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 used to be in the 5+ camp a looong time ago.

RAW can be read either way, it's a circular debate and nothing new has been added to the discussion here.

RAI is what I go with - based on docs provided by GW this means a 4+ KFF save for vehicles.

I said this in the last post. In the inaugural White Dwarf battle report for the Ork codex, Phil Kelly (the man who wrote the codex) says he is taking a KFF to give his trucks a 4+ save.

It was stated in previous posts as well that WD has often displayed incorrect rulings. "House Rules" if you will, that make them unreliable for rules judgements for the game at large.

Editing to add:
I am ambivalent about this rule. If it were my own army, I would use 5+ as it is weaker. If it were my opponent claiming 4+, I would have no issue. Then again, most folks I play follow the same logic. In a tourney, I would expect most to use 4+.

As most issues like this end up being responded to: Discuss it with your opponent.

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?

I'm not trying to be snarky either, but why would you think a GW released document that came out just prior to 5th edition release and includes references to specific ork rules and how they'll work in 5th ed would be written and edited by people unfamiliar with either the codex or rules?
It's certainly not an official errata sheet or a faq, but in the absence of either it's the closest thing we've got to determine the intention of the rule under the new system.

insaniak wrote:

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.

I think you're wrong on both counts here, actually.

First off, in 4th Ed. vehicles certainly got a benefit from the KFF: they counted as obscured, as the wargear says they do. That let them downgrade Pens to Glances. You even said that in you very next sentence, not sure why you contradicted yourself.

Second, if the the KFF had granted a cover save to vehicles without explicitly saying they were obscured, why on earth would they not have gotten it? That would be a clear case of specific trumping general; in general vehicles get no cover save unless obscured, but specifically, when near a KFF, they do. In THAT case, I would be in the 5+ camp.

However, it says "obscured", which defaults to a 4+ save in the absence of specific language stating otherwise. Such language is not present.

BeRzErKeR wrote:First off, in 4th Ed. vehicles certainly got a benefit from the KFF: they counted as obscured, as the wargear says they do.

The post you're responding to was in reference to the claim that they could have left the statement about being obscured off the rule...

If they had, then vehicles wouldn't have been obscured, in which case they would have received no benefit from the KFF in 4th edition as they couldn't take cover saves.

Second, if the the KFF had granted a cover save to vehicles without explicitly saying they were obscured, why on earth would they not have gotten it?

Because vehicles can only take cover saves if they are obscured. So giving it a cover save without making it obscured does nothing. It would be like a rule giving a bolter to a model that has a rule saying it can't use ranged weapons... Sure, it has a bolter, but it can't actually use it.

insaniak wrote:

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?

So if it did not say that "Vehicles within 6" are obscured targets" then they would not get a 5+ cover save?

Because I don't agree with that.

They would get it. They just wouldn't be able to use it. Because 'Vehicles don't benefit from cover in the same way as infantry...'

In order to make use of the cover save, the vehicle must be obscured.

K so did some research and RAW this is a solid 5+ cover save, though the common play method is 4+. (if you said a 5+ to an ork player they'd prob slap ya)

PG 34 Orks: "... A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are counted as being obscured targets" emphisis mine

PG 3 BRB: UNITS "A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank... . In the rules that follow, all of these things are referred to as 'units'."It's very clear from this passage that vehicles are defined as "units".

PG 62 BRB: VEHICLES AND COVER-OBSCURED TARGETS "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obsured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless spcified otherwise on the codex" As per this passage the KFF specifically states that it gives "units" a 5+ and a vehicle as per the BRB is defined as a "unit" whether it is a single model or multiple models.

Units get a 5+ save. Vehicles are "units". The BRB states that if the wargear states a cover save for the vehicle then you use it and not 4+.

RAI can be argued till blue in the face

How is this an argument, it is clearly writen in the codex.

BlueDagger wrote:K so did some research and RAW this is a solid 5+ cover save, though the common play method is 4+. (if you said a 5+ to an ork player they'd prob slap ya)

PG 34 Orks: "... A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are counted as being obscured targets" emphisis mine

PG 3 BRB: UNITS "A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank... . In the rules that follow, all of these things are referred to as 'units'."It's very clear from this passage that vehicles are defined as "units".

PG 62 BRB: VEHICLES AND COVER-OBSCURED TARGETS "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obsured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless spcified otherwise on the codex" As per this passage the KFF specifically states that it gives "units" a 5+ and a vehicle as per the BRB is defined as a "unit" whether it is a single model or multiple models.

Units get a 5+ save. Vehicles are "units". The BRB states that if the wargear states a cover save for the vehicle then you use it and not 4+.

