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.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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

This is still an interpretation and still debated. My self and many others see (obscured) as the 'normal' way a vehicle may take cover saves (as even the RB does not go in any detail about cover saves other than the normal way for even infantry units [i.e. magic, wargear or otherwise is left out]).

So, this method of reading the rule is not necessarily how everyone reads it. There was already a thread on this (cover saves for vehicles *not* obscured following the Errata change to the SW FAQ which said all 'units' get a cover save rather than squads) that ended in mutual disagreement anyways.

However, 2 ways to play that I see

1. as nosferatu1001 put it, which is one accepted way

2. To say that any vehicle in 6" is obscured (4+) and vehicle squadrons with 50% or more within 6" count as obscured for the whole squadron (4+), and then if less than 50% are with in the 6" then they all get a 5+ due to them *not* being obscured but rather under the 'lesser' cover provided by the KFF.

Both ways are subject to interpretation of the rules which can be read either way (hence the inherent problem with RAW, as it is still open to interpretation).

Nope, your way is not an interpretation, it requires *making up* that vehicles can *use* cover saves against hits when they are not obscured. (barring a special rule - which you were not bale to provide when asked in the other thread - as KFF has no special rule for the 5+ cover save)

Also, despite repeated corrections, this is NOT about *receiving* cover saves, which you ignore every time i post, but about *using* cover saves - the vehicles RECEIVE a cover save however they CANNOT use it against anything other than wounds as they have no permission to do so. Again, despite asking for this permission to USE the cover save (again, this is different from recieving a cover save, recieing does not give permission to use in and of itself)

In other words your "interpretation" ignores a fundamental rule (cover saves may only be used against wounds unless you are obscured, when it may be used against hits) and pretends the problem is with recieving cover saves - when it isnt, at all.

Have /= Use, for the 100th time.

See, tat's what I mean by you can never have a consensus when the interpretation is not as straight forward.

Looks like a 4+ dice roll is more than enough

No, one interpretation requires ignoring the rules and pretending that simply having a cover save gives you permission to use it against Hits, the other follows the rules in a very straightforward fashion.

Not every rules debate is because the rules are unclear.

What padixon was perhaps trying to say is that the 5+ cover saves granted by the KFF may well be taken against hits, and the distinction between the words "hits" and "wounds" is a moot point, simply because the rule as stated in pg 62 was written for vehicles being granted a 4+ cover save or nothing at all. It was not prepared for vehicles being granted a 5+ cover save.

I wouldnt waste time trying to prove or argue here which is right, because I find that dumb. The smartest thing to do is to follow whatever way the tournament organizer rules it, and be prepared for it. For casual players, the solution is even simpler - achieve a consensus with your gaming partner, and rule it the way you want. The game was never intended to be that strict and harsh - refer to page 2 of the rulebook :-).

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nope, your way is not an interpretation, it requires *making up* that vehicles can *use* cover saves against hits when they are not obscured. (barring a special rule - which you were not bale to provide when asked in the other thread - as KFF has no special rule for the 5+ cover save)

Also, despite repeated corrections, this is NOT about *receiving* cover saves, which you ignore every time i post, but about *using* cover saves - the vehicles RECEIVE a cover save however they CANNOT use it against anything other than wounds as they have no permission to do so. Again, despite asking for this permission to USE the cover save (again, this is different from recieving a cover save, recieing does not give permission to use in and of itself)

In other words your "interpretation" ignores a fundamental rule (cover saves may only be used against wounds unless you are obscured, when it may be used against hits) and pretends the problem is with recieving cover saves - when it isnt, at all.

Have /= Use, for the 100th time.

^ This

Cover save is a cover saving throw is a saving throw. Saving throw rules = wounds only.
Obscuring rules are the only rules that make such saves usable for a vehicle by allowing you to use a cover saving throw against hits. These rules have strict and specific requirements.

