Switch Theme:

KFF rules argument!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Burtucky, Michigan

Ok my understanding is that the KFF gives vehicles a 4+ cover save, as it states in the rule book about wargear and special rules granting an obscured vehicle said cover save. Now Ive made this point clear a few times, and the argument is still going. And so I guess I need better rules lawyering then I have lol. Heres part of an email from the incredibly long argument. Whos right? And if I am right, how can I better argue this?

I knew you would try and throw that quote out there, but your understanding is flawed. Your peice of wargear does specify that it gives a 5+ cover save. When your codex was written vehicle obscured simply meant penetrating hits count as glancing hits, but in the current rules the cover save granted has to be the same as the cover save granted to infantry, which according to your codex is 5+. The example you quoted refers to wargear like smoke launchers which in the older codexes simply state that the vehicle is obscurred without any mention of a cover save in the explaination of the wargear.
   
Made in us
Committed Chaos Cult Marine






Vehicles get both. The KFF grants a 5+ cover save to all units in range and grants vehicles in range "Obscured". Since the obscured save is not specified, it's a 4+.

Check out my blog at:http://ironchaosbrute.blogspot.com.

Vivano crudelis exitus.

Da Boss wrote:No no, Richard Dawkins arresting the Pope is inherently hilarious. It could only be funnier if when it happens, His Holiness exclaims "Rats, it's the Fuzz! Let's cheese it!" and a high speed Popemobile chase ensues.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Burtucky, Michigan

Thats what Ive been saying the whole time. But as you read what was in the email, apparently thats not enough to prove it lol
   
Made in us
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon






KingCracker wrote:Thats what Ive been saying the whole time. But as you read what was in the email, apparently thats not enough to prove it lol

The KFF grants an unspecified obscured bonus. The only save specified is for units within 6".

'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 kff simply grants obscured status to vehicles. It doesn't specify the save the obscured gives, only a value for the cover save given to nearby units. It would have to specifically specify the value for it to be anything other than 4+ (unlike using the save normally given by terrain or models obscuring the vehicle as your opponent argues, as the kff is a piece of wargear and follows the above caveat).

If he still wants to argue that it's specified, hand him the GW 5th ed prep sheet which gave it as 4+.
Google '40kposmajorchangesflyer_1_1.pdf'

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2009/12/01 23:04:46


 
   
Made in se
Regular Dakkanaut






Nothing says that it has to be the same save as for infantry. Had it specified that it was 5+ for all units, that's one thing, but it specifically says vehicles count as being obscured.

You're spot on regarding the vehicle obscured by wargear rule.

If your opponent refuses to let you adopt an old codex for the current edition, and there is no codex available for the current edition, I'd tell him that you'll only play against him if he finds himself a codex of the same edition yours is from and you both use the rules for that edition, instead of the current one. Problem solved.

So yeah, if he wants you to use rules for the old edition for your units, tell him you'll play the old edition instead then. Fair's fair.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

We had a multi-page thread on this not so long ago, with opinions being pretty well divided.

I'm still going with a 5+ for vehicles. The Obscured rules say that the cover save is 4+ unless otherwise specified by the wargear granting the save... and the wargear in question specifies a 5+ cover save.


Johnno wrote:If your opponent refuses to let you adopt an old codex for the current edition, and there is no codex available for the current edition, I'd tell him that you'll only play against him if he finds himself a codex of the same edition yours is from and you both use the rules for that edition, instead of the current one. Problem solved.


The Ork codex was actually written to be forwards compatible with 5th edition (as stated on release by the designers, who mentioned that there were a couple of rules in there that might look a little wierd under 4th ed, because they were written with 5th ed in mind).

So it's not a matter of adopting an older codex so much as looking at the way a given rule has changed between editions. 'Obscured' is no longer a separate effect, as it was when the codex was written... it simply allows a vehicle to take a cover save.