RAI can be argued till blue in the face

None of this cements a RAW argument.
Noone is saying that vehicles are not units or that vehicles don't gain a 5+ cover save. It could even be usable, for example if a vehicle had a squadron member within the KFF but was personally not obscured by it while being obscured by a 6+ fence.

People who care about strict raw are saying that the cover save given by the obscured status from a piece of wargear has to be specifically set to be anything other than 4+. The fact that the KFF grants a cover save to units does not mean that that cover save is automatically used for the save value granted by the obscured status it separately grants to vehicles.

The kff would have to have specific language, like that given in the smoke launchers rules (vehicles 'count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save') that sets the value of the save the obscured status grants to have anything other than the standard number. The kff simply does not, and the extrapolation of the general save, common sense though you might think it is, is not supported by raw.

We can certainly argue RAI until we're blue in the face.
You have your opinion of how you think the rules should work, and I have mine... and the only printed material released by GW that clarifies the rule, and does so quite specifically as 4+.

I'm not really sure how you stating that it doens't specifically state that it is a 5+ cover save. As posted a vehicle is a unit and units are specifically said to be granted a 5+ cover. The rulesbook states if the gear says a specific save then you use it. Units is a global term for ALL models in either single or multiples and therefor specifically includes vehicles. The reason smoke grenades specifically state "vehicles" is because it can not effect anything but the vehicle. If smoke grenade could effect other models it would probably state "unit" as well.

Then why go on and say that Vehicles are obscured?

BlueDagger wrote: (if you said a 5+ to an ork player they'd prob slap ya)

I'm an ork player, and I think it's a 5+

BlueDagger wrote:I'm not really sure how you stating that it doens't specifically state that it is a 5+ cover save. As posted a vehicle is a unit and units are specifically said to be granted a 5+ cover. The rulesbook states if the gear says a specific save then you use it.

No, the rulebook says that the wargear has to specify the save it is giving with the obscured status, not that a general cover save should be used if no specifics are given in the granting of obscured.

If a piece of wargear grants a vehicle obscured, it SPECIFICALLY has to say what the save it is granting that vehicle via the obscured is if it isn't 4+. Using the general save the KFF is granting to everyone as the value may seem like common sense, but it's not what the wargear obscuring rules say to do.

The KFF:
Grants units 5+ saves.
Grants vehicles obscured status.

The KFF does not:
Grant units 5+ saves.
Grant vehicles obscured status with a 5+ save.

p62 wrote:
If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open,

The kff does this, so...

this [the obscured ability] is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.'

The kff does not specify the save given by the obscured ability it grants, just that it is granting obscured. The rule does not ask for cover given by the wargear otherwise, it specifically says that the obscured ability gives 4+ unless something says otherwise.

Please state to me where in the rules that it must state that the cover save granted and the word obscured mus. be in the same sentence.

Smoke grenades "..but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save."

In this rule obscured and the cover save designated are in the same sentence. In the KFF rule they are seperated by a period, but that doesn't negate the a fore mentioned cover save. A vehicle is a Unit, units get s 5+.

BlueDagger wrote:Please state to me where in the rules that it must state that the cover save granted and the word obscured mus. be in the same sentence.

Smoke grenades "..but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save."

In this rule obscured and the cover save designated are in the same sentence. In the KFF rule they are seperated by a period, but that doesn't negate the a fore mentioned cover save. A vehicle is a Unit, units get s 5+.

The rule does not ask for cover given by the wargear otherwise, it specifically says that the obscured ability gives 4+ unless something says the obscured ability gives otherwise.
Nothing says that you would use any other number, no matter how related it might seem.

The smoke launcher says 'counts as obscured with an x+ save'. It actually specifies the save granted by the obscured it gives, unlike the kff which gives a cover save AND an unspecified obscured.

Gorkamorka wrote:

p62 wrote:
If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open,

The kff does this, so...

this [the obscured ability] is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.'

That would explain where the disagreement is coming from.

Because I read that as:

this [cover save] is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex.

There is no 'obscured ability'... 'Obscured' is a status that allows a vehicle to take a cover save, not an ability or save in its own right.

The save is not affected by being obscured beyond the fact that the vehicle needs to be obscured to take it. It's a simple yes/no operation: Is the vehicle obscured? Yes - It gets the cover save relevant to whatever is providing the cover. No - It doesn't.

Whether or not the vehicle is obscured, the cover bestowed by the wargear (or whatever else is providing a cover save) is unaffected. It's simply whether or not the vehicle can use that cover save that is affected by the vehicle's obscured status, or lack thereof.

So, (and here I am repeating myself, which I said I was going to stop doing...) the KFF bestows a cover save, and being obscured allows the vehicle to use it. As the KFF is a wargear item that specifies a cover save, the generic cover save for wargear obscurement is not referenced.