You cannot just say 'I can take a cover save against hits, because my vehicle has a generic one!'.

One way is the RAW, plain and simple.
The other way is not a valid 'interpretation' of the rules in any sense. While it may make more logical sense to some people, it is entirely unsupported by the text of the rules.

Play the RAW, or house rule it. Don't pretend that your house rule is the RAW.

Davicus wrote:What padixon was perhaps trying to say is that the 5+ cover saves granted by the KFF may well be taken against hits, and the distinction between the words "hits" and "wounds" is a moot point, simply because the rule as stated in pg 62 was written for vehicles being granted a 4+ cover save or nothing at all. It was not prepared for vehicles being granted a 5+ cover save.

I wouldnt waste time trying to prove or argue here which is right, because I find that dumb. The smartest thing to do is to follow whatever way the tournament organizer rules it, and be prepared for it. For casual players, the solution is even simpler - achieve a consensus with your gaming partner, and rule it the way you want. The game was never intended to be that strict and harsh - refer to page 2 of the rulebook :-).

The distinction between "hits" and "wounds" is not irrelevant, it is part of a very clearly written rule - which is why Padixon doesnt have a valid interpretation, as it relies on ignoring or plain rewriting the rules in order to work. Oh, and they WERE prepared for hits other than 4+, given that the rules states "unless otherwise specified" when talking about cover saves from wargear.

"If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit it may take a cover save against it."

So I'll weigh in and once again Nos is right the Vechicals within 6" have the 4+ obsscured status the others have a 5+ as the unit is da da-da within 6" but that can't use it as they are not obscured (Wee lets rephrase some more).


But no that I'm reading that quote up there I'll say this - my vehicals be obscured when your assaulting them so when that penetrating or glancing lands I'll take my obscured save against it against it. Lol.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nope, your way is not an interpretation, it requires *making up* that vehicles can *use* cover saves against hits when they are not obscured. (barring a special rule - which you were not bale to provide when asked in the other thread - as KFF has no special rule for the 5+ cover save)

Also, despite repeated corrections, this is NOT about *receiving* cover saves, which you ignore every time i post, but about *using* cover saves - the vehicles RECEIVE a cover save however they CANNOT use it against anything other than wounds as they have no permission to do so. Again, despite asking for this permission to USE the cover save (again, this is different from recieving a cover save, recieing does not give permission to use in and of itself)

In other words your "interpretation" ignores a fundamental rule (cover saves may only be used against wounds unless you are obscured, when it may be used against hits) and pretends the problem is with recieving cover saves - when it isnt, at all.

Have /= Use, for the 100th time.

First off, maybe you need to re-read page 62 again. There is not even the word "use" anywhere at all in any place in the entire range of Obscured Vehicle rules. no where. That is the "making up" part.

Secondly The rule when *not* taken out of context in the first paragraph sets the tone of the rule and should *not* be ignored, and the important part starts with this "The difference from the way cover works for other models is represented by the following **exceptions*** to the normal rules for cover". After this all important line follows ONLY *3* bullet points, of which (as the rule just said in the previous sentence) are your exceptions and they only offer that cover can only be claimed in the following 3 exceptions:

1. 50% obscured from point of viewer (as normal)
2. 50% rule takes precedence
3. Vehicles cannot go to ground

Thats it folks, everything else you heard is simply not true. It goes on to say (remaining in the context the writer set up from the very begining of the rule, that once the target is obscured (the way a vehicle **normally** gets a cover save) then it may make a cover save vs hits as a non-vehicle model makes against wounds. (which is why you can take a cover save vs. hits for vehicles, not an "obscured" save, but a cover save as the rule is written)

In the second to last paragraph it talks about special rules and wargear that offer "obscured" status. And states that a 4+ is given unless otherwise specified in the codex.

Thats it folks, Obscured rules in a nutshell. They are not hard to understand.

