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.

These are pictures of the article where Phil Kelly says the KFF gives vehicles a 4+ cover save. It is White Dwarf issue 344 Sept. 2008, which was printed two months after the issue that revealed the new rules. First paragraph, second page.

Counter point: White Dwarf battle report shows Chaos Daemons having four greater daemons in their army.

summing up my view on WD and any one that takes it seriously ....

... don't get me wrong its a fun read but they have habit of doing things for the awesomeness of it. Still on this case they've got the rules right which makes a change ¬_¬

Well done OP! The author of the actual codex is what is known as an "authoritative source."

solkan wrote:Counter point: White Dwarf battle report shows Chaos Daemons having four greater daemons in their army.

Read the article and it said at the beginning (assuming this is the one in the Space Wolves release issue) that both guys agreed that the deamon player could run 4 GD's. If an opponent agrees, it happens!

solkan wrote:Counter point: White Dwarf battle report shows Chaos Daemons having four greater daemons in their army.

yeah, well they decided to make the Battlereport more exciting...

And as far as debunking White Dwarf completely, the reason it was faq'd that Tyranids have an overall immunity to instant death, was because of Phil Kelly saying they did in White Dwarf. So GW has already used what there games designers, in fact the same game designer, has said in White Dwarf to issue a faq.

The writer of the new Space Wolves codex said in White Dwarf that models with MotW and Thammers can have up to 7 Thammer attacks. Even though I agree with your position, you can't use WD as a rules source because of how often they get rules wrong.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:The writer of the new Space Wolves codex said in White Dwarf that models with MotW and Thammers can have up to 7 Thammer attacks. Even though I agree with your position, you can't use WD as a rules source because of how often they get rules wrong.

The devs do have a habit of muddying the waters somewhat...

To be fair, I think it's more a lack of editing problem than the devs' fault specifically. WD articles and batreps are written months in advance, and often incorporate information from early (incomplete) edits of the rules. So 'errors' in WD can be attributed to the writer making a mistake when he wrote the article... or to the article being written with different rules in mind, and the change not being caught before printing the article.


So whilst the article is an indicator or RAI, it's not conclusive proof, because it still leaves a few different possibilities:

- It could be that the KFF was intended to provide a 4+ to vehicles, but the rule was rewritten to accomodate the last few months of 4th edition rules and the change wasn't caught before the article was printed.
- It could be that the KFF was intended to provide a 4+ to vehicles, and the entry is just badly written (wouldn't be the first time the rules have wound up doing something completely different to what was intended by the writer, due to him not actually writing what he meant...)
- It could be that the 4+ in the article was a typo
- It could be that my assessment of the RAW is completely off-base, and it actually does provide a 4+ save to vehicles.

Until it's actually included in an FAQ, you're not going to get everyone to agree on this, no matter how many quotes you can find. For myself, I'm still inclined to stick with the more conservative approach (5+) for my own army, but would be happy to let an opponent play it either way... (assuming that ever happens. In 15 years I've played exactly 2 games against Orks, and one of those was my own army being used by a mate.)

I was not trying to prove conclusively for or against. In Kingcrackers post he asked if anyone had access to the printed material I had mentioned ,hence the for Kingcracker in the post title. But the other point I did make, when there was one other instance, that I know of, of a poorly written rule(tyranid synapse)that was challenged buy the community to be faq'd. And said rule had an article by the codex writer (Phil Kelly) in White Dwarf that contradicted the codex, and this article was pointed out to GW. GW ruled that what he said in White Dwarf was correct. In fact the faq said, "the book is wrong". So if enough people bring this article to there attention will they do the same thing? Who knows. If I ever play Orks I,m fine with them taking a 4+. And I'm sure they will role a four for every single obscured save.

I play against a dedicated Ork player and I dont have a problem with the KFF giving vehicles a 4+ cover save....

Well, I do have a slight problem, but I try to keep in mind that we are grown men in our late 30s and early 40s playing a game with little metal and plastic figurines and rolling dice, and that I should take the results of said game in that same spirit.

~Bart

Wow a thread all for me! IT FEELS GREAT TO BE THE CENTER OF ATTENTION!

Seriously though, thanks a million for that. Now thats 2 things printed from GW that shows the KFF grants vehicles a 4+ cover save. Ill print these out and use them to my hearts content!