The KFF rule was (IMO) very carefully written to work wih both 4th and 5th edition Obscured Target rules by specifying the cover save in a separate sentence.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Burtucky, Michigan

See I dont agree with the 5+ simply because, if it had the same cover save, why would they include the "vehicles counts as obscured"
In my mind, just saying "units get a 5+ cover save" would of been enough, simply because the word "units" is for everything.



But now that I write it out that way, everything makes sense. Insaniack,you convinced me I was in the wrong. That crazy cat avatar and you deserve some type of hug lol
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Feasting on the souls of unworthy opponents

I've got to go with a 4+ save here.

The wargear in question specifies a 5+ cover save to INFANTRY units within six inches. If the developers wanted all units, infantry and otherwise to get a 5+ cover save, then they would not have specifically called out vehicles in the ork KFF entry and noted that it gets a different kind of save; an obscured one.

I didn't play in 4th edition, and I don't care what 4th edition rules were, or 3rd edition, or older editions - arguments based on rules that do not exist have no merit with me. KingCracker, the BRB explicitly defines what obscured means. The ork codex tells you to give vehicles that obscured save. If you have an opponent trying to make up their own rules about what it means, gently remind them that while they're welcome to have a chat with GW about their personal grievances with how the rules are written, you, me, and everyone else still needs to follow them to be playing the same game.

And in this case, the wargear tells you "Give infantry a 5+ cover save." Then its kind enough to go on and basically say, "Do not apply this 5+ cover save rule to vehicles. Instead, give them a different cover save; use the rule for "obscured."


   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

KingCracker wrote:See I dont agree with the 5+ simply because, if it had the same cover save, why would they include the "vehicles counts as obscured"
In my mind, just saying "units get a 5+ cover save" would of been enough, simply because the word "units" is for everything.


That wouldn't work, for two reasons:
- In 4th edition when the codex was written, vehicles didn't get a cover save at all. Obscured instead let them downgrade Pens to Glances. So vehicles would have received no benefit from the KFF.

- In 5th edition, vehicles can only take a cover save if they are obscured. So a rule granting them a cover save without actually also counting them as obscured would do nothing. The rule has to say that they are obscured in order for them to receive any benefit from it.


Dashofpepper wrote:If the developers wanted all units, infantry and otherwise to get a 5+ cover save, then they would not have specifically called out vehicles in the ork KFF entry and noted that it gets a different kind of save; an obscured one.


Sorry, but the rule does nothing of the sort. There is no such thing as an 'obscured save'. The Obscured Target rule simply allows a vehicle to take a cover save.

The KFF rule specifies that units within 6" get a cover save of 5+. It then states that vehicles in range count as obscured... which allows them to take that cover save.

The KFF entry does not state that infantry get the save. It refers to 'units' ... not 'infantry'

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Burtucky, Michigan

And now that Ive seen the error in my thinking I agree with Insaniac.
It says "units" not anything else. If the KFF part in the codex said it this way "All units with in 6 inches of the KFF are granted a 5+ cover save" There would be nor argument at all. Because we all konw and understand that "units" count for everything we play with. The part that trumped me previously was the vehicles being obscured part. That threw me and naturally got me thinking it was a 4+ as the BRB says it does.
But the only reason it brings up "vehicles" is so you understand WHY they are getting a cover save in the open. I think it would of been smarter just writting it as "units" instead of bringing up the vehicles part.

So yea in short, definetly a 5+ on units
   
Made in us
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon






Dashofpepper wrote:
The wargear in question specifies a 5+ cover save to INFANTRY units within six inches.

And in this case, the wargear tells you "Give infantry a 5+ cover save."

It doesn't specify infantry anywhere.
KingCracker wrote:
And now that Ive seen the error in my thinking I agree with Insaniac.
It says "units" not anything else. If the KFF part in the codex said it this way "All units with in 6 inches of the KFF are granted a 5+ cover save" There would be nor argument at all. Because we all konw and understand that "units" count for everything we play with. The part that trumped me previously was the vehicles being obscured part. That threw me and naturally got me thinking it was a 4+ as the BRB says it does.
But the only reason it brings up "vehicles" is so you understand WHY they are getting a cover save in the open. I think it would of been smarter just writting it as "units" instead of bringing up the vehicles part.