1. Obscured is the normal way for vehicles to *be* in cover
2. Cover for vehicles is a 4+
3. Special rules and wargear can make the vehicle "Obscured" and give it a 4+, unless differently specified in a codex.

There is no "use" or "have" in this section of the rules whatsoever.

I was making allowance for nosferatu1001 because that is what you do for people, because rules *can be* interpreted differently! IF they couldn't be, then YMDC forum wouldn't even exist as everyone would read the rule in exactly the same way every time. Obviously this is not so.

The only difference in interpretation to this rule is some believe the *only* way a vehicle may take a cover save (*take* is the word you were looking for nosferatu1001 not *use* since you want to break it down into semantics) is for the vehicle to *have* to be obscured. Others (like myself, yakface, etc..) see the Obscured is a status that is given to a vehicle if it *qualifies* to be in cover given the 3 exceptions listed above or by the special rule caveat given in the second to last paragraph in the rule itself, I also see it this way because of the very first sentence/paragraph which goes into a bit of explaning on how a vehicle can benefit from "cover" and not how it can get a "cover save".

Basically the rule is 7 paragraphs long and goes into extreme detail in how this rule is supposed to be used and simply cannot be quantified into a single line to prove a point. Please re-read and understand that there are different ways to look at this rule.

There are 2 legitimate ways to read this rule.

... Umm, actually... the RB specificaly says after your three dot points "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

So if your vehical is "in cover" but not obscured then no you may not take your cover save.



Hence my little aside of - well I'm obscured and you just slapped me in the jacksie so I'll take my cover save.

ChrisCP wrote:... Umm, actually... the RB specificaly says after your three dot points "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

So if your vehical is "in cover" but not obscured then no you may not take your cover save.



Hence my little aside of - well I'm obscured and you just slapped me in the jacksie so I'll take my cover save.

wow, your quote, then mine

padixon wrote:Basically the rule is 7 paragraphs long and goes into extreme detail in how this rule is supposed to be used and simply cannot be quantified into a single line to prove a point. Please re-read and understand that there are different ways to look at this rule.

There are 2 legitimate ways to read this rule.

which were the last 2 lines just above yours. Again, it comes down to interpretation. The first Paragraph sets the tone in how a vehicle is in cover, the rest explain how it receives a cover save. To me and others, vehicles in cover( of course 50% of it) are "obscured". To you and others, vehicles "obscured" are in cover.

It sounds trite, but the paragraphs go back and forth on how it views it. As the first 2 paragraphs (including the first bullet point) explain how a vehicle is considered in "cover", and not how it receives a cover save. Then it explains once in "cover" (of course 50% of it), it is considered "obscured" (form the point of the firer, hence the name of the rule in the first place).

So again, there are indeed two ways to read this rule, it just depends at what point in the 7 paragraphs that you start reading, hence my quote above. Trying to prove a point with one line from the whole thing is simply not enough, as the whole thing is the rule and it goes from talking about being in cover, to once in cover (of course 50% of it) it is obscured, to once obscured it may take a cover save.

EDIT#3: So basically a vehicle cannot be "in cover" unless it is also "obscured". So if a wargear gives "cover" regardless of the vehicles positioning, then it is also obscured, and receives a cover save appropriate to the codex of origin as per the caveat in the rule. The paragraphs go into painful detail to try and explain that obscured and a vehicle in cover are the same, (again, interpretation, there are 2 legitimate ways to read this rule)

However using that one sentence gives the condition of a vehicle being allowed to take a cover save it has to be obscured.
Or
A vehicle must have obscured status to take a cover save, that is why things such as smoke give the vehicle obsured status. Because even if they were in a position of cover (eg hilltops, ruins, part of a squadron withing 6" of a KFF) but are not obscured they may not take their cover save.


