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.

Not in this case no - a sentence is a self contained structure UNLESS it has language linking it to a previous sentence. There is *no such language here* - or if there is you could maybe point it out?

Lt Lathrop - love the "+1" but until you can show something in the language of the sentences that unambiguously links the two together, ie that the obscured save is a 5+, it is a little superfluous. Could you please indicate how the two, seperate sentences that do not link together, do in fact link together?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Not in this case no - a sentence is a self contained structure UNLESS it has language linking it to a previous sentence. There is *no such language here* - or if there is you could maybe point it out?

Lt Lathrop - love the "+1" but until you can show something in the language of the sentences that unambiguously links the two together, ie that the obscured save is a 5+, it is a little superfluous. Could you please indicate how the two, seperate sentences that do not link together, do in fact link together?

They are linked in the same way any set of statements regarding the same thing are linked.

If you are going to argue that the cover save of 5+ is not related to the obscured save... as they are two consecutive sentences and talking about the same wargear... I am going to argue that the obscured save is talking about any vehicles that are within 6" of each other get obscured saves so long that the KFF wargear is taken. It doesn't state it is talking about the proximity to the KFF in that sentence. [sarcasm]So clearly we cannot imply that the 6" was regarding the proximity to the KFF but that it must mean 6" from other vehicles, as that is the only thing mentioned in that sentence... even though it is part of the paragraph regarding the KFF and its interacting and related mechanics. To assume otherwise would be too ambiguous.[/sarcasm]

Except that the OBSCURED sentence does not, in any way, make reference to the save being a 5+. It really doesn't - it is entirely seperate from the first sentence.

I see you can't find any actual language to support your contention, so I will assume it void and move on.

You assert that by a certain way of logic, you were right. Someone challenged your logic, and showed why you would be incorrect... so you restate your original statement which is based on your flawed logic without providing any new reasoning as to why you make sense (which you just demanded of the second party)... then claim that you don't like what the other person said so you are going to ignore it and say you are right?

That makes less sense than what you said before... and has no bearing on the discussion of the rules. Please get back on topic, or stop posting on the matter until you have something new to bring to the debate about the rules regarding the saves offered by the KFF.

nosferatu1001 is correct.
Lt Lathrop is not.

That is all.

OK, here is my $.02 Lt. Lathrop.

I think this is very similar to the Necron sweeping advance question. The sweeping advance rule has similar wording to this rule. In sweeping advance it says, "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue them..." (BRB pg 40). I believe (haven't checked the thread in a while) the consensus was that WBB did not work with this because WBB did not specifically address sweeping advance. However, ATSKNF does. ATSKNF specifically states if they are caught in a sweeping advance, do Y instead (sorry, don't have codex handy for what it actually does).

Now, I think that this is the same. The KFF doesn't specifically state that the obscured save is 5+ only that it is obscured. This could be shodding writing on GW's sake, but that's how the rule is written. I feel that if they wanted the KFF to impart a 5+ save to the vehicle for obscured status, the sentence would have been written "The vehicle counts as obscured and gets a 5+ save instead of the normal 4+"

I understand where you are coming from with your argument, and honestly until I picked up my rulebook and read the sweeping advance rule, I thought that your interpretation was right. However, I think in light of how sweeping advance and "specifically" works, that the 4+ is correct.

Lt Lathrop wrote:You assert that by a certain way of logic, you were right. Someone challenged your logic, and showed why you would be incorrect... so you restate your original statement which is based on your flawed logic without providing any new reasoning as to why you make sense (which you just demanded of the second party)... then claim that you don't like what the other person said so you are going to ignore it and say you are right?

That makes less sense than what you said before... and has no bearing on the discussion of the rules. Please get back on topic, or stop posting on the matter until you have something new to bring to the debate about the rules regarding the saves offered by the KFF.

Huh?

I've yet to see any actual rules showing the "obscured" save is a 5+, or that vehicles don't get both saves by virtue of being both units and vehicles. If you can actually show some language to supprot your position, please do so. Noone has shown my logic to be incorrect - just said that sentences can be linked. Which they can be, but it requires you know, the actual words used to create that linkage - wording whcih is remarkably absent in the Ork Codex.

All you have said so far is "the two sentences are next to each other so must be linked" - to paraphrase - which is not exactly a great argument. Frankly its an awful one, but despite being asked repeatedly you have yet to provide any evidence to supprot your supposition.

