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.

I'm sorry to start a new thread on this, but I have to be 100% sure.....


In the BRB it states (on page 64, under ‘shooting phase’) “Then he takes any cover saves available to the squadron – use the rules for vehicles to determine if each squadron member is in cover (ignoring other members of the squadron, as if they were not there), and then the rules for normal units to work out if the entire squadron is in cover or not.”

This then leads me to the Ork Codex which states (on page 34, under Kustom Force Field): “A kustom force field gives all units within 6” of the Mek a cover save of 5+.”

The BRB then states (on page 3, under ‘measuring distances’): “So, for example, if any model in a unit is within 2” of an enemy unit/model, the unit is said to be within 2” of that enemy unit/model.”

So here is my question, and this has nothing to do about what cover save the squadron gets!:


Does the entire squadron not get a cover save, when 1 member of the squadron is within 6” of the Mek with the KFF?
As it is said: “use the rules for normal units”, and normal units gets a cover save from the KFF if 1 member of the squad is within 6” of the KFF.

Xeltik!

Yes, the entire squadron gets a cover save of 5+

As per pages 20/21, and page 62 (iirc) this cover save may ONLY be taken against WOUNDS and not hits (penetrating or glancing)

ONLY if half of the squadron members count as "obscrued" may this cover save be taken against hits as if they were wounds.

So, a squadron of 2 with one model within 6" counts as having one obscured model with a 4+ save and one model with a 5+ save. As such the entire unit counts as obscured and gets to take a 4+ cover save against Hits.

If there are 3 models, with only 1 within 6", then the squadron does NOT have a majority of models counting as "obscured" (assuming no other terrain, etc, for simplicity) and therefore, while they HAVE a 5+ cover save they can only USE the save against wounds.

This is final, total and compelte and utter RAW, as has been thrashed out repeatedly. There is a VERY weak "RAI" argument saying they should get the 5+ cover save against hits, however it is not as strong as the "RAI" that they dont, and likely weaker.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This is final, total and compelte and utter RAW, as has been thrashed out repeatedly. There is a VERY weak "RAI" argument saying they should get the 5+ cover save against hits, however it is not as strong as the "RAI" that they dont, and likely weaker.

In before pages of disagreement from people who think the RAI is more right somehow or who cite nonexistant links between the saving throw rules and the obscuring saves vs hits allowance.

nosferatu1001 is 100% correct!

for pointing a flaw in your post:

on page 62 under 'vehicles and cover - obscured targets' the BRB states: "If a target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehhicle model would do against a wound"

Your arguments against the very famous 4+/5+ cover save has nothing to do with my OP and first question!

Xeltik wrote:for pointing a flaw in your post:

on page 62 under 'vehicles and cover - obscured targets' the BRB states: "If a target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehhicle model would do against a wound"

Your arguments against the very famous 4+/5+ cover save has nothing to do with my OP and first question!

It is entirely relevant, has nothing to do with the famous 4+/5+ argument, and answers your question.

The entire unit indeed gets a 5+ cover save, which is unavailable as an option as it is only usable on wounds unless the vehicle is obscured.
Nos clearly explained the situation and surrounding rules with examples, unless the question you appear to have asked was not the one you meant to ask.

Gorkamorka wrote:
It is entirely relevant, has nothing to do with the famous 4+/5+ argument, and answers your question.

The entire unit indeed gets a 5+ cover save, which is unavailable as an option as it is only usable on wounds.

So what you are saying is that the if 1 of 3 killer kan i within 6" of the Mek the entire unit gets a 4+ and a 5+ cover save, but they can only use the 4+?

Xeltik wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:
It is entirely relevant, has nothing to do with the famous 4+/5+ argument, and answers your question.

The entire unit indeed gets a 5+ cover save, which is unavailable as an option as it is only usable on wounds.

So what you are saying is that the if 1 of 3 killer kan i within 6" of the Mek the entire unit gets a 4+ and a 5+ cover save, but they can only use the 4+?

...no. The unit is not majority obscured.
Read Nos's post for clear examples, including that exact one.

But where in the BRB and codex does it state that a unit has to be 50% obscured to recieve a cover save from a KFF?

Have you read the KFF rules?

It only gives "obscured", which is what grants the 4+ save in the first place (see page 62, BRB), to vehicles within 6".

So ONLY the Killakns within 6" are consdered *obscured*

*obscured* is what lets you USE COVERS SAVES AGAINST HITS instead of wounds. Read page 62, again.

There is a difference between HAVING and USING - as I was very clear to point out. Every model in the squadron, as long as one model is within 6", HAS a 5+ cover save, but unless the majority are *obscured* they *cannot use it against hits* - see page 62. Again.

Have /= Use

So to end this thread properly:

What you are saying is:

If half of the killer kan unit (ie 1/2 or 2/3) is within 6" of the KFF, the entire squadron is granted a 5+ cover save, for being in cover?

So what about single vehicles? are they granted a 4+ or 5+ cover save for begin within 6" of a KFF?

No, that is not what I am saying.

- Units within 6" of a KFF gain a 5+ cover save. this cover save can be used against WOUNDS only.

- Vehicles within 6" are granted "obscured", which the rulebook states defaults to a 4+ save - and as page 62 states, being "obscured" lets you use a cover save against hits, in the same way as saves are used against wounds.