Again;
Vehicles do not benifit from cover in the same way as infantry,
If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit it may take a cover save against it,
If a vehicle is not obscured cover saves are dissallowed/ignored - Vehicles are not obscured for being inside area terrain. The 50% percent rule given above takes precedence.

and ChrisCP that puts you squarely in the other other group of interpretation, which is fine, as I have already explained,

You are the: vehicles "obscured" are in cover group.

I am in the: vehicles in cover(of course 50% of it) are "obscured" group.

I see 50% in cover as being obscured as the normal way a vehicle receives a cover save, and vehicles given "cover" through other means are obscured as that is the only way a vehicle can be in cover, and if they are given "cover regardless of positioning and 50% in cover as per the rule caveat then they are also obscured.

You don't see it that way, and that is fine, I do see the credit in your view as this has already been hashed out before in the SW FAQ discussion which covered the exact same discussion.

All I ask, is that those reading this understand that there are 2 ways to look at this, whether you agree or not. I understand this and am ok with it

EDIT: Here is the thread in question, where yakface, gwar!, myself, and many others go into this very discussion: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/273707.page

Having a cover save=//=being in cover. You get a cover save from being in cover, but you don't get the rule of being in cover for having a cover save.

So let's go through this.

KFF grants KFF 5+ cover save.

Kans attempt to use 5+ cover save against a hit from a lascannon.

Cover saves are used against wounds, thus cannot be used against hits.


If your argument is "This rule is really long, so it is unclear so it should work the way I think it should", then I'll go through with a scalpel and cut out everything we do not need.

Majority of first paragraph: Irrelevant fluff. Do not want.

Last sentence of first paragraph: Cover works normally for vehicles, with the following changes to the usual cover rules. (Keep in mind the normal cover rules only allow cover saves to be taken against wounds)

First bullet point: When a model is considered in cover/hull down/obscured. We do not need this, because we're using the KFF, which does this stuff via a special rule. Thus this part is irrelevant.

Second bullet point: We are told vehicles don't get obscured for area terrain. (We don't know what obscured does at this point, it's just a status granted when certain conditions usually relating to cover are met). This paragraph is also irrelevant, due to us using the KFF.

Third bullet point: Vehicles cannot go to ground. While the idea of Kans rolling in dust is amusing, it's also irrelevant.

Onto the final part. So far we have not found out what obscured does, and so far vehicles can take cover saves as per the normal cover rules (i.e. against wounds) due to it not being changed in any of the above. We can ignore all of the above for the point of our discussion.

FINAL PART: We are told that an _obscured_ vehicle may take a cover save against a glancing or penetrating hit against it, exactly like a normal model would do against a wound. No where else are we given this permission, so we may not, unless the vehicle is obscured. There is no confusion, and the only parts of the rule we need to take into account are the latter half of the first paragraph (which explains how we use this section of the rules) and the final paragraph (which tells us how we can use cover saves against glancing or penetrating hits).

Read that.
I still don't understand what justification you are using to ignore the fairly damn specific line of "if the target is obscured and suffers a glance/pen hit, it may take a cover save against it."

This is a sound RaW argument, it's defended from people trying to claim RaI by referencing The ork codex for starters where it specifically gives the vehicles the Obscured status for the reasons above, same with smoke (iirc) it specifically states that it is obscured not receiving a cover save because otherwise it would not be obscured and would not be allowed to take the cover save.

I'm also having trouble finding where the BRB says this quote of yours.
"And the only way for an infantry model to claim cover is to have the status "obscured" too..."

Padixon - *sigh*

Sorry, apparently boiling it down to "have /= use" was too much. "IF OBSCURED" - tha\t is all you need. That is the ONLY permission for you to use the cover save that ONLY WORKS against wounds normally to work against HITS

You are entirely unable to find permission to use a cover save that works against wounds against hits, outside of that line. We know this as you have been asked for this speciific permission now in 2 different threads, and have entirely ignored it, preferring to go back to cover / in cover - as if it was even relevant to the discussion.

