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.

..in your interpretation.

Not in mine or many other peoples interpretations.

nosferatu1001 wrote:..in your interpretation.

Well of course it is. Everyone else is, as always, free to make up their own minds.

However when that interpretation ahppens to coincide with the codex authors writings, in at least 2 places, it has more credence than yours.

In which case, people are free to use that interpretation.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just presenting a point of view.

I see what your saying, if ONLY the posted WD article was there I could see the argument of "they made mistakes before" But the problem is, the whitedwarf says its 4+ AND the changes in 5th edition poster I posted say that kans/dreads get a 4+ cover save. Kans/dreads have AV and Phil said his trukks would get that save, trukks are AV. So since 2 separate things are both saying the same thing, that vehicles with armor get a 4+ cover save, there is no argument. You get a 4+ cover save. Its what the rules say, its what 2 separate articles say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:In which case, people are free to use that interpretation.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just presenting a point of view.

Ok using your argument here, if I played Ultramarines, and I interpret the fluff that Calgar is the uber badass 1 punch machine gun. So all his stats turn into the ULTRA symbol and he auto kills everything in CC on a roll of a 1+ twin linked. PLUS its got a FNP as well. The dice roll, not the Calgar. I also wont try to convince everyone, but thats my point of view

Crazy how much debate there is in this thread.

Kans get a 4+ cover save. I don't see how there's any argument. Other "points of view" are of course welcome, but that doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.

KFF specifically states that vehicles count as obscured. Kans are a walker, which are stated as a vehicle on Pg. 72 in the BRB -- they just use some of the rules for normal infantry for movement/assaulting.

Vehicles that are obscured get a 4+ cover per the BRB on Pg. 62.

This is what makes Kan Walls effective.

As for the OP question:

"So the question is, do Killa Kans or any other vehicle squadron get a 5+ cover save if less than half of them are under the KFF but at least one of the them is under it? "

They get a 4+ cover save if at least 1 model from the unit is within 6" of the KFF.

/thread

Half of the squadron need to be in range, and its a 4+ save for vehicles.

For KFF, it says if 1 model is in the range, the whole unit gets the cover. A squadron of walkers is a unit, so the whole squad gets the cover.

It might seem unfair or bizarre that it acts that way, but remember: Orks don't care about physics or laws or game rules. They say it gets a cover save, so it gonna get a cover save dammit. They will let the techmarines figure out exactly how that is happening. More time from crumping 'eads.

-cgmckenzie

KingCracker wrote: So since 2 separate things are both saying the same thing, ...

...it means absolutely nothing, since neither of them are sources of the actual rules of the game.

Ok using your argument here, if I played Ultramarines, and I interpret the fluff that Calgar is the uber badass 1 punch machine gun. So all his stats turn into the ULTRA symbol and he auto kills everything in CC on a roll of a 1+ twin linked. PLUS its got a FNP as well. The dice roll, not the Calgar. I also wont try to convince everyone, but thats my point of view

Ok. And...?

Dodgywop wrote:Vehicles that are obscured get a 4+ cover per the BRB on Pg. 62.

This is not actually true.

Vehicles that are obscured get a cover save. That cover save is whatever it would be for an infantry model obscured by the same obstruction.

Vehicles get a 4+ cover save when counted as obscured by something that doesn't actually physically obscure the model where no other save value is specified[/i] by the 'something' in question.

That's what the argument hinges on: whether the 5+ save specified in the KFF rule is specific enough to count for vehicles as well as everyone else. I personally think it is. A lot of other people think it isn't.

Sanguinis wrote:
Our local rules guru at our FLGS came and said he was wrong and that a vehicle can only ever take a 4+ cover

Apparently hes not much of a guru at all. You shouldn't listen to him. Vehicles can get a 3+ save; its specifically mentioned in the rulebook.

Say you're facing a rhino's side armor but you can only see his front armor because the rhino is perpendicularly hiding behind a wall. That rhino now has a 3+ save from your shooting, as long as you're in 90 degree side armor arc.

Surprised that no one has mentioned this so far.

KingCracker wrote:

insaniak wrote:

KingCracker wrote:From a white dwarf battle featuring Phil Kellys Orks.

Wanna try that one again?

I already addressed that. It wouldn't be the first time someone at the studio got the rules wrong.


For what it's worth, I play it as a 5+ myself (on the basis that the 4+ is only for when no save is specified by whatever is providing it, and the KFF specifies a 5+ save) but would be more than happy to discuss it before the game if an opponent is particularly set against me insisting on the worse save for my own units...

No that just proves that even if your proven wrong in black and white, by the guy that wrote the rules, you still cant admit you were wrong, and so pull out the "well this one time a white dwarf was typed wrong therefor Im right" You are playing it wrong weather you personally play the rule that way or not. Your also dismissing that nice little period in the rules and putting 2 sentences into 1.


BUT if you want FURTHER proof that GW just keep making the same mistake over and over. I guess Ill just leave this here then

I'm not trying to discourage you from posting those-they're definitely germane to the discussion. But they aren't definitive, and neither example even approaches being a rule or an FAQ. SO I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't fling them at me like they're trump cards.