Please, if you do have any evidence that shows the two are linked, or that the first cover save granted to all units should be ignored, then please do so. Otherwise the only reasonable assumption to be made is that your argument is invalid, as it has no basis in the BRB or Ork rules.

Zatchmo - given GW specifically cited the 4+ save as a change for 5th ed, in the 5th ed preview sheets, we have both Intention AND actual Written rules that show the save is 4+. It can only be contested if you can somehow link the two sentences - which Lt Lathrop has failed utterly to do.

If the two sentences are completely unrelated, then please explain to me how KFF works for vehicles at all.

If the answer is that the sentence is under the KFF rules, then you are linking them both by being under the KFF rules. The sentence "Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets." cannot stand alone and still function. It order for it to have any bearing on the rules, it must be linked in some fashion to the KFF. If you still insist the sentence are not linked in any fashion, then explain to me how KFF works for vehicles at all.

Also, as stated earlier, being obscured does not automatically grant a 4+ save as dictated on pg. 62. If a vehicle is being obscured, it must be known what is obscuring the vehicle. Then it must be known what that obscuring object's save is (specified/unspecified). KFF is specified at 5+, as an example, disruption pods for Tau have no specification. The same logic is applied to all other obscured status:

Vehicle obscured by hedge. Hedge save is 5+. Vehicle save is 5+.

Vehicle is obscured by KFF. KFF save is 5+. Vehicle save is 5+.

Ignoring the specified save for the KFF is the same logic that ignores any specified save for being obscured. A specified save cannot be ignored simply because they are not in the same sentence. The link for saves can be connected across books without them even being in the same section, much less directly next to each other.

If linking sentences in the same rule, the same subsection-section, directly referring to the same piece of wargear is difficult to do, then I can't imagine trying to link any codex with the main rulebook, or even any section of the rulebook to any other section, as sentence cannot be easily linked, then whole books must be impossible,

Omega_Warlord wrote:Vehicle is obscured by KFF. KFF save is 5+. Vehicle save is 5+.

Wrong.

Vehicle is Obscured by the KFF. The Obscured save is not specified, so it is a 4+.

It ALSO has a 5+ cover save for being a unit.

To answer the OP's question, the KFF renders vehicles obscure which, according to the rules, provides a 4+ cover save. Other units receive a 5+ cover save as the wargear description explains and only one model in the unit need be within 6".

Gwar! wrote:

Omega_Warlord wrote:Vehicle is obscured by KFF. KFF save is 5+. Vehicle save is 5+.

Wrong.

Vehicle is Obscured by the KFF. The Obscured save is not specified, so it is a 4+.

It ALSO has a 5+ cover save for being a unit.

can you take 2 cover saves?

Omega_Warlord wrote:If the two sentences are completely unrelated, then please explain to me how KFF works for vehicles at all.

If the answer is that the sentence is under the KFF rules, then you are linking them both by being under the KFF rules. The sentence "Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets." cannot stand alone and still function. It order for it to have any bearing on the rules, it must be linked in some fashion to the KFF. If you still insist the sentence are not linked in any fashion, then explain to me how KFF works for vehicles at all.

It actually stands alone and functions just fine, as it is under the KFF heading making it a generic obscured granted by a piece of wargear which the obscured rules have rules for.

usernamesareannoying wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Omega_Warlord wrote:Vehicle is obscured by KFF. KFF save is 5+. Vehicle save is 5+.

Wrong.

Vehicle is Obscured by the KFF. The Obscured save is not specified, so it is a 4+.

It ALSO has a 5+ cover save for being a unit.

can you take 2 cover saves?

No, you cannot TAKE two coversaves, but you can get coversaves from two different sources. You just have to pick one of them to use.
A similar situation occurs when a unit of Guardians with a Conceal Warlock enters a piece of area terrain. Two saves, pick one.

Steelmage99 wrote:

usernamesareannoying wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Omega_Warlord wrote:Vehicle is obscured by KFF. KFF save is 5+. Vehicle save is 5+.

Wrong.

Vehicle is Obscured by the KFF. The Obscured save is not specified, so it is a 4+.

It ALSO has a 5+ cover save for being a unit.

can you take 2 cover saves?

No, you cannot TAKE two coversaves, but you can get coversaves from two different sources. You just have to pick one of them to use.
A similar situation occurs when a unit of Guardians with a Conceal Warlock enters a piece of area terrain. Two saves, pick one.

thats what i thought, thanks steel. i didnt get the argument over it being a 4+ obscured cover save as well as a 5+ KFF save.