It is not. The ONLY relevant part is that *cover saves may only be taken against wounds* - except for the line "IF OBSCURED" which tells you you may now use it against hits.

Your entire "dissection" of the cover save rules ignores that one, inconvenient fact.

@ChrisCP

my exact quote is: "(as even the RB does not go in any detail about cover saves other than the normal way for even infantry units" and if I ever quote a rule out of the RB I will also point a page reference.

so, please if you want to quote, quote correctly. I said nothing about infantry and "obscured"

Its ok to disagree here

@nosferatu1001, look thats your view, its fine. We already 'talked' about this before in another thread, you disagreed with me there as well. That's fine, play it your way.

and @Pika_power, I think you misunderstand my point.

My point is that you have to be obscured to receive a cover save, but being in cover by a device that gives it without the 50% rule is also being obscured, as that is the only way a vehicle can take a cover save even when in plain sight. I point this out by the reference between the first 2 paragraphs of the Obscured rule which states how a vehicle receives benefit from cover, and the only difference is it needs to be 50% obscured from the point of view of the firer. But special rules can still give out cover saves in the open just like they do to infantry models. I.e. Being in cover (enough cover) is "obscured", while you say Being "obscured" is the only cover. Just a difference in reading that's all.

We disagree, which is fine no worries.

Except that isnt the rule - you have just made that up. You have conflated "use against hits" and "have a cover save" to mean the same thing, when they are very different in the rules.

The reason for the disagreement is that you see "cover" as granting "obscured" - which it doesnt necessarily do. The KFF "5+" save deos not grant obscured, therefore you have a cover save that only works against wounds - as you have no permission to use it against hits.

"having a cover save" is NOT a sufficient condition for "vehicle is obscured" - yo0u have made the basic logical fallacy of assuming that, as "obscured" means "has a cover save" is true, the converse must also be true.

In other words this is not a rule being unclear, or open to interpretation, you are simply making stuff up and assuming in order to make your "interpretation" valid - and that is just wrong as far as rules debates go.

In other words - you have no rules to back your position up, just hope.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that isnt the rule - you have just made that up. You have conflated "use against hits" and "have a cover save" to mean the same thing, when they are very different in the rules.

The reason for the disagreement is that you see "cover" as granting "obscured" - which it doesnt necessarily do. The KFF "5+" save deos not grant obscured, therefore you have a cover save that only works against wounds - as you have no permission to use it against hits.

"having a cover save" is NOT a sufficient condition for "vehicle is obscured" - yo0u have made the basic logical fallacy of assuming that, as "obscured" means "has a cover save" is true, the converse must also be true.

In other words this is not a rule being unclear, or open to interpretation, you are simply making stuff up and assuming in order to make your "interpretation" valid - and that is just wrong as far as rules debates go.

In other words - you have no rules to back your position up, just hope.

Dude, *its ok to disagree* leave it at that. I pointed out my position, you did yours. Thats fine. If this continues its just a circular argument. Again, its already been discussed, no need to do it here also. Let it rest.

I was pointing out that the disagreement is on one side based in rules, and the other side not based on rules.

The two arent equal positions in terms of "value" in a rules debate, and I was making this clear to other posters or readers of this thread.

There is no point trying to convince you that you are incorrect, this has been proven many times, however it is incorrect of you to present the two arguments as equal when they are so very demonstrably not equal.

padixon wrote:
Dude, *its ok to disagree* leave it at that. I pointed out my position, you did yours. Thats fine. If this continues its just a circular argument. Again, its already been discussed, no need to do it here also. Let it rest.

As others have pointed out, it is not okay to simply disagree when you are presenting a completely factually incorrect argument as though it were on equal grounds with the actual RAW.

We aren't disagreeing: You are, very simply, wrong. Your posts above completely ignore the actual text of the obscured rule in favor of your rules changing 'interpretation'.

"If obscured..." is extremely clear, and it is extremely clear that the normal 5+ cover save from the kff does not magically grant obscured status.

