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.

That is how I am indeed thinking it works.

So if two of my three Kans are with in 6" of my KFF then they all get "cover" saves because more than 50% of the squadron is in cover right?

Sounds right to me!

To determine saves for a vehicle the rule book is clear under the vehicles and cover - Obscured targets rules on page 62.

Being obscured is defined as 50% of the vehicle's armour facing, as determined by the shooter's position, is unable to be seen.

I'll quote it here:
"If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it"

it does not say:
"If the vehicle has been granted a cover save and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

It then quantifies:
"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..."

General_Chaos wrote:So if two of my three Kans are with in 6" of my KFF then they all get "cover" saves because more than 50% of the squadron is in cover right?

They all get the save, NOT because 50% are in range, but because the KFF gives the save to the entire unit if even a Single member is in range.

Seriphis wrote:To determine saves for a vehicle the rule book is clear under the vehicles and cover - Obscured targets rules on page 62.

Being obscured is defined as 50% of the vehicle's armour facing, as determined by the shooter's position, is unable to be seen.

I'll quote it here:
"If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it"

it does not say:
"If the vehicle has been granted a cover save and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

It then quantifies:
"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..."

Yes, we know how a single vehicle gets a save. The question is on units and special rules that give OBSCURED to 50% of members without being in actual cover.

"Yes, we know how a single vehicle gets a save. The question is on units and special rules that give OBSCURED to 50% of members without being in actual cover. "

vehicle squads have the rules in it to say determine it first for the individual then for the unit to see if the whole unit can claim it.

this is the only point that it breaks down, my view would be to say if all vehicles are obscured they can utilise their cover saves, as this is the first checkpoint.

Aduro wrote:
They all get the save, NOT because 50% are in range, but because the KFF gives the save to the entire unit if even a Single member is in range.

well a KFF says that a unit within 6" gets a +5 cover save and a vehicle within 6" counts as obscured. So do my Kanz get a +4 or +5 save?

4+

They get both, however the 5+ save can only be taken against wounds unless you are also obscured.

So when 2/3 Kans are within 6", the unit is majority In Cover as 2/3rd receive a 4+ cover save.

If 1/3 is within 6", then although the unit has a 5+ save (and one has a 4+ as well), this save can only be used against wounds, as you MUST be Obscured as a Vehicle in order to Use a cover save against Hits.

Note the very careful use of the word "use" there; at no point do i say they *dont* have a cover save, just that cover saves only save against *wounds* by default. Anyone whoi argues that they do "have" a cover save will be referred back to this line, and th eother threads on this topic which conclusively thrash out the argument.

Gwar! wrote:1) No. As pointed out, they are Option. By Definition, they are Optional, unless otherwise stated with a "Must", as in the case of, for example, Long Fangs.

You may want to pull out a dictionary before assuming that adding two letters to a word doesn't change the meaning.

This thread has gone well off topic.

The OP's first question was answered and the second one seems to have diverted into a query about KFF>

I suggest starting two new threads, one to deal with KFF and one to deal with vehicle squadrons, if people think these topics need to be examined.