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.

MikhailLenin wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Gorkamorka wrote pretty much exactly what I would have.

Cannot quote the codex because that would require posting the exact rules. So I will say this: the KFF granting a 5+ cover save to all units in range is a separate sentence from the Vehicles gain the obscured status. The Obscured status is undefined(although the vehicle being a "Unit" within range also gains a 5+ cover save in addition to the default obscured status 4+ cover save).

Not true at all, for a vehicle in the Rulebook (As you have yet to give me a page where a vehicle in the rulebook can use a cover save without obscurement) a vehicle cannot use a cover save until he has the status obscured. Now the paragraph that I find really simple but yet people are confused about is the fact that a piece of wargear or power which grants obscurement in the open is a 4+ cover save value unless otherwise stated in the codex. You keep saying these two sentences are independent from each other using that very paragraph to explain the 4+ but the fact is the paragraph states you need to use the whole codex, not each separate sentence as its own rule. The fact is the paragraph in the rulebook easily explains that in the circumstance of the KFF, it grants vehicles a 5+ cover and obscurement so they can use it. Because its stated in the whole codex, each sentence is not independent in the eyes of that paragraph.

Can you honestly tell me that no where in the Ork Codex is there is a reference to a specific cover save value when it comes to Units (including vehicles) in regards to the KFF rule.

Okay, since you seem to still not be getting it, here we go again.

"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)..."

or, broken down more simply,
the ability of being obscured even if in the open is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise

Okay?
So, (the ability of being obscured even in the open) that the kff grants (is a 4+ cover save)... (unless specified otherwise).

Got it?

Now, where does the rule specify that the save granted by the ability of being obscured in the open is a 5+ save. It has to SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY state this. That is what specify means.
It never does this. It grants all units within 6" an unrelated and unreferenced 5+ save, and it ALSO grants vehicles an unspecified generic obscured status. There is no linking language. There is no referencing. There is no specifying.
The rule simply states that the vehicles are obscured. The end.

Mannahnin wrote:

Not at all. By the argument you're trying to make, a non-vehicle unit can't get a cover save from a special power or wargear either, since the Cover Saves rules on page 21 don't explicitly tell you that they can. That's not the way it works.

The main rulebook tells you how cover saves work. On pages 21-23 it tells you how MOST units use terrain and other units to get cover saves. It never says that they can get cover saves in any other way. But that doesn't mean that Conceal, Storm Caller, Shield of Sanguinius and Kustom Force Fields are meaningless. It means they themselves grant permission for the model to take a cover save, by granting said cover save. On page 62 it lays out some additional rules and restrictions for how vehicles get or don't get cover, but again, this is not a restrictive rule saying in some way that vehicles can't get cover saves from wargear or psychic powers. Just as with infantry, the wargear or psychic power in question creates its own permission for the affected model to make a cover save.

A wound-model can have a cover save and not meet the requirement of obscurement such is the case of area terrain, and powers/wargear. Vehicles due, it says on the page you reference, have to have obscurement according to the rulebook. page 62 also specifically talks about how to deal with powers/wargear that grant obscurement to vehicles. In fact Page 62 also explains that a vehicle is treated exactly like a wound model except for these criteria they need to have so they can use a cover save.

MikhailLenin wrote:
The FAQ for Shield of Sanguinius is as follows:

Blood Angels FAQ wrote:Q: Do vehicles gain a cover save from Shield of Sanguinius?
A: Yes.

Remember that this is the FAQ portion, not the errata portion. The relevant sentence of Shield of Sanguinius is as follows:

Codex: Blood Angels p.63 wrote:The Librarian and any unit within 6" receive a 5+ cover save until the end of the phase.

As I mentionned countless of this thread, that is a great blunder from GW in the errata, because that FAQ sentence could mean 2 things: "A) Yes, vehicles are obscured under Shield of Sanguinus or B) Yes, vehicles can take cover saves even if not obscured by wargear/power"

In the circumstance of A, my rebuttal is still applicable. In the circumstance of B, than the second line of the KFF is not applicable as it is an obsolete 4th edition line. If you intend to use it in 5th edition than the paragraph on page 62 regarding wargear/power granting obscurement is still a 5+ because while the vehicle is obscured it is has a 5+ specific cover save value from the KFF. The paragraph states that this cover value in the open is only a 4+ if no other cover save value is listed for the wargear/power in the entire codex. If you choose to use that second line of the KFF rule, than you choose to involuntary state that a vehicle needs obscurement to receive a cover save, because why else would that line apply to anything if there is no need for obscurement to receive a cover save.

Compare with the corresponding text in Storm Caller:

Codex: Space Wolves p37 wrote:Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn, he and all friendly units within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save.

The word "units" is identical, and defined on page 3 of the main rulebook. The BA FAQ goes ahead and makes it explicit, but it didn't really need to. Still, it's useful confirmation for people who are resistant to the notion of vehicles getting cover saves by other means than being Obscured.

MikhailLenin wrote:
The WD battle report by the codex author never actually gives out a cover save value in the report.

I also found this statement rather interesting, being that it is completely false.

Gorkamorka wrote:
Okay, since you seem to still not be getting it, here we go again.

"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)..."

or, broken down more simply,
the ability of being obscured even if in the open is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise

Okay?
So, (the ability of being obscured even in the open) that the kff grants (is a 4+ cover save)... (unless specified otherwise).

Got it?