Omega_Warlord wrote:----Stuff-----

Nope. There is NO specific save for "obscured" as the sentence creates no dependencies on the previous sentence. Nothing about the sentence does this - despite you being asked to show this connection (btw, "proximity" is rather weak, as already explained to you twice now) you have utterly failed to do so. You made an assumption that proximity means there is a cnonection, but the rules of the English language dictate that is not a sufficient condition.

THe save is from wargear (As it is under the KFF sentence, which indicates all rules beneath relate to the Wargear item "KFF") and is not specified, therefore as the actual rules in the BRB state you get a 4+ save. GW even stated this when they were releasing 5th ed - they did a sneak preview fact sheet whcih talked about some of the key changes, one of them being that Ork vehicles get a 4+ save.

Vehicles are a unit, and get a 5+ save. Vehicles are also a "vehicle" and get Obscured, which defaults to a 4+ save if the wargear does not specify any other type of cover save.

So now that I've through and been thoroughly convinced I haven't been using the wrong save on vehicles, is there some kind of vulnerability here to vehicles in squadrons?

Say there are 3 Killer Kans in a unit, but only 1 is within 6" of the shield. Do they benefit only from the 5+ save? Or do they get the 4+? (I always thought since they are a unit they would get the 4+, but certain replies have made me doubt...)

-Fool Whip

This has already been mentioned - it specifically states a VEHICLE, not a squadron, has to be within 6".

As the squadron is a unit, one vehicle within 6" would be enough to give them the 5+ save - no issue there.

However to get the specific Obscured status you must be within 6", meaning some members of the squadron may benefit while others dont.

You then invoke the rules for determinnig the cover save of a unit - count the models with each type of cover. If you have a simple majority (50% or more) of the unit with the 4+ cover save, the entire unit gets it. If you don't the unit only recieves the 5+ save.

As I said 0 it neatly gives you the exact save you would get if you are unsure how many are in cover....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Omega_Warlord wrote:----Stuff-----

Nope. There is NO specific save for "obscured" as the sentence creates no dependencies on the previous sentence. Nothing about the sentence does this - despite you being asked to show this connection (btw, "proximity" is rather weak, as already explained to you twice now) you have utterly failed to do so. You made an assumption that proximity means there is a cnonection, but the rules of the English language dictate that is not a sufficient condition.

THe save is from wargear (As it is under the KFF sentence, which indicates all rules beneath relate to the Wargear item "KFF") and is not specified, therefore as the actual rules in the BRB state you get a 4+ save. GW even stated this when they were releasing 5th ed - they did a sneak preview fact sheet whcih talked about some of the key changes, one of them being that Ork vehicles get a 4+ save.

Vehicles are a unit, and get a 5+ save. Vehicles are also a "vehicle" and get Obscured, which defaults to a 4+ save if the wargear does not specify any other type of cover save.

Nosferatu, compadre, you're killing me here. Absolutely slaying me. I'm already bleeding out of my ears, and soon the blood will be replaced by what little brain matter remains after years of inhaling paints and superglue (strictly for hobby purposes! I swear!).

The meaning of paragraphs-the very essence of the purpose they serve in the English language-is to link sentences together, and provide a logical order for each sentence to expound upon the idea that the paragraph has been created to explore. There is no need for explicit language linking the two sentences. The fact that they are within the same paragraph means, inherently, that they are connected.

We can certainly disagree as to what each of them means in relation to that idea (in this case the save provided by a KFF), as in fact we do. I believe that the sentence containing the 5+ save is meant to refer to both the save granted to infantry, and the save granted to vehicles-note that the sentence refers to "units", which covers both. You believe that the two sentences are intended to be parallel, each referring to an entirely different property of the KFF. That's fine.

But you cannot say that two sequential sentences in the same paragraph are not connected. It's not just pedantry, it's errant, incorrect pedantry.

You guys might be missing something here, I too have wondered about vehicles being obscured giving a 4+, as stated in the Rulebook, from the KFF. I have always rationalized it as a 5+ invul. save to the vehicle, and a obscured save which is a 4+ cover save. The Cover save can be taken away or reduced, we all know the ways to do this, but the invul. is almost immovable.

I talked this up with a few people and seem that the language would warrant that interpretation.

Don't forget that the 6" is from where the Big mek is inside the vehicle and not the edge of the vehicle. I believe that is in the FAQ

Fine - if you "believe" they are connected, please show some connection within the language of the sentences?

The purpose of paragraphs is to contain sentences which are on the same topic or train of thought, but that does not mean that each sentence HAS to refer to (and rely upon ) the preceding one. You do know what "sufficient condition" means don't you? Well being in a paragraph is NOT a sufficient condition for all sentences to be linked together in the way that is required in the rulebook.

Something like "this means that the Vehicle counts as obscured" would do - it would link it to the first and indicate that it is a 5+. But there is no such language, and the two sentences are written such that they can be entirely removed from each other *and no change in meaning would occur* - this alone tells you they cannot be dependent sentences.

GW produced a document, just before 5th ed was released, which stated with NO ambiguity that the save is a 4+ - they madfe a big deal of it. So I have both actual written rules and the intention of the writers of the rules. You have....your beliefs. Which you are entitled to, it just doesn't make them in any way shape or form "correct".

Gold Tooth Gerry - no, the range is from the edge of the vehicle. Units inside a vehicle ahve no physical presence, therefore you read the rulebook that tells you to measure all ranges to abilitiies or wargear from the hull of the vehicle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fine - if you "believe" they are connected, please show some connection within the language of the sentences?

The purpose of paragraphs is to contain sentences which are on the same topic or train of thought, but that does not mean that each sentence HAS to refer to (and rely upon ) the preceding one. You do know what "sufficient condition" means don't you? Well being in a paragraph is NOT a sufficient condition for all sentences to be linked together in the way that is required in the rulebook.

Something like "this means that the Vehicle counts as obscured" would do - it would link it to the first and indicate that it is a 5+. But there is no such language, and the two sentences are written such that they can be entirely removed from each other *and no change in meaning would occur* - this alone tells you they cannot be dependent sentences.

GW produced a document, just before 5th ed was released, which stated with NO ambiguity that the save is a 4+ - they madfe a big deal of it. So I have both actual written rules and the intention of the writers of the rules. You have....your beliefs. Which you are entitled to, it just doesn't make them in any way shape or form "correct".

Look, several people have already tried to explain this to you. As I also have several times. The sentences are linked because they are in the same paragraph, right after the other, refering to the same piece of wargear... that has a given set of effects, which they are explaining.

Like I said before, if you are going to argue that you need to have specific language that relates one sentence to another, in this case that the 5+ cover save given to troops would also imply that the save given by the same piece of wargear would also be a 5+ when it obscures a vehicles; then I am going to argue that you are linking sentences in the same way I am. I already used the example that: the sentence that you say has no language to relate it to other sentences: "Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets." would, by your reasoning, mean that if the KFF is taken on the board... any vehicle within 6" of another is treated as being obscured. By your reasoning, that sentence does not refer to any of the other sentences in the paragraph... then it is not refering to the distance between the KFF and the target getting the save... which was stated in the previous sentence. However, if you ARE going to link the two sentences in order for you to be able to read the rule as "Vehicles withing 6" [of the KFF] are treated as obscured targets." then you must also link the sentences in the same manner for what I am saying: "Vehicles witin 6" [of the KFF] are treated as obscured targets [and are granted the 5+ cover save]." For you to link the sentences and take the parts you want, but then say that the sentences are not linked... even though they obviously are... and even though you are already linking them yourself... is hypocritical and not how we interpret rules.

Furthermore, it was already explained that the rule is a leftover from 4th ed, when obscured did something completely different. Thus there was no need for language clarifying whether the obscured was related to the 5+ save or not. So the rule needs to be FAQ, there is no "intended" way for this to work. It all depends on whether or not you think the cover save given by the KFF is the same cover save given to obscured vehicles. I am simply saying that arguing the 5+ save wouldn't be the same save granted to obscured vehicles is hypocritical, and would be a silly way to interpret the rules. However, I understand that this is the popular way to do it, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to do it that way. If you seriously cannot understand what others and myself are saying, just please drop it... because it has been explained to you, several times, by several people... you either won't understand because you don't want to, or you can't. Please, stop telling people their arguments are wrong/invalid because you can't understand them.

Gold tooth Jerry wrote:You guys might be missing something here, I too have wondered about vehicles being obscured giving a 4+, as stated in the Rulebook, from the KFF. I have always rationalized it as a 5+ invul. save to the vehicle, and a obscured save which is a 4+ cover save. The Cover save can be taken away or reduced, we all know the ways to do this, but the invul. is almost immovable.

I talked this up with a few people and seem that the language would warrant that interpretation.