So yea in short, definetly a 5+ on units

Units, sure. But the obscured status granted by the kff to vehicles does not have an associated specific save, which it would need to have under the obscuring wargear caveat to be non-4+. Wargear specifically doesn't just use the normal general cover value given for obscuring, like terrain or models would.

Arguing how the rule could be better written for either side is pointless, the codex was written last edition anyway.
I'll again point to the 5th ed prep sheet as RAI for 4+, though it's hardly a hardline official ruling.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/12/02 00:45:07


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





US

I can see this battle going either way with no true winner, as usual. The wargear states a 5+, but specifically states that vehicles are treated as obscured. To me that separation of sentences is a 4+ cover as per the rules.

Craftworld Uaire-Nem pics "Like shimmering daggers of light our fury shall rain down and cleanse this battlefield." Autarch of Uaire-Nem
BlueDagger's Nomad pics - "Morality, my friend, is merely a price tag." - BlueDagger, Contraband Dealer. Holo-recording played during the murder trial of an undercover PanOceania officer. Court Record 9002xaB, . Infinity Nomads - Come see what it's all about!
|Looking for War-gaming matches in the Colorado area? Colorado Infinity
 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

BlueDagger wrote:The wargear states a 5+, but specifically states that vehicles are treated as obscured.


Not trying to be difficult, but why do you feel there should be a 'but' in that sentence? You could as easily say that the wargear states a 5+, and specifically states that vehicles are obscured.


Being obscured, as I said before, is not a separate condition. It's what allows the vehicle to take the cover save.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/12/02 01:02:11


 
   
Made in us
Junior Officer with Laspistol






The eye of terror.

I honestly think that RAW it could be read as either 5+ or 4+ for vehicles.

On one hand, it says that "units" get a 5+ save, and vehicles are "units." This could be seen as "specifying" that vehicles get a 5+ obscured save.

On the other hand, the second sentence simply says that vehicles are obscured, without specifically saying "vehicles get a 5+ obscured save." So you can argue that the rule does not fulfill the "unless otherwise specified" part of the non-specific-obscured-from-wargear rule.

I also think you can look at the SAG double-six rule for precedent and intention. Disclaimer: this is not RAW at all. On a double six, the SAG says that any models under the blast are removed from the table, and has a second discrete sentence that says vehicles take a penetrating hit.

Technically, the vehicle is both removed from the table and suffers a penetrating hit. However, I think it is clear that the wargear is intended to have an entirely separate effect for vehicle and non-vehicle units.

Because of the nearly identical wording for the KFF, I think that it is intended to have entirely separate effects for vehicle and non-vehicle units as well, granting vehicles within 6" the non-specified-obscured status.

Why did the berzerker cross the road?
Gwar! wrote:Willydstyle has it correct
Gwar! wrote:Yup you're absolutely right

New to the game and can't win? Read this.

 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

willydstyle wrote:On the other hand, the second sentence simply says that vehicles are obscured, without specifically saying "vehicles get a 5+ obscured save."


This keeps coming back...

There is no such thing as an 'obscured save'...

 
   
Made in us
Junior Officer with Laspistol






The eye of terror.

insaniak wrote:
willydstyle wrote:On the other hand, the second sentence simply says that vehicles are obscured, without specifically saying "vehicles get a 5+ obscured save."


This keeps coming back...

There is no such thing as an 'obscured save'...


Just trying to present both sides of the argument. To be semantically more correct, it would of course have to say "vehicles are obscured and receive a 5+ cover save."

Why did the berzerker cross the road?
Gwar! wrote:Willydstyle has it correct
Gwar! wrote:Yup you're absolutely right

New to the game and can't win? Read this.