In cover is a condition. If you are in cover, you get all sorts of nice goodies. You get cover saves, you get to attack first in close combat, your enemy must roll dice to reach you. You seem to be taking it as if being granted a cover save means you're in cover, as opposed to a cover save being a bonus of being in cover.

This is incorrect logic. Being in cover is a condition that must be filled to get a cover save. We have an exception to that rule in the form of the KFF. We get the cover save without being in cover.

Let me put it a different way: a child gets to eat ice cream (cover save) on Sundays (when in cover) for a treat, but also doesn't have to go to school (getting an obscured status). On Monday, the child trips and grazes its knee (KFF). It gets an ice cream (cover save) to make it feel better. It still has to go to school (doesn't get cover save).

Does that make it any easier to see? I just changed the situation while keeping the variables the same.

padixon wrote:@ChrisCP

my exact quote is: "(as even the RB does not go in any detail about cover saves other than the normal way for even infantry units" and if I ever quote a rule out of the RB I will also point a page reference.

so, please if you want to quote, quote correctly. I said nothing about infantry and "obscured"

Excuse me - you must be very confused. Were looking at page 3 of that other thread right? Where you say this
"And the only way for an infantry model to claim cover is to have the status "obscured" too...I don't see where you are going with this. The RB does say that when 'obscured' the vehicle may take a cover save as a model would against a wound.
So...if infantry need to be 'obscured' to receive a cover save, and a vehicle needs to be 'obscured' to receive a cover save...I really don't see a problem here. The 'obscured' status is just a state that grants a cover save which is allowed by both vehicles and 'models with wounds' as described by the RB." - right?

Accusing me of misquoting you... You clearly say that infantry need to be obscured to receive a cover save. The BRB never ever ever says this. I also never said you were quoting the BRB I was talking about the quote of yours I used - which if you read the whole thing, makes direct reference to the RB. In fact what’s that thing you've got up there? It's not the quote I have at all is it? Beginning to think it's your reading comprehension more than anything else here.

Don't make me get Dr. Cox out here to sing it to you.


And please give us something solid from the rule book if your going to try and keep agruing against VERY CLEAR RAW - sheesh, accusing me of misquoting you
I think I'm actually quite peeved at your approach here or some such - your breaking my heart here.

Dudes, why bother to argue for the sake of arguing? Just follow whatever ruling your local gaming group agrees upon or whatever the tournament community provides. The OP has formed his own view on the rules. This thread is getting no where.

Davicus wrote:Dudes, why bother to argue for the sake of arguing?

Because that's what the forum is for...?


Sure, people are going to go away and play it however they see fit. The point of discussions like this is to present the various viewpoints so people can make an informed decision.

I think I see it evolving into a senseless quarrel here more than proper discussion. Me thinks, both sides of the initial argument makes perfect sense and it is evitable that different people interprets things differently. Unless GW provides an FAQ SPECIFIC to this situation, any effort to prove your point is futile.

Davicus wrote:Me thinks, both sides of the initial argument makes perfect sense

Great! By any chance did you see the RAW references in the opponent's post? I keep missing them. Would you mind repeating them for me?

Could you please explain why you feel or what makes both sides of the argument make perfect sense?


I'm having alot of troulbe with his position as it is formed from ignoring parts of the rule book and providing misleading information to other parts, also he can not address the one question I have asked instead he innaccuratly claims I've missquoted him so on so forth.

Davicus wrote:I think I see it evolving into a senseless quarrel here more than proper discussion. Me thinks, both sides of the initial argument makes perfect sense and it is evitable that different people interprets things differently. Unless GW provides an FAQ SPECIFIC to this situation, any effort to prove your point is futile.

It only makes perfect sense if you ignore the rules in the rulebook, and pretend that having something is permission to use it in a nonstandard manner. This doesnt make a good rules argument.