Don't forget that the 6" is from where the Big mek is inside the vehicle and not the edge of the vehicle. I believe that is in the FAQ

First, there is no FAQ regarding the KFF... so I don't know where you would have gotten that measurement idea. Effects are measured from the hull of the vehicle.

Second, obscured specifically grants a cover save to a vehicle, and the KFF grants a cover save by itself. It is certainly not an Invul save. What we are arguing is whether, by the language given by the rules concerning obscured cover saves given to vehicles and the way the KFF's rules are written... if we should interpret that the statement "Vehicles are obscured targets." should have a 4+ save, because the rulebook says wargear gives a 4+ obscured save unless otherwise mentioned... or if the KFF grants a 5+ save because in the previous sentence, it states that the cover save granted by the KFF is a 5+ save. The argument basically boils down to whether or not you see the two sentences as referring to the KFF.

You can either say that the paragraph referring to the KFF is interrelated, as I said above, and the 5+ coversave applies to vehicles, just like the infantry, as it says obscured saves do in the Core Rulebook.

Or you can say that the sentence stating vehicles are obscured is separate from the 5+ cover given to the infantry, thus granting a 4+ save, as per the rulebook. I argued that this is a foolish way to interpret the rules, because if you are going to take this sentence and say it does have anything to do with the other rules regarding the KFF, then the statement is talking about vehicles being 6" near each other an obscured save, which is clearly not the way it should work... because the sentences are related. The idea you can take parts of rules you like, and leave out parts you don't like is ridiculous.

Lt Lathrop - except for itbeing under the heading "KFF" which means the "within 6"", in context, is within 6" of the item of wargear.

As has already been explained to you *when GW brought 5th ed out they stated KFF gives a 4+ save to vehicles* - so you are totally and utterly wrong on RAI.

On RAW you are still wrong: the obscured sentence can be read without looking at the first sentence, and it does not change its meaning. At all. See now how they arent linked? or do I have to speak slightly slower?

The rule was written such that it would work in both 4th and 5th: in 4th you got glancing hits only, in 5th you get a 4+ save. That is it. Since you are unable to show any language that shows any link between the two sentences, and I can show that the two sentences can be removed from eachother without changing their meaning, obscured is a 4+ save exactly like the rulebook states.

I think i have shown I have understood your "argument" (KFF is 5+ because the two sentences are next to eachother, and because you think it is "silly" that vehicles get a different save) it is jsut that neither is actually a valid argument - as I have expalined to you.

GW stated you are wrong, the rules state you are wrong, and yet I should drop it? Errr, no.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lt Lathrop - except for itbeing under the heading "KFF" which means the "within 6"", in context, is within 6" of the item of wargear.

As has already been explained to you *when GW brought 5th ed out they stated KFF gives a 4+ save to vehicles* - so you are totally and utterly wrong on RAI.

The rule says that units within 6" get 5+ cover, it says nothing about the proximity of having vehicles near the KFF for them to get obscured. If you don't link the sentences, you can't link the KFF mechanics... as such you can't have half the sentence applying because it does, and the other not... because it doesn't.

As for the GW stated its a 4+ save, show it to me... and I'll believe you. But it if isn't in a rulebook or codex, or a reputable FAQ, it doesn't really matter anyway.

But there is a rules dispute, technically your opinion (and those who agree with you) is just as valid as the people who disagree (me and others). The rules could be interpreted either way, which is why we are talking about the rules. I also never asked you to stop having an opinion but you aren't talking about rules, you are attacking people who disagree with you, which is what I asked you to stop.

Lt Lathrop wrote:But it if isn't in a rulebook

This part made me Laugh. It IS in the rulebook.

Lt Lathrop wrote:The rule says that units within 6" get 5+ cover, it says nothing about the proximity of having vehicles near the KFF for them to get obscured. If you don't link the sentences, you can't link the KFF mechanics... as such you can't have half the sentence applying because it does, and the other not... because it doesn't.

I see you haven't even bothered reading the rule you are arguing? Well done! I also have no real idea what you are trying to say with that second sentence, it is complete nonsense....

The rule specifically staes that "vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets" - meaning that it is a) from a piece of wargear and b) does not define its own "obscured2 save therefore the save is a 4+

Notice how at no point do you need the preceding sentence in order to divine exactly how the item works? It's almost as if it is...ta da! self contained. Exactly as has been pointed out to you 3 or 4 (dozen?) times now.

Please, find some wording that links the two - I can show that they work perfectly fine seperated and with no knowledge of the other. Both rules work perfectly fine if you make them into two different sub items, as the meaning changes in neither case. I repeat: your *entire argument* is that because two sentences are next to each other they must be linked. That is a provably false statement.

