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.

Sliggoth wrote:The part of the debate that we really cant settle at all is whether or not the 5+ part of the rule in the ork codex works to turn the obscured save into a 5+ for vehicles as well.

A good point that has been raised is that in the ork codex case we have no RAI since the vehicle cover save rules in the brb have changed since the ork codex came out. If we went by RAI we would be down grading hits on the cans to glancing which is entirely different from the current rules.


Now we can go with RAI on the possibility of vehicles taking saves vs hits from the SW and DE invulnerable saves for vehicles, which does lend some solid support to the idea that the kff lets vehicles take saves vs hits as well.



Locally what we have gone to now are cans being able to take the 5+ for the unit if even one can is within the 6" range, but even if all three are within 6" its still only a 5+ save.


Sliggoth

We DO know RAI, see the image from WhiteDwarf here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/302686.page

They article is written by the codex author, so not much room to wiggle there. As already said, the only thing up to discussion is whether you can use the 5+ save, but there are BA and SW rules allowing the same.

Insaniak is right. It's pretty clear it should be 5+ for everyone as being Obscured mearly let you use a cover save and the cover save IS specified in the rules.

That said no one will be convinced because of the WD article, since when did WD start getting the rules right is what I wonder.

Uh, same author as codex? Who would know if not the author of the very rule?

Jidmah wrote:Uh, same author as codex? Who would know if not the author of the very rule?

It just doesn't fit the words published though. They get the rule wrong all the time in games in WD so why should this be any different.

Then you fall back on the rules, whichi indicate a 4+ cover save.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Then you fall back on the rules, whichi indicate a 4+ cover save.

Except it's specified in the Codex as Insaniak has said. It's 5+. If you're trying to RAW it hard then you have to admit that Shield of Sanguineous doesn't allow vehicles to take a cover save from it. But we know that's not true.

Jidmah wrote:Uh, same author as codex? Who would know if not the author of the very rule?

As I already pointed out, the fact that White Dwarf is printed months in advance means that a WD article being written by the author of the codex doesn't mean that the version of the codex the article was written about was the same version of the codex that actually wound up in print. Nor does it mean that what he actually wrote in the codex was what he originally intended.

It wouldn't be the first time that a White Dwarf article has included either incorrect or outdated rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aramoro wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Then you fall back on the rules, whichi indicate a 4+ cover save.

Except it's specified in the Codex as Insaniak has said. It's 5+. If you're trying to RAW it hard then you have to admit that Shield of Sanguineous doesn't allow vehicles to take a cover save from it. But we know that's not true.

This argument very quickly winds up with one side insisting that the codex specifies the save, and the other side insisting that it doesn't... rinse and repeat. It doesn't go anywhere past that, because neither side has anything more than personal opinion to back it up.

Until GW gets around to FAQing it, players are just going to have to make up their own minds as to how to play it.

Insaniak - excpet this was a WD article for the 5th ed release, NOT the original Batrep which was during 4th ed. Otherwise you would have *a* point

Remember: when the codex was first published, all "obscured" did was give you glancing hits only.

RAW cover saves granted to vehicles *without* granting Obscured only work against wounds. True, unassaible actual rules. GW choose to blithely ignore this and continues to print rules which dont work.

insaniak wrote: Separate sentences don't make them unrelated. Separate paragraphs would...

Putting the moderator hat on for a moment, I would strongly recommend it if you wish to continue posting. Making your post easily readable for those reading it is both a matter of common courtesy and a subject of the forum rules.

I am not stating that the two sentences are completely unrelated; however as they are separate sentences they each present a full and complete statement which is related to the overarching rules of a kustom force field. So they are related in a sense of what they correspond to, however as they are separate statements purposely separated by a period. In terms of typographical listings of rules and instructions a period entails progression into the next portion or step. Had the meaning been as you purport surely it would have been written in a much less verbose manner, the statement could have been compounded from:

“A Kff gives all units within 6" of the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as obscured targets."

To:

A Kff gives all units and vehicles within 6” a cover save of 5+.

If this were the intent then the second sentence is superfluous, and the editor for GW should then be summarily booted from his position due to incompetence (in the print world on lists and instruction sets you need them to be as clear as possible to avoid disputes such as the one we are having now) I would actually postulate that the editor must have proposed just such a revision however the author likely had to clarify for intent to have such a change reversed.

Maybe one day there will be a FAQ on it through GW but until then unfortunately all we can do is speculate, to me its clear, but to you its inversely so hence more clarification on ruling is needed. After reading I do see how it can be interpreted in either way however still very much lean on my initial interpretation of the rule for the aforementioned reasoning.


on my grammer/spelling

Also fixed the bad spelling grammar in my posting hope that more to your liking, I was out the door at 5 heading home and literally banged that out on the keyboard in 10ish seconds like most of my posts, that one was just more hurried than usual. I like in forums not having to pay attention to how i type just as long as the idea is there since I have to spend all day wading through dangling participles and run-on sentences.

*edit*

Misspelled a word when typing slow and purposely ... how embarrassing.

insaniak wrote:It goes something like this:

Hmm, very interesting. I can see how that works now. Thanks for taking the time to explain that.