 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

That's the thing, though... I rather suspect that at least some of those arguing for the 4+ save are doing so in the belief that the save that the vehicle gets is a different category of save to that gained by other models (as evidenced by the repeated mention in KFF discussions of this 'obscured save').

If you can accept that the cover save that the vehicle takes is no different to the cover save that an infantry model takes (which the Obscured Target rules actually point out is the case) then there is no need for them to respecify the save again after the mention of vehicle obscurement.

The vehicle is obscured, which means that the vehicle is allowed to take the cover save bestowed by the KFF. The two concepts ('KFF grants 5+ cover save to units' and 'vehicles are obscured') are intrinsically linked.

If the save granted by being obscured was a different type of save, there would be a valid argument. Since the KFF doesn't specify an 'obscured save' you use the save specified by the Obscure rule.

But that's not the case. Being obscured does not grant an obscured save... it allows a vehicle to benefit from the cover save relevant to whatever it is that is causing them to be obscured.

Vehicles in the KFF's area of effect are obscured, and so can take the cover save offered by the KFF. That cover save is specified as being 5+.


- Edited slightly for clarity...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/12/02 03:54:42


 
   
Made in us
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon






insaniak wrote:
If you can accept that the cover save that the vehicle takes is no different to the cover save that an infantry model takes (which the Obscured Target rules actually point out is the case) then there is no need for them to respecify the save again after the mention of vehicle obscurement.

The vehicle is obscured, which means that the vehicle is allowed to take the cover save bestowed by the KFF. The two concepts ('KFF grants 5+ cover save to units' and 'vehicles are obscured') are intrinsically linked.

They're not. Wargear obscuring is different from other types of obscuring, and doesn't use the value of the cover unless it is specified that it does so.

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 KFF confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even in the open. This save is a 4+, unless the codex specifically says otherwise.
The codex does not specifically or clearly say otherwise.
The fact that it grants a generic cover value to units doesn't mean it uses that value for vehicles it obscures, unless the codex says that it does.
For it to be RAW 5+, the codex would have to directly specify the save given to vehicles it grants obscured to to override the standard value.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2009/12/02 04:28:16


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Gorkamorka wrote:Wargear obscuring is different from other types of obscuring, and doesn't use the value of the cover unless it is specified that it does so.


Being obscured by wargear is different only in that nothing is physically obscuring the model. Normally, we would just look at what is obscuring the model, and apply the cover save that is appropriate for that cover. Since nothing is physically obscuring the model in this case, the rules give us a set cover save to use if the wargear doesn't specify a cover save of its own.

The KFF does specify a cover save, that applies to all units within 6".

The paragraph before the one you quoted mentions that cover saves taken by vehicles are exactly the same as those taken by infantry. With that in mind, there is no reason to think that vehicles should get a different cover save from the KFF without the KFF entry specifically saying as much.

The KFF is a wargear item that confers a cover save of 5+ on all units, despite not actually physically concealing the model. All the reference to being obscured does is ensure that a vehicle can take that save. It doesn't alter it or ignore it.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Can someone quote the specific rule?

If it says 'counts as' as opposed to simply saying 'obscured' their might be something here.

Sourclams wrote:He already had more necrons than anyone else. Now he wants to have more necrons than himself.


I play  
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

imweasel wrote:Can someone quote the specific rule?


"...A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are obscured targets."



If it says 'counts as' as opposed to simply saying 'obscured' their might be something here.


Why would that make a difference?

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




The prep sheet stated it was a 4+ - Theres the RAI

The save provided by the wargear FOR VEHICLES is not specified - as you stated you cannot take a save unless you are Obscured, so the initial save cannot define the save in the second, entirely seperate sentence.

It was written to be forward looking into 5th, so it could not specify a save in the second sentence. The second sentence had to be completely divorced from the first, otherwise it would nto have worked in 4th ed - and while they were seemingly willing to do that for Ghazghull, this was a bit more important.
   
Made in us
Junior Officer with Laspistol






The eye of terror.

I would not source non-rules documents for rules.