All IMO, of course. I'm quite happy to accept that some people see it differently. But any KFF's in my own Waaagh will be using the 5+.

Gorkamorka wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:Please state to me where in the rules that it must state that the cover save granted and the word obscured mus. be in the same sentence.

Smoke grenades "..but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save."

In this rule obscured and the cover save designated are in the same sentence. In the KFF rule they are seperated by a period, but that doesn't negate the a fore mentioned cover save. A vehicle is a Unit, units get s 5+.

The rule does not ask for cover given by the wargear otherwise, it specifically says that the obscured ability gives 4+ unless something says the obscured ability gives otherwise.
The smoke launcher says 'counts as obscured with an x+ save'. It specifies the save granted by the obscured, unlike the kff.

Nothing says that you would use any other number, no matter how related it might seem.

First Obscure is not an "ability" it is just a term given for when a vehicle is able to take a cover save. Once again the 5+ is not "related" the wargear specifically states that is the cover given to "units" as which RAW by the BRB includes vehicles.

I'm not arguing RAI to which the separation of sentences leads to a 4+, but as written 5+ would be the "unless specified otherwise in the codex"

insaniak wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

p62 wrote:
If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open,

The kff does this, so...

this [the obscured ability] is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.'

That would explain where the disagreement is coming from.

Because I read that as:

this [cover save] is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex.

There is no 'obscured ability'... 'Obscured' is a status that allows a vehicle to take a cover save, not an ability or save in its own right.

There most certainly is. The rule specifies wargear that 'confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even in the open'. While my wording may not have been perfect, I think my meaning was entirely clear. The 'ability of being obscured even in the open' a piece of wargear gives a vehicle grants a 4+ cover save normally.

insaniak wrote:
The save is not affected by being obscured beyond the fact that the vehicle needs to be obscured to take it. It's a simple yes/no operation: Is the vehicle obscured? Yes - It gets the cover save relevant to whatever is providing the cover. No - It doesn't.

Whether or not the vehicle is obscured, the cover bestowed by the wargear (or whatever else is providing a cover save) is unaffected. It's simply whether or not the vehicle can use that cover save that is affected by the vehicle's obscured status, or lack thereof.

Yes, the save is 'affected'... 'set' is a better word. The wargear obscuring rules state that the obscuring ability the wargear grants normally uses a 4+ save. The relevant outside cover saves also apply, as the vehicle is obscured, but the save granted by the obscuring is 4+ unless specifically stated otherwise.

insaniak wrote:
So, (and here I am repeating myself, which I said I was going to stop doing...) the KFF bestows a cover save, and being obscured allows the vehicle to use it. As the KFF is a wargear item that specifies a cover save, the generic cover save for wargear obscurement is not referenced.

All of this is true, except the last part. The vehicle is indeed obscured, and is indeed given a 5+ cover save by the KFF.
However, the wargear rule doesn't say that it uses the cover save the wargear grants... it says that you have to specify the save given by the obscured (as in the smoke launcher rules). The 5+ cover save is not specified for use in the obscured, the obscured is just a general obscured without any caveats and thus uses the 4+.

The wargear has to say:
Grants a 5+ save to units.
Grants obscured to vehicles with a 5+ save.

For the rule to work like you are saying it does.

Gorkamorka wrote:There most certainly is. The rule specifies wargear that 'confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even in the open'. While my wording may not have been perfect, I think my meaning was entirely clear.

No, that's fair enough. I overlooked that wording. However, I think we still disagree on what that 'obscured ability' actually is. To my mind all that this ability is, is an ability that allows the vehicle to be obscured. The ability itself doesn't bestow the cover save... there is a set cover save that applies (if no other save is specified) if the vehicle is obscured.

insaniak wrote: The wargear obscuring rules state that the obscuring ability the wargear grants normally uses a 4+ save.

Or, by my interpretation, the obscuring ability grants the vehicle obscured status, which allows it to take a 4+ save unless the wargear specifies a different save.

The ability itself isn't the save. It just counts the vehicle as obscured.


So, in essense, this would appear to come down to whether you believe that the cover save being referenced by the rule in question is a cover save specifically granted by being obscured, or a cover save specified by an item of wargear that grants obscured status.

The vehicle is indeed obscured, and is indeed given a 5+ cover save by the KFF.
However, the wargear rule doesn't say that it uses the cover save the wargear grants... it says that you have to specify the save given by the obscured (as in the smoke launcher rules). The 5+ cover save is not specified for use in the obscured, the obscured is just a general obscured without any caveats.