G00fySmiley wrote:
If this were the intent then the second sentence is superfluous, and the editor for GW should then be summarily booted from his position due to incompetence (in the print world on lists and instruction sets you need them to be as clear as possible to avoid disputes such as the one we are having now) I would actually postulate that the editor must have proposed just such a revision however the author likely had to clarify for intent to have such a change reversed.

That sentence was required because the Codex had to work in both 4th Edition and 5th Edition which is where the problems creep in. Interestingly the calcification in the rule book asking for a cover save specified in the codex can only apply to KFF, if you don't apply it to KFF then it applies to nothing in the game.

Aramoro wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:
If this were the intent then the second sentence is superfluous, and the editor for GW should then be summarily booted from his position due to incompetence (in the print world on lists and instruction sets you need them to be as clear as possible to avoid disputes such as the one we are having now) I would actually postulate that the editor must have proposed just such a revision however the author likely had to clarify for intent to have such a change reversed.

That sentence was required because the Codex had to work in both 4th Edition and 5th Edition which is where the problems creep in. Interestingly the calcification in the rule book asking for a cover save specified in the codex can only apply to KFF, if you don't apply it to KFF then it applies to nothing in the game.

I'll have to consider this argument as i am still kind of new to warhammer 40k and am not well versed in any edition other than 5th. However I don’t know why they’d consider older editions in the new edition codex. In previous games I’ve researched or played usually the newer codexes written for a specific edition aren’t easily adapted for old editions. Usually in my experience companies write for the new edition only and adaptation to older versions require modification by the users as the company doesn’t usually provide allowances to easily digress the rules to previous standards.

Kudos to GW if they do this though, that’s very user friendly of them.

It defiantly gives the 5+ argument more credence to me, assuming GW was working to make it work with an old edition... the argument has more weight but it still takes me stepping back and trying to read it as a 5+ to even read it that way and even then i find myself arguing that obscured being a separate sentence means another rule in an of itself in relation to the kff.

I do still read it as vehicle obscured and think a 4+ is appropriate the way I read it. While I do play orks I should note I most certainly do not myself play kan wall because I find it effective but it makes for a very boring game... and it has precise tactics which would require your boys to act with discipline not piling forward at an enemy and instead hiding behind a grot (granted a grot in a modified trash can… but still a grot) ... which is not very orky imo.

The Ork Codex was in 4th Edition. So essentially it's an Edition out of date, that why the rules don't quite work.

G00fy: The ork codex is a 4th edition codex, the last one to be exact. They just knew the new edition would be coming, and decided to be smart for once and not make it outdated a few months after release.
The WD above is also not about the ork codex, but about the newly released 5th edition rulesbook, displaying differences from the old rules.

well crap... now I’m confused too >_<

why am i just learning my ork codex is an old edition.. man you jump head first into a hobby and a few months down the road you find out you've been using old rules... still having boatloads of fun playing though.

if I every feel like using a kan wall I’d probably use the WD article as proof .. but again as said kan walls are boring to me and that was the least fun game I’ve yet played so barring a tournament I’m unlikely to ever do one again (though I’m also likely to not want to play in a tournament I play games for fun .. i'm the opposite of a win at all cost player, i'll purposly make a bad move or attempt a shot i know i'm not in range for if it'll make the game last longer/ be more interesting)

KFFs also protect deff dreads, buggies, battlewagons and looted wagon. Orks have enough viable armies to choose from. As I've read someone just won a major tournament in the US using orks, playing neither battleweagon bash nor kan wall, but massive amounts of trukks and some really weird other stuff.

nosferatu1001 wrote:RAW cover saves granted to vehicles *without* granting Obscured only work against wounds. True, unassaible actual rules. GW choose to blithely ignore this and continues to print rules which dont work.

Which is fine as an argument if all you're looking for is pure RAW.

When you're trying to determine how to actually play the game, some sort of compromise is required.

Which goes back to the author of the codex telling us how to actually play the game.

...in a White Dwarf article, not a rules clarification.

and people play the game as a 4+

So you counter an argument for RAW by telling us you are looking for RAI, but ignore the best lead on RAI in existance for any rules dispute ever?

nosferatu1001 wrote:and people play the game as a 4+

Which they're welcome to do. I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should play the game. I'm presenting an opinion based on how the rules read to me, and on how I think the game works better. It's how I play the game. Everyone else is free to make up their own minds.

Jidmah wrote:So you counter an argument for RAW by telling us you are looking for RAI, but ignore the best lead on RAI in existance for any rules dispute ever?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

I very rarely argue in favour of RAI. It's unreliable at best, because we very rarely have any way of determining what it is, and it's often irrelevant since where it differes from the actual rules as written (as opposed to just where it's a little unclear what they meant), GW have tended to rule in favour of RAW due to that being the least confusing option.

I will argue to ignore the RAW, where they lead to absurd conclusions or to parts of the game just not functioning, as with Vehicle cover saves issue.

In this instance, to me, the KFF rules clearly read that vehicles get a 5+ save just like any other unit. Since that's not unclear, doesn't lead to any potential silliness, and is more straightforward than the 5+/4+ interpretation, I see no reason to deviate from what I perceive the RAW to be in this instance.

If GW rule otherwise in an actual rules document (as in, add it to the FAQ) then I'll happily go with that. But until that point, I'm not willing to accept a White Dwarf article that contradicts the rules as I perceive them, due in no small part to just how often that has happened over the years.