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.

So, A tau player hits a unit of Kanz, covered by a Kff, with networked marker lights, and decides to reduce the cover on the roll. This he can do because the obscured target rule counts as a cover save. The question is, do the kanz get a 5+ invuln save, because they "follow the rules for normal units"?

Elnicko5 wrote:So, A tau player hits a unit of Kanz, covered by a Kff, with networked marker lights, and decides to reduce the cover on the roll. This he can do because the obscured target rule counts as a cover save. The question is, do the kanz get a 5+ invuln save, because they "follow the rules for normal units"?

Invulnerable saves are only available to be made against wounds suffered. Vehicles do not suffer wounds and therefore cannot benefit from an invulnerable save unless explicitly instructed (and with some instruction on how that would work).

The same would be true of cover saves except that there are rules for vehicles getting cover saves, so they can.

But armor and invulnerable saves are still just in the realm of stopping wounds, which vehicles do not suffer.

Where did the invulnerable save come from in the first place? KFF grants cover saves to units and makes vehicles count as obscured.

In both cases the Kans have been given a cover save: 5+ from the first part, and 4+ from the second.

As both are from the same source, the KFF, you would reduce both saves at the same time. So if you reduce the save by 2, the 5+ disappears and you get a 6+

nosferatu1001 wrote:In both cases the Kans have been given a cover save: 5+ from the first part, and 4+ from the second.

Small detail, they don't always gain both.
Imagine a squadron of 3 with a only a single Kan within KFF range.
The straight up cover save described by the KFF is given to the unit because they have at least one model within kff range.
While gaining obscurement requires the vehicle itself to be in range.

But both cases result in a cover save so the markerlights can do their thing with it anyway.

In that case none of the Kans would get the cover save because 50% of the squadron has to be obscured.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:In that case none of the Kans would get the cover save because 50% of the squadron has to be obscured.

This is the correct interpretation.

At the top of the "Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets" section on page 62 it says "Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry."

Farther down the page it says "if the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating it, it may take a cover save against it."

So, vehicles only gain a cover save from being "obscured." So a squadron of kans has to have half or more of the squdron within 6" of the KFF in order for the squadron to gain the cover save, but as the codex does not specify the obscurement save, it is 4+ (obscurement does not always =4+ by the way).

last attempt to show that KFF has 2 distinct parts
1. The first part works on unit level and afaik and a squadron of vehicles is a unit.
2. The second part gives an obscurement cover save to vehicles within range, but when used with sqadrons the 50% rule kicks in to see if the whole squadron counts as obscured or not.

The second part doesn't tell you to ignore the first part, rulewise you don't have a reason/legitimation to ignore it.
In practice however it's often ignored since most people don't waste their opponent's attention with unnecessary data like saying "these have a 5+ on top of a 4+"

nostromo wrote:last attempt to show that KFF has 2 distinct parts
1. The first part works on unit level and afaik and a squadron of vehicles is a unit.
2. The second part gives an obscurement cover save to vehicles within range, but when used with sqadrons the 50% rule kicks in to see if the whole squadron counts as obscured or not.

The second part doesn't tell you to ignore the first part, rulewise you don't have a reason/legitimation to ignore it.
In practice however it's often ignored since most people don't waste their opponent's attention with unnecessary data like saying "these have a 5+ on top of a 4+"

In my previous post I showed the very specific rules sections that say that the KFF only gives the "obscurement" save to vehicles. The second part doesn't tell you to ignore the first part, but the rules on obscurement do tell you to ignore the first part.

Except that cover for vehicle squadrons is worked out in the same way as for infantry units - work out if each component (model, vehicle, whatever) is in cover and determine if this is 50% or more of the squad.

KFF gives units within 6" a 5+ cover save. Squadrons are units of vehicles and therefore gain a 5+ cover save.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that cover for vehicle squadrons is worked out in the same way as for infantry units - work out if each component (model, vehicle, whatever) is in cover and determine if this is 50% or more of the squad.

KFF gives units within 6" a 5+ cover save. Squadrons are units of vehicles and therefore gain a 5+ cover save.

You're not quoting the full rule for vehicle squadrons.

First, you determine if each vehicle meets the criteria for being obscured, then you apply the rules for "normal units" to see if the vehicle squadron has cover. So unless half or more of the squadron is obscured (by the rules for vehicles and cover) then the unit does not have a cover save.

"obscured" give s a cover save, therefore vehicles can benefit from them

Vehicles are units and therefore receive a 5+ from the KFF.

Squadrons are units of vehicles and therefore only one vehicle needs to be in range for the unit to receive a 5+ cover save.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"obscured" give s a cover save, therefore vehicles can benefit from them

Vehicles are units and therefore receive a 5+ from the KFF.

Squadrons are units of vehicles and therefore only one vehicle needs to be in range for the unit to receive a 5+ cover save.

You honestly ignored everything I posted, most of which was quoted or paraphrased directly from the rule book.

I'll repeat the first sentence from the Vehicles and Cover section for you, because it alone contradicts your argument:

"Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry."

Except vehicles gain a cover save, and can use it. They just don['t qualify for cover in the same way as infantry - the first line OUT OF CONTEXT doesnt mean anything.

So - they dont benefit from cover in the same way - not cover SAVES but cover - you know, the thing that KFF DOESNT grant you. KFF grants cover saves to units, it does not grant cover.

Further down it states "the vehicle if obscured....cover save" - at no point does this state that the only way for a vehicle to recieve a cover save is to be obscured.

So you are told the way they work out cover is different, and then defines how "obscured" works. Nothing in this states that the only way to receive a cover save is through obscured.

I didnt ignore your points, i was showing how they dont apply as strictly as you think. You see the first line as being exclusionary, which it cannot be as it i not specirfic enough. To do what you say the line would have to be:

"Vehicles do not obtain cover saves in the same way as infantry" meaning that obscured would be the only way to get cover.

I repeat - KFF gives a 5+ cover save to units, therefore this includes vehicles.

Except that 40k generally uses a ruleset which tells you what you can do, so what it doesn't tell you what can do, then you can't do it.

Therefore, when it tells you that vehicles gain a cover save from being obscured, that is by default the only way they can gain a cover save.

Except that you need something that tells you cover SAVES are different for vehicles.

It states COVER is different not COVER SAVES - so obscured says how you get cov er saves from cover. It says nothing to exclude obtaining cover saves in any other way.

KFF grants units a 5+ cover save, therefore you now need to find something that specifically overrides this.

Ever feel like you're on a merry-go-round? The obscured targets section describes how vehicles get cover saves. Nowhere else in the book does it say that vehicles may get cover saves in a different way, so it is the only way.

Yes, you are on the merry go round.

The KFF special rule states UNITS get a cover save of 5+. Please show me in the BRB something that overrides the specific KFF rule about units getting cover save of 5+

Specific > general. You are told that the uniot gets a cover save, the vehicle is a unit, the vehicle gets a cover save

In addition: the vehicles section only defines that cover is worked out differently: it does not say that cover saves are.

edited for typographical tricks.

The Ork Dex (Codex>BGB) says that ALL units (Vehicles are units,too) get the 5+ cover save from the KFF. It then goes on to say that vehicles are obscured. This means that since vehicles are units, they get both the 5+ and Obscured, taking the best available.

For vehicles to only get obcurement from the KFF, the Ork dex would have to say that "all units except vehicles get a 5+ cover save", which it does not.

Strictly by the RAW of the Ork dex, vehicles get both the 5+ and obscurement.

Is it poorly written? Yes.
Is it RAI? Probably not.
Is it legal by RAW? Defintely yes, based on the wording of the Ork dex.

(does) It matter? Not a jot, as you must always take the best save. OK, there may be a future weapon that specifically removes vehicles "obscured" status, but who knows....

Actaully it does matter.

A squadron would need to have 1/2 their squadron or greater within the KFF to get the 4+, because of obscurement rules. However, they only need one member of the squadron within the KFF to ge the 5+.

This means that it matters greatly to squadrons of Kans.

Willydstyle: You are IMO clearly wrong on this subject. Having a cover save is not the same as being in cover.

I can not say if the author meant for vehicles to get both a 5+ cover save and a 4+ cover save in the current ruleset (remember that the codex was written for 4th edition when vehicles couldn't get cover saves at all) but RAW it is quite clear. Vehicles get both a 5+ and a 4+ cover save (but as always you can only use one save).

For squadrons of three this means if only one vehicle is within the range of the KFF the whole squadron get a 5+ save (for being a unit) and if two or three are within range they get a 4+ save (for half or more of the squadron being obscured)..

True, i just got thinking abo0ut single models again....

Seriously - there were about 19E10 threads about "is it 5+ or 4+??" when the codex came out, yet app somebody missed them all....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except vehicles gain a cover save, and can use it. They just don['t qualify for cover in the same way as infantry - the first line OUT OF CONTEXT doesnt mean anything.

So - they dont benefit from cover in the same way - not cover SAVES but cover - you know, the thing that KFF DOESNT grant you. KFF grants cover saves to units, it does not grant cover.

Further down it states "the vehicle if obscured....cover save" - at no point does this state that the only way for a vehicle to recieve a cover save is to be obscured.

So you are told the way they work out cover is different, and then defines how "obscured" works. Nothing in this states that the only way to receive a cover save is through obscured.

I didn't ignore your points, i was showing how they don't apply as strictly as you think. You see the first line as being exclusionary, which it cannot be as it i not specific enough. To do what you say the line would have to be:

"Vehicles do not obtain cover saves in the same way as infantry" meaning that obscured would be the only way to get cover.

I repeat - KFF gives a 5+ cover save to units, therefore this includes vehicles.

i tend to agree with this point it seems not to matter HOW you get the save ,it is what it is ,and as the first question involved reducing said save to almost nothing anyway it seems almost irrelovent anyway
this problem would never come into being if gw actually invested in the ability to form a logical and coherent sentence in ENGLISH instead of gibberish !!! lol
5+
4+
i would just say to hell with it and roll a dice to decide , but i just couldn't be arsed with an argument in a game

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, you are on the merry go round.

The KFF special f***** rule states UNITS get a cover save of 5+. Please show me in the BRB something that overrides the specific KFF rule about units getting cover save of 5+

Specific > general. You are told that the uniot gets a cover save, the vehicle is a unit, the vehicle gets a cover save

In addition: the vehicles section only defines that cover is worked out differently: it does not say that cover saves are.

Mod:

Please don't try to evade the swear filter by typographical tricks.

Frequent occurrences will be counted as swearing and lead to warnings and so on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As both are from the same source, the KFF, you would reduce both saves at the same time. So if you reduce the save by 2, the 5+ disappears and you get a 6+

It's even simpler, isn't it? A markerlight isn't used against coversaves, it's used against units. Any coversave the unit has will be reduced. Have a KFF, stand in 5+ bushes behind a 4+ wall, it doesn't matter.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Mod:

Please don't try to evade the swear filter by typographical tricks.

Frequent occurrences will be counted as swearing and lead to warnings and so on.

Apologies, this wasnt supposed to be a cleaver trick, just a non swearing vent of mild frustration. I'll edit the post.