So, 1 vehicle in a squadron of 3 within 6" is therefore "obscured", and the other 2 vehicles are not. The entire unit is granted a 5+ cover save. HOWEVER as the majority is not "obscured" NONE of the unit can use the 5+ cover save against hits - they can only use it against wounds. This is because the rules state cover saves are taken against wounds only, you need to be obscured to use them against wounds. This means that, despite having a 5+ cover save, they cannot use it against anything useful.

Single vehicles are granted a 4+ cover save if they are within 6", and this cover save can be used against glancing / penetrating hits.

The issue is NOT whether you receive a 4+ or 5+, but whether you can _USE_ that save against Hits - normally cover saves may ONLY be taken against wounds, but being obscured lets you use a cover save against hits instead.

Does this make more sense?

So what you are saying is that the KFF doesn't work on killer kan squadrons? no matter what?

No, that is not what I am saying (again)

If you have 2 members of a 3 KillaKan squadron within 6" of the KFF, you will have majority of the unit counting as obscured and therefore they will get to use the 4+ cover save granted by being "obscured". If you have 1 member of a 2 killakan squadron within 6", again you have a simple majority in cover and they can both use a 4+ cover save.

If, on the other hand, you only have *1* member (of 3) within 6", while one of them does count as obscured, the majority of the unit does not - and as such the 5+ "unit within 6"" cover save will only work against wounds. This is not very useful for vehicles.

So, if you want your Kan squadrons to gain ANY benefit from the KFF then you MUST either keep a majority (1/2 or 2/3) within 6" *or* ensure at least one other member of the squadron counts as obscured - say by a big wall - as this then means the whole unit is "obscured"

Xeltik wrote:So what you are saying is that the KFF doesn't work on killer kan squadrons? no matter what?

Are you just trolling now or do you honestly not get it, cause he's explained it at least twice. (edit-and once more while I was posting)

If half or more of the Squadron is within 6" of the model with the KFF then more than half of them are obscured, and they get the save against hits for being obscured(per the rules for squadrons and cover), and are allowed to take their save against hits(again, Obscured rules). If less than half of the squadron is within 6" of the model with the KFF, then they would get a cover save, but it wouldn't do them any good as they don't take wounds.

This is interesting.

I had assumed the following.

1. Vehicles get a 4+ cover save from a KFF. Other units get 5+.
2. If one member of a unit is within 6" for a KFF then the whole unit gets a cover save.
3. As a vehicle squadron is a unit. If one of its members is in 6" of the KFF then the whole squadron gets a cover save. As its a unit of vehicles they get a 4+ save.

As I said, this is what I had assumed when making my Ork Kan-Line lists. Not that I have played with any yet.

No as I said when -i started this thread " I have to be 100% sure". and now I am...
Finally a thread that describes it perfectly, before this, I have found long, inconclusive threads on Dakka and Warseer.
But thanks to Nosferatu it is finally 100% chear to me!

Thx

Daemon_Dave - that is correct, however the save may only be used against *Wounds* unless the majority of the unit is obscured - in whcih case they will likely have a 4+ cover save anyway, so the 5+ isnt much use whatever you do!

Congrats, GW, on making rules as unclear as possible!

But a REAL congrats to those of you who have untangled this mess. It's going to be more relevant than ever when the plastic kans hit the street in March.

Daemon_Dave wrote:I had assumed the following.

1. Vehicles get a 4+ cover save from a KFF. Other units get 5+.
2. If one member of a unit is within 6" for a KFF then the whole unit gets a cover save.
3. As a vehicle squadron is a unit. If one of its members is in 6" of the KFF then the whole squadron gets a cover save. As its a unit of vehicles they get a 4+ save.

Other than the fact that I still disagree on vehicles getting a 4+ from a KFF, this is how I suspect that it's supposed to work, given that GW don't generally intentionally write rules this convoluted. But GW tend to forget about vehicle squadrons when they're writing rules, so they slip into some odd cracks.

nosferatu1001's assessment of the rules fits the RAW (4+/5+ aside).

Hate to say this, but still Nos can be wrong in his interpretation unless GW clarifies it explicitly.

Davicus wrote:Hate to say this, but still Nos can be wrong in his interpretation unless GW clarifies it explicitly.

Which part exactly?

Davicus wrote:Hate to say this, but still Nos can be wrong in his interpretation unless GW clarifies it explicitly.

Yes, in so much as GW can elect to change the rules at any time, as they did for a short while with the SW FAQ.

If you could argue something specific though, that would be more useful.

What Nosferatu has written so far is not so much an "interpretation" but a thorough explanation of how the rules involved interact with one another.

Precisely, when it involves a rule as complicated as this (ok maybe not exactly that complex), you cant be 100% sure what is right unless GW raises an FAQ for it.

Davicus wrote:Precisely, when it involves a rule as complicated as this (ok maybe not exactly that complex), you cant be 100% sure what is right unless GW raises an FAQ for it.

So you're saying 'The strict RAW taken directly from the kff, saving throw, and cover save rules might not be right... so better pack up and go home until there's an extremely specific clarification for a situation the rules currently cover'?

I'm confused... what exactly is wrong with what Nos is saying, ruleswise?

He didn't mention pie, or Jervishammer.

He didn't add the crucial "It works on a 4+" step!

Maybe 3+, just to give him the benefit of doubt.

Hey, I want a 2+ roll on 2 dice, just to be sure!