Lt Lathrop wrote:As for the GW stated its a 4+ save, show it to me... and I'll believe you. But it if isn't in a rulebook or codex, or a reputable FAQ, it doesn't really matter anyway.

It matters from RAI, which is EXACTLY what I said. Reading others posts more carefully really would help. You were trying to claim intention wasn't known, yet at the time of 4th to 5th ed transition GW said you are wrong.

Lt Lathrop wrote:But there is a rules dispute, technically your opinion (and those who agree with you) is just as valid as the people who disagree (me and others). The rules could be interpreted either way, which is why we are talking about the rules. I also never asked you to stop having an opinion but you aren't talking about rules, you are attacking people who disagree with you, which is what I asked you to stop.

No, I have not attacked you - I have attacked your argument for lacking any coherent rules basis, either GW or even the English language (which is always a good fall back when GW fails....)

My argument on this point *is* more valid as I can show a logical argument that removes the validity of your argument from an objective basis: you can show nothing even approaching it. The rulebook agrees, the codex agrees, the English language agrees *and GW even agreed in print*

Unless you can find a rational argument that even starts to debunk these I would suggest not posting further, unless you wish to concede?

Wow, just wow... I thought people read rules before arguing them?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Lt Lathrop wrote:The rule says that units within 6" get 5+ cover, it says nothing about the proximity of having vehicles near the KFF for them to get obscured. If you don't link the sentences, you can't link the KFF mechanics... as such you can't have half the sentence applying because it does, and the other not... because it doesn't.

I see you haven't even bothered reading the rule you are arguing? Well done! I also have no real idea what you are trying to say with that second sentence, it is complete nonsense....

The rule specifically staes that "vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets" - meaning that it is a) from a piece of wargear and b) does not define its own "obscured2 save therefore the save is a 4+

Notice how at no point do you need the preceding sentence in order to divine exactly how the item works? It's almost as if it is...ta da! self contained. Exactly as has been pointed out to you 3 or 4 (dozen?) times now.

Please, find some wording that links the two - I can show that they work perfectly fine seperated and with no knowledge of the other. Both rules work perfectly fine if you make them into two different sub items, as the meaning changes in neither case. I repeat: your *entire argument* is that because two sentences are next to each other they must be linked. That is a provably false statement.

Lt Lathrop wrote:As for the GW stated its a 4+ save, show it to me... and I'll believe you. But it if isn't in a rulebook or codex, or a reputable FAQ, it doesn't really matter anyway.

It matters from RAI, which is EXACTLY what I said. Reading others posts more carefully really would help. You were trying to claim intention wasn't known, yet at the time of 4th to 5th ed transition GW said you are wrong.

Lt Lathrop wrote:But there is a rules dispute, technically your opinion (and those who agree with you) is just as valid as the people who disagree (me and others). The rules could be interpreted either way, which is why we are talking about the rules. I also never asked you to stop having an opinion but you aren't talking about rules, you are attacking people who disagree with you, which is what I asked you to stop.

No, I have not attacked you - I have attacked your argument for lacking any coherent rules basis, either GW or even the English language (which is always a good fall back when GW fails....)

My argument on this point *is* more valid as I can show a logical argument that removes the validity of your argument from an objective basis: you can show nothing even approaching it. The rulebook agrees, the codex agrees, the English language agrees *and GW even agreed in print*

Unless you can find a rational argument that even starts to debunk these I would suggest not posting further, unless you wish to concede?

Your complete misunderstanding of the English language aside (hey look-I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your argument!), where is this document in which GW agrees with you?

Ordznik wrote:Your complete misunderstanding of the English language aside (hey look-I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your argument!), where is this document in which GW agrees with you?

Actually, your facetious tone indicates you are making a personal attack.

*polite cough and stern glare*

A reminder : personal attacks are not allowed on Dakka, if you find yourself getting a bit too heated, stop posting, leave the thread and come back later when things have cooled down. This is the only warning that will be given

Thank you.

Ordznik wrote:...where is this document in which GW agrees with you?

Do a search for 40kposmajorchangesflyer_1_1.pdf.

I would attach it, but I believe that is against the forum rulez.

Below the heading "How 5th Edition Affects Each Army", you will find this statement:
"With the updated vehicle rules, Kustom Force Fields will provide Killa Kanz and Deff Dreads with a 4+ cover save."