Thanks a million chainswordheretic!

insaniak wrote:

So whilst the article is an indicator or RAI, it's not conclusive proof, because it still leaves a few different possibilities:

- It could be that the KFF was intended to provide a 4+ to vehicles, but the rule was rewritten to accomodate the last few months of 4th edition rules and the change wasn't caught before the article was printed.

The prep. sheet for 5th edition also lists it as 4+ so this argument does not hold.

insaniak wrote:

- It could be that the KFF was intended to provide a 4+ to vehicles, and the entry is just badly written (wouldn't be the first time the rules have wound up doing something completely different to what was intended by the writer, due to him not actually writing what he meant...)

For the majority of players I know, and every GT rule is clear enough that it provides a 4+. Obviously there will always be a small minority of people who read it differently

insaniak wrote:

- It could be that the 4+ in the article was a typo

Unlikely given that we have both the author of the codex stating is is 4+ and the 5th edition prep. stating it is 4+

insaniak wrote:

- It could be that my assessment of the RAW is completely off-base, and it actually does provide a 4+ save to vehicles.

Of the scenarios you've listed this seems to be the most likely.

Well, there is another possibility as well. The intent of the author and GW may have been to make the rule one way, but what they then print in the BRB or codex actually comes out meaning something else.

WD articles can only be used as an additonal source of information, they should in no way be considered authorative on their own. When there is considerable debate over the interpretation or reading of a rule tho....then they should most certainly at least be considered.

Is WD wrong upon occasion? Of course. Is WD correct most of the time? Of course. It would take a lot of work to be consistently wrong, far more effort than they put inot the WD

The arguement for KFF giving vehicles a 4+ save is fairly strong but by no means rock solid. Showing that the author seems to have meant for it to be 4+ does certainly strengthen the case, and its probably what tips me over towards the 4+ side myself.

Sliggoth

Considering how badly mucked up the SW codex is, I think it's fair to say that he has a very poor understanding of the rules of the game that he is writing for.

That being said, I still think this can be clear RAI evidence for a 4+ save.

Given the ambiguity of the rule in question, that would lead me to lean towards playing it as 4+ as well, though to be honest I've never played a game where my orky opponent used it as a 5+.

Yes I wont use this as a "LOOK ITS ROCK SOLID!" But as you stated, the fact that the writer of the Ork codex, is using the KFF with a 4+ on vehicles, makes me think it leaves the 5+ argument in the dust. Like Ive stated before, I was wrong in thinking it was 5+. But where I was getting that from was, it says that units get a 5+ cover save.
So like many rules with holes in it, it really depends how exactly your read the damn things. MAke sure you dont inhale at the wrong moment or the rules as we know it are sucked into the void
Honestly Im glad tho that I can use these as arguments for the 4+ though. Simply because I think we Orks have a few unit types that we have a REAL hard time killing *cough coughLANDRAIDER cough* so getting this cover save is a really nice one up for us

olympia wrote:The prep. sheet for 5th edition also lists it as 4+ so this argument does not hold.

Without knowing who wrote the prep sheet, or where they got their information, it is completely irrelevant as a source of rules.

After all, whoever wrote it thought that True LOS was a change, as well. Personally, I'm not putting any weight in anything that it says.



At the end of the day, I'm more than happy to concede that 4+ was probably the intention... hence my comment that I would allow an opponent to play it that way. I just don't think it's what was actually written in the codex, which makes the RAI irrelevant until they FAQ it.

I have generally been on the side of 4+ but would never accuse the references here of being related to that.

The RAW on this matter is unresolved anyway, but for the record, and bearing in mind I'm a fan of Phil, RAPKI (rules as Phil Kelly intended) are still not RAW.

How on earth are the rules for the KFF as it relates to vehicles not agreed upon?

pg34 codex orks: KFF makes vehicles that are within 6' count as obscured

pg 62 5th ed rulebook: If a special rule or peice of wargear confers to a vehicles the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a +4 save, unless specified in the codex.

I'm not sure what the problem is.

There have been a couple of threads recently on this topic, with the arguments for both sides laid out extensively. You shouldn't have to dig back to far to find them.

The problem is based around the unless otherwise specified line.

The ork codex says that all units within 6" get a 5+ cover save....and vehicles are units, so its specifying a 5+ cover save for vehicles within 6". The counter arguement is that the gear needs to be more specific to meet the specified part of the rule.

The KFF certainly does specify that vehicles within 6" get a 5+ cover save ... but the murky part is whether or not thats definite enough to satisfy the BRB rule on pg 62.


Sliggoth

insaniak wrote:

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:The writer of the new Space Wolves codex said in White Dwarf that models with MotW and Thammers can have up to 7 Thammer attacks. Even though I agree with your position, you can't use WD as a rules source because of how often they get rules wrong.

The devs do have a habit of muddying the waters somewhat...

To be fair, I think it's more a lack of editing problem than the devs' fault specifically. WD articles and batreps are written months in advance, and often incorporate information from early (incomplete) edits of the rules. So 'errors' in WD can be attributed to the writer making a mistake when he wrote the article... or to the article being written with different rules in mind, and the change not being caught before printing the article.


So whilst the article is an indicator or RAI, it's not conclusive proof, because it still leaves a few different possibilities:

- It could be that the KFF was intended to provide a 4+ to vehicles, but the rule was rewritten to accomodate the last few months of 4th edition rules and the change wasn't caught before the article was printed.
- It could be that the KFF was intended to provide a 4+ to vehicles, and the entry is just badly written (wouldn't be the first time the rules have wound up doing something completely different to what was intended by the writer, due to him not actually writing what he meant...)
- It could be that the 4+ in the article was a typo
- It could be that my assessment of the RAW is completely off-base, and it actually does provide a 4+ save to vehicles.

Until it's actually included in an FAQ, you're not going to get everyone to agree on this, no matter how many quotes you can find. For myself, I'm still inclined to stick with the more conservative approach (5+) for my own army, but would be happy to let an opponent play it either way... (assuming that ever happens. In 15 years I've played exactly 2 games against Orks, and one of those was my own army being used by a mate.)

I still don't get where you don't think that a unit that counts as obscured or is obscured would not get a 4+ cover save.

Things must be getting pretty slow around YMDC if we're arguing that KFF don't give a 4+ to vehicles in range.

Soon we'll have codex Tyranids and a whole lot of new stuff to discuss. In the mean time let's search long and hard to find something to argue about.

imweasel wrote:I still don't get where you don't think that a unit that counts as obscured or is obscured would not get a 4+ cover save.

Sorry, the double negative threw me a little there, so I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.

However, I've made my arguments on this in several threads now. I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by repeating them here.

But the crux of it is pretty much as Sliggoth already pointed out.

insaniak wrote:

imweasel wrote:I still don't get where you don't think that a unit that counts as obscured or is obscured would not get a 4+ cover save.

Sorry, the double negative threw me a little there, so I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.

However, I've made my arguments on this in several threads now. I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by repeating them here.

But the crux of it is pretty much as Sliggoth already pointed out.

Obscured grants a 4+ cover save. As the rules state you have to take the best save available to you, I would say that a kff would give you a 4+ cover save.

That's the other argument, yes.

imweasel wrote:

insaniak wrote:

imweasel wrote:I still don't get where you don't think that a unit that counts as obscured or is obscured would not get a 4+ cover save.

Sorry, the double negative threw me a little there, so I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.

However, I've made my arguments on this in several threads now. I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by repeating them here.

But the crux of it is pretty much as Sliggoth already pointed out.

Obscured grants a 4+ cover save. As the rules state you have to take the best save available to you, I would say that a kff would give you a 4+ cover save.

Being obscured doesn't grant vehicles a 4+ save. It grants a vehicle the same save that an infantry model would get from the same cover.

The "obscured" rules then go on to specify that any piece of wargear that makes a vehicle obscured gives a 4+ save unless some other save is specified.

The discussion on the KFF centers on whether or not the save for vehicles is specified.

With the "4+" side stating that it cannot be considered to be a specified save, especially when you consider what "specified" means elsewhere - see the Stubborn USR, Sweeping Advance etc.

The 5+ side state that the save for units is a 5+, and vehicles are units. The fact this is in a seperate sentence, and there is no linking language betweent he first and second, is not important.

*shrug*

We've had this argument several times. Anyone who's interested can search for the threads.

Obscured vehicles aren't automatically 4+ saves, is all I was saying.