The prep sheet says 4+... but they also play the rules wrong in battlereports all the time.

Why did the berzerker cross the road?
Gwar! wrote:Willydstyle has it correct
Gwar! wrote:Yup you're absolutely right

New to the game and can't win? Read this.

 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

nosferatu1001 wrote:The save provided by the wargear FOR VEHICLES is not specified - as you stated you cannot take a save unless you are Obscured, so the initial save cannot define the save in the second, entirely seperate sentence.


It doesn't need to define it in the second sentence.

The KFF provides a cover save, which vehicles can only get if they are obscured. The line telling you that vehicles do, in fact, count as obscured doesn't need to restate the cover save, because the cover save is the same for everybody, just like every other cover save is the same for everybody.

A cover save is a cover save. There is no seperate category for 'vehicle cover saves' as opposed to 'regular or infantry cover saves'... if something provides a cover save, then it provides a cover save.

The KFF provides a cover save. That save is, since there are no different categories of cover save, the same for every model that is eligible to take that cover save... which includes vehicles, because they are obscured.

 
   
Made in us
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon






insaniak wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:The save provided by the wargear FOR VEHICLES is not specified - as you stated you cannot take a save unless you are Obscured, so the initial save cannot define the save in the second, entirely seperate sentence.


It doesn't need to define it in the second sentence.

A cover save is a cover save. There is no seperate category for 'vehicle cover saves' as opposed to 'regular or infantry cover saves'... if something provides a cover save, then it provides a cover save.

There is when talking about a piece of wargear. Not a separate category, per say, but a separate save value.
The wargear obscuring rules require that the wargear specify the cover save given to units it grants obscured to. The general cover save granted to units separate from the obscured status doesn't cut it, it has to specifically say that the general save value should be used for the obscured vehicles in place of the standard 4+.

Note that vehicle units also get the normal 5+ unit save, it'll just almost never come up.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2009/12/02 06:43:50


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Gorkamorka wrote:The general cover save granted to units doesn't cut it, it has to specifically say that the general save value should be used for the obscured vehicles in place of the standard 4+.


It's not a general cover save. It's a cover save that applies specifically to that wargear.

To be fair, I can see where you're coming from. But I don't agree that it's what the rule actually says when taken in context with the preceding passage.

For what it's worth, I also don't see any way that your interpretation is what was intended. The rules for being obscured by wargear are there purely because there is no physical obscurement. They're not (IMO) intended to make the vehicle be treated differently to other models... they're just supposed to give the vehicles a way to benefit in the same way as infantry would.

The wording of the KFF entry isn't as precise as it could be, due to being worded to work for both 4th and 5th editions. But I believe it fits my take on both the RAW and the RAI. YMMV, obviously... but I think I'm going to bow out of this one at this point for fear of just perpetuating another multi-page merry-go-round thread.

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Well, it first your take on RAI - just not the RAI as published by GW in the prep sheet
   
Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd




Honest question, not trying to be snarky-how convinced are you that the person that wrote that prep sheet was really familiar with the Ork codex and the 5th edition rulebook?
   
Made in us
Major






far away from Battle Creek, Michigan

insaniak wrote:We had a multi-page thread on this not so long ago, with opinions being pretty well divided.


Opinion in that thread was overwhelming in favor of a 4+ save. There were a few prolific posters who argued for a 5+, but the consensus wa a 4+ and rightly so based on the documentation provided by GW itself.

PROSECUTOR: By now, there have been 34 casualties.

Elena Ceausescu says: Look, and that they are calling genocide.

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Ordznik wrote:Honest question, not trying to be snarky-how convinced are you that the person that wrote that prep sheet was really familiar with the Ork codex and the 5th edition rulebook?


Pretty well - and given it went through proof reading with Alessio and / or JJ the chances are it is what was meant.

So you have RAI covered as 4+, the save is not specified at all, certainly not compared to the standards seen elsewhere (Stubborn, SA versus WBB) for what "specified" means, therefore the save is 4+.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: