at the KFF rule, it says:

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

Notice the Period between the two clauses, which means they are seperate statements and are not linked in any way.
Therefore, when the KFF is affecting a vehicle we have two rules in effect:

A KFF gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+.

All well and good. A vehicle is a Unit, so it has a 5+ Cover save.

Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.

Again, all well and good. As it does not specify a save, it is treated as a 4+.

Therefore, any vehicle affected by a KFF has both a 5+ cover save and a 4+ cover save, but since you must always use the best save available, the 5+ Cover save becomes a moot point.

So a double-six on the Shokk Attack Gun both automatically penetrates and removes a vehicle from the table. Same wording, two different pieces of wargear.

willydstyle wrote:So a double-six on the Shokk Attack Gun both automatically penetrates and removes a vehicle from the table. Same wording, two different pieces of wargear.

Applying RaW, yes, it should. However the RaI (as evidenced by a separate Clause for the Vehicles) suggests that is not the case.

But OK, lets go it that way, that each effect is independent and the first one does not affect vehicles at all (since that IS what you are saying is the case for the SAK right?). It still gets a 4+ because the save is not specified in the second clause.

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:So a double-six on the Shokk Attack Gun both automatically penetrates and removes a vehicle from the table. Same wording, two different pieces of wargear.

Applying RaW, yes, it should. However the RaI (as evidenced by a separate Clause for the Vehicles) suggests that is not the case.

But OK, lets go it that way. That each effect is independent and the first one does not affect vehicles at all. It still gets a 4+ because the save is not specified.

And I agree with that interpretation, which you'd have noticed if you'd read my post fully earlier

willydstyle wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:So a double-six on the Shokk Attack Gun both automatically penetrates and removes a vehicle from the table. Same wording, two different pieces of wargear.

Applying RaW, yes, it should. However the RaI (as evidenced by a separate Clause for the Vehicles) suggests that is not the case.

But OK, lets go it that way. That each effect is independent and the first one does not affect vehicles at all. It still gets a 4+ because the save is not specified.

And I agree with that interpretation, which you'd have noticed if you'd read my post fully earlier

Blah Blah Blah Details!

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:So a double-six on the Shokk Attack Gun both automatically penetrates and removes a vehicle from the table. Same wording, two different pieces of wargear.

Applying RaW, yes, it should. However the RaI (as evidenced by a separate Clause for the Vehicles) suggests that is not the case.

But OK, lets go it that way. That each effect is independent and the first one does not affect vehicles at all. It still gets a 4+ because the save is not specified.

And I agree with that interpretation, which you'd have noticed if you'd read my post fully earlier

Blah Blah Blah Details!

I know you just like to argue, and I accept you for who you are

Imagine a squadron with one vehicle within 6" and 2 that aren't, the vehicle inside 6" gets obscurement bonus, the other 2 gain the KFF cover save because they have one model of their unit standing within 6" of the KFF.
About the SAG 6,6 result: Removing the vehicle without aplying a pen hit would deny the passengers their chance to disembark.
The additional pen hit is effectively a drawback of the weapon.

Wording seems pretty straight forward.

units - 5+
vehicles - 4+ (obscured)

it says units gain a 5+ and vehicles are classed as obscured targets.
if they are treated as obscured targets then they would follow such rules.