So your stating, that because there is a period between the two sentences, the fact that the KFF specifically states it grants a 5+ cover save is negated because it isn't included in the obscured sentence? Obscured is a term not an specific ability, rule, or USR. the sentence you quoted is nothing more then saying it's able to be obscured with proper grammar. There is nothing in the rules that states that an obscured cover save and a cover save are two different things. What it does state is that vehicles can not take advantage of cover in the same way and goes on to list how they may use cover... not "cover saves".

insaniak wrote:
Or, by my interpretation, the obscuring ability grants the vehicle obscured status, which allows it to take a 4+ save unless the wargear specifies a different save.

The ability itself isn't the save. It just counts the vehicle as obscured.


So, in essense, this would appear to come down to whether you believe that the cover save being referenced by the rule in question is a cover save specifically granted by being obscured, or a cover save specified by an item of wargear that grants obscured status.

The 'this' in the sentence has to refer to the 'ability of being obscured', and thus the ability is what gives the 4+ cover save. I can't see how the save would be divorced from the ability and just a freebie that comes with being obscured if there is no other cover save around to take instead.

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.'

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree and call it a night, as we're not convincing eachother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BlueDagger wrote:
So your stating, that because there is a period between the two sentences, the fact that the KFF specifically states it grants a 5+ cover save is negated because it isn't included in the obscured sentence?

I am, because the rule requires specificity. The KFF doesn't give it, it just gives 2 general statements that don't have any interactions specifically stated or defined.

For the hundredth time, the wargear rules are different from normal obscuring cover value rules. The rules for wargear obscuring don't use the cover save normally given by a piece of wargear unless the wargear says to do so.

KingCracker wrote: but in the current rules the cover save granted has to be the same as the cover save granted to infantry, which

What made him arrive at this conclusion. Clearly if it says your vehicle is obscured, then its obscured. In old ED. Obscured meant pens become glances. Now it gives you a +4 save for being obscured. I do not know of an obscured save being modifiable except through things like camo netting for IG making it a +3. I do not know why he would infer that the save becomes +5. If its obscured, then you follow rules for obscured vehicles. Hence a +4. The part of it having to be the same as infantry he is making up.

Gorkamorka wrote:The rules for wargear obscuring don't use the cover save normally given by a piece of wargear unless the wargear says to do so.

Please advise me where any rules state this. Once again there is no "Obscured Cover Save" there is only "Cover Saves" that are granted by being obscured.
.

LOL, after reading blue daggers entry I would like to retract my previous entry.

smart_alex wrote:

KingCracker wrote: but in the current rules the cover save granted has to be the same as the cover save granted to infantry, which

What made him arrive at this conclusion.

It's based on the fact that the Obscured Target rules mention that the cover save taken by an obscured vehicles is the same as for infantry. Was mentioned earlier in the thread.

I do not know of an obscured save being modifiable

There is no 'obscured save'... just a cover save, which the vehicle needs to be obscured to take.

smart_alex wrote:If its obscured, then you follow rules for obscured vehicles. Hence a +4. The part of it having to be the same as infantry he is making up.

PG 62 BRB: VEHICLES AND COVER-OBSCURED TARGETS "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obsured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless spcified otherwise on the codex" What cover save does the Wargear state it gives units, which ARE vehicles by definition?

BlueDagger wrote:

smart_alex wrote:If its obscured, then you follow rules for obscured vehicles. Hence a +4. The part of it having to be the same as infantry he is making up.

PG 62 BRB: VEHICLES AND COVER-OBSCURED TARGETS "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obsured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless spcified otherwise on the codex" What cover save does the Wargear state it gives units, which ARE vehicles by definition?

A big old 5+.
Good thing that isn't the save given by the 'ability of being obscured even in the open' that the wargear grants, which is unspecified.

'[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.
That's how the rule reads to me, unless you have another suggestion for what to replace the 'this' with from the first half that is sensical.
In order to specify a different save, you'd have to specify the save given by the ability of being obscured in the open the wargear grants.

Gorkamorka wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:

smart_alex wrote:If its obscured, then you follow rules for obscured vehicles. Hence a +4. The part of it having to be the same as infantry he is making up.

PG 62 BRB: VEHICLES AND COVER-OBSCURED TARGETS "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obsured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless spcified otherwise on the codex" What cover save does the Wargear state it gives units, which ARE vehicles by definition?

A big old 5+.
Good thing that isn't the save given by the 'ability of being obscured even in the open' that the wargear grants, which is unspecified.

'[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.
That's how the rule reads to me, unless you have another suggestion for what to replace the 'this' with from the first half that is sensical.
In order to specify a different save, you'd have to specify the save given by the ability of being obscured in the open the wargear grants.

"If the target is obscured... ... it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound."
'[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.
'A kustom force field gives all [vehicles] within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+'