Now, where does the rule specify that the save granted by the ability of being obscured in the open is a 5+ save. It has to SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY state this. That is what specify means.
It never does this. It grants all units within 6" an unrelated and unreferenced 5+ save, and it ALSO grants vehicles an unspecified generic obscured status. There is no linking language. There is no referencing. There is no specifying.
The rule simply states that the vehicles are obscured. The end.

"
The paragraph does not end with unless sepcified otherwise, it ends with "unless specified otherwise in the codex". You choose to not include a crucial part of the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:

MikhailLenin wrote:
The WD battle report by the codex author never actually gives out a cover save value in the report.

I also found this statement rather interesting, being that it is completely false.

Very nice sir, I bow down to the evidence before me. Might I get a photo of the cover of said source before I ask the mods to lock the thread?

So the two arguments are as follows

The vehicle does get a 5+ cover save from this power, but this save is not specifically cited as an obscured save, so it is given a 4+ cover save as well as the 5+ cover save.

The vehicle gets a 5+ cover save and is obscured, even though it doesn't need to be obscured to gain its cover save.

I hate GW, because this rules is worded such that both seem equally wrong to me.

Oops forgot to hit enter and argument moved way ahead. Sorry bout this.

MikhailLenin wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:
Okay, since you seem to still not be getting it, here we go again.

"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)..."

or, broken down more simply,
the ability of being obscured even if in the open is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise

Okay?
So, (the ability of being obscured even in the open) that the kff grants (is a 4+ cover save)... (unless specified otherwise).

Got it?

Now, where does the rule specify that the save granted by the ability of being obscured in the open is a 5+ save. It has to SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY state this. That is what specify means.
It never does this. It grants all units within 6" an unrelated and unreferenced 5+ save, and it ALSO grants vehicles an unspecified generic obscured status. There is no linking language. There is no referencing. There is no specifying.
The rule simply states that the vehicles are obscured. The end.

"
The paragraph does not end with unless sepcified otherwise, it ends with "unless specified otherwise in the codex". You choose to not include a crucial part of the rule.

Please feel free to explain how any line anywhere in the codex SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY states that the save granted by the ability of being obscured in the open the kff grants to vehicles is a 5+ save or uses the 5+ save value from the previous sentence. You can't, because it doesn't.

But I'm sure you'll just say 'but the kff gives a 5+ save to units!' and we'll get nowhere again, since breaking down the rules didn't get the point across. Whatever, I and everyone I know of will continue to play it 4+.

Oh, and here's the cover image, since you apparently even question the clear print evidence after making flase claims about the contents...

(credit to chainswordheretic)

MikhailLenin wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Not at all. By the argument you're trying to make, a non-vehicle unit can't get a cover save from a special power or wargear either, since the Cover Saves rules on page 21 don't explicitly tell you that they can. That's not the way it works.

The main rulebook tells you how cover saves work. On pages 21-23 it tells you how MOST units use terrain and other units to get cover saves. It never says that they can get cover saves in any other way. But that doesn't mean that Conceal, Storm Caller, Shield of Sanguinius and Kustom Force Fields are meaningless. It means they themselves grant permission for the model to take a cover save, by granting said cover save. On page 62 it lays out some additional rules and restrictions for how vehicles get or don't get cover, but again, this is not a restrictive rule saying in some way that vehicles can't get cover saves from wargear or psychic powers. Just as with infantry, the wargear or psychic power in question creates its own permission for the affected model to make a cover save.

A wound-model can have a cover save and not meet the requirement of obscurement such is the case of area terrain, and powers/wargear. Vehicles due, it says on the page you reference, have to have obscurement according to the rulebook. page 62 also specifically talks about how to deal with powers/wargear that grant obscurement to vehicles. In fact Page 62 also explains that a vehicle is treated exactly like a wound model except for these criteria they need to have so they can use a cover save.

No. You're still missing the point completely, and you're still repeating a falsehood about page 62, EVEN AFTER I QUOTED IT TO YOU. Please stop doing that.

The rules on page 21-23 tell us how models get cover saves FROM COVER. From terrain and from other units. Nothing on those pages tells you that you can ALSO get a cover save from wargear or a psychic power.

The rules on page 62 tell us that vehicles have several "exceptions to the normal rules for cover", which are found on pages 21-23.

In NEITHER place does the rulebook come out and tell us that oh, by the way, these units can also get a cover save from special wargear or psychic powers you'll find in your codices. So if you're going to argue that vehicles can never get cover saves except by being obscured, to be logically consistent you ALSO have to argue that infantry units never get cover saves except from terrain or other units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Funny thing, I just happen to have that issue of WD sitting on top of one of my shelves; I had it tucked into my AoBR box, which I emptied a couple of weeks ago.

The section Gorkamorka posted the photo of is on page 65.

The reason I ask for the photo of the cover is so I can go get a copy of said article. Not because I question the legitimacy. Last time I saw a WD battle report between Phil Kelly Orks and a Guard Player was for Battle Missions and there was no mention of the KFF save value in the article.

While this photo grants me the evidence I needed to be certain this is a 4+, I am not so stubborn to never admit I was in the wrong. My arguments were sound and legitimate and I now have concrete proof I was wrong about the KF;, perhaps not my arguments but proof the KFF is a 4+ for vehicles

Thanks for everyone's input, keep up the good work on Dakka.

Mods I think this rule argument has been resolved.