I saw them the last several times they were posted. They didn't convince me then, and nothing about them has changed.

Here's rules

"A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets."

Decide for yourself if a save is specified by that rule. To me, when it says it gives all units a 5+ save, it's specifying a save.

Both interpretations are valid. One is backed up by the author himself, and GW promotional material, the other by nothing. If you chose to ignore that, that's your own free choice, just as I choose to never take cover saves against deffrollas or the like, because that RAW is stupid to me.
If you force your opponent to ignore that, that's being stubborn and unsporting, as the intention of the rule is more than clear.

Jidmah wrote:Both interpretations are valid. One is backed up by the author himself, and GW promotional material, the other by nothing.

The problem (for me) is that the interpretation 'backed up by the author' has no bearing in the actual rules. But to each his own.

Dodgywop - youre wrong on your conclusion.

with 1 kan in range only ONE is obscured; the rest get a 5+ only one has a 4+, meaning you take the only cover save the majority of the unit has, which is a 5+

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dodgywop - youre wrong on your conclusion.

with 1 kan in range only ONE is obscured; the rest get a 5+ only one has a 4+, meaning you take the only cover save the majority of the unit has, which is a 5+

Agreed here. The KFF thing says units, so yes a squadron is a unit. Problem is, squadrons are also vehicles, and therefore have to follow the rules for being obscured. If half of them is obscured then the whole squadron gets that 4+. If only 1, its less then half, so as Nos said, the majority is 5+ as per the KFF rules for units


On the rest Im completely dumbfounded how you guys keep sticking to the "Well I dont believe them, its not a FAQ or rules related" argument. Serious;y? So.....the author of the codex.....said it in a match in a white dwarf....AND GW itself made a flyer, stating the EXACT SAME THING on how the rule works.....yet they are wrong...and you are right? Really? Im glad I dont live in the world you are. Seriously, you guys dont haev to admit that your wrong on a forum, because it wont affect my game play what so ever....... but tonight, while your going to sleep, or taking a dump or just relaxing and letting the day soak away, just whisper to yourself, that your still doing it wrong. It sets the world right

KingCracker wrote:On the rest Im completely dumbfounded how you guys keep sticking to the "Well I dont believe them, its not a FAQ or rules related" argument.

It's not a matter of 'not believing them'... it's a matter of believing them to be mistaken as to what their rules actually say on the matter.

Serious;y? So.....the author of the codex.....said it in a match in a white dwarf....AND GW itself made a flyer, stating the EXACT SAME THING on how the rule works.....yet they are wrong...and you are right?

On this one particular issue? Yes, I believe that the codex as written matches my interpretation, and not that stated by the author.

Whether or not he meant the rule to work the way he said it does is anybody's guess. Is it really so hard to believe that someone made a mistake, just because they work for the studio? The studio that thought that you could take an Assassin and an Elite Inquisitor in an allied imperial force? The studio that 'accidentally' left the entire section dealing with vehicle access and fire points out of the 4th edition rulebook? The studio that forgot to update Land Raiders in anything other than the Marine codex between editions, leaving them with no Machine Spirit or assault ramp? The studio that frequently makes errors or plays by pre-revision versions of new release codex rules in battle reports?

If GW's rules were watertight, I would be more inclined to believe that I'm just missing something obvious. But as it is? No, I'm comfortable assuming that the writer of the codex either got a little muddled on how the vehicle cover rules were written for the new edition of the game, or that he misremembered how the KFF rule was written when writing his summary of the rules changes.


The flyer is less than useless, since we have no idea who put it together and where they got their summary from.



The moment someone provides an argument based on the rules that shows that my interpretation is wrong, I'll happily change the way I play it. Since I'm the one that benefits from that, I would love to do so.

insaniak wrote:

Jidmah wrote:GW generally screwing up is something else than the actual man writing the two sentences in question telling us what he meant by writing them, especially if his answer is one of two perfectly fine interpretations.

The point of the Codex: Daemon Hunters anecdote is that the guys who wrote the codex thought that you could take Assassins in allied armies by including an Inquisitor. This was mentioned both on the GW boards and in the White Dwarf designer's notes. It wasn't until it was pointed out to them on the GW Games Development board that this wasn't actually possible that they realised that what they had written in the codex meant that the rules didn't actually work as they thought they did.

The games devs are human like the rest of us. They make mistakes... and sometimes, what winds up in the book doesn't mean what it was originally intended to mean.

I feel a little lost...couldn't you take an Inquisitor in the HQ slot and then take an Assassin in the Elite?

I've been playing it as 4+ (tho never really done a Kan wall) based on the fact that all those I play with read it as a 4+ and I'm the only one who plays Orks.

GW has often had the problem where their rules aren't as clear as many players would like and sometimes the wording is just odd but at the end of the day if there is a debate over it you just have to reach an agreement between those you play with (Either that or go with the always fun 1-3 I'm right 4-6 your right and lets just get on with the stompin!)

wyomingfox wrote:I feel a little lost...couldn't you take an Inquisitor in the HQ slot and then take an Assassin in the Elite?

You could take an Inquisitor Lord in the HQ slot... which was considerably more expensive and required you to also take a retinue for him.