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.

Grey Templar wrote:but it specifies the 5+ is for infantry

No it doesn't.

really?

could have sworn it does.



regardless, the Obscured is seperated from the 5+ save bit.


4+ save is how I view it.

Grey Templar wrote:regardless, the Obscured is seperated from the 5+ save bit.

Which would be relevant if the save for being obscured was something other than a cover save...

We have to consider the context that was written in.


at the time, Obscuring wasn't a cover save, but an armor penetration modifier.



it didn't give Vehicles cover saves at the time of writing.


Now, as obscured has changed, it has a different effect.




If GW says in an FAQ that its only a 5+ cover for vehicles then I will be convinced.

In the spirit of answering the original question:

There's no good reason they don't have the cybork upgrade available to them.

Same as there's no good reason why infantry choices from elites (other than Nobz/Meganobz) and heavy (i.e. Flash Gitz) don't have access to dedicated transports.

As to those who think a 5++ makes them too overpowered if they can buy it as a standard upgrade... Really? How often do you see Termies with 3++?

Why are FlashGitz heavy support and not a Nob loadout instead? Who knows. They did a few weird things in our dex but its alright, at least you can take Mad Dok, and give them 5++ AND FNP it you attach to a MANz unit. That would be dead hard unit to face down in CC.

Also on all the arguing on the KFF 4+/5+ thing. The only person on here that will disagree with what Im going to post is Insaniak. But Im posting them for the ones in here that arnt sure. One is from a white dwarf battle with the writer of the codex using the KFF to get a 4+ on his trukks, and the other is a flyer about what is changing in 5th edition (the current 40k rules)
Enjoy

Grey Templar wrote:We have to consider the context that was written in.

No, we don't. You only need to consider 4th edition rules if you're playing 4th edition. When determining how a rule functions in 5th edition, you go by the 5th edition rules. If the underlying mechanics have changed how that rule functions, then so be it.

But this really isn't the place to hash this all out again. There have been several comprehensive threads in YMDC on this already... there is little purpose going over it all again here, particularly since few people are going to change their minds without an actual FAQ on the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:The only person on here that will disagree with what Im going to post is Insaniak.

I'm not the only person since those were first posted who has pointed out that they aren't actual rules publications...

And I wont be caught in a head butting war with a MOD. I already said how I felt of your opinion in the last KFF thread. But since WD and that flyer were official GW publications, yea they matter. And saying that the WD isnt a rules publication, I say then what about the former BA codex AND the apparent sisters codex being published in WD? I guess those dont count then?

KingCracker wrote:But since WD and that flyer were official GW publications, yea they matter.

Black Library books are official GW publications as well. We still don't use them as a source of rules clarifications.

I'm assuming that your crack about the BA and SoB codexes is meant in jest, since the difference between a codex and a summary of rules changes should be glaringly obvious. The fact that not everything in WD is a rules publication doesn't mean that nothing is.

it at the very least shows that GW thinks its a 4+


it might not be an FAQ, but, since this could go either way, GW's opinion matters.

insaniak wrote:

KingCracker wrote:But since WD and that flyer were official GW publications, yea they matter.

Black Library books are official GW publications as well. We still don't use them as a source of rules clarifications.

And how often do you see black library books say the books author uses a KFF to get 4+ saves on his trukks?

Grey Templar wrote:it at the very least shows that GW thinks its a 4+

Well, no, it shows that the writer of a 4th edition codex and whoever put together the summary page (which may or may not be the same person) thought, when those two articles were written, that it became a 4+ with the rules changes for 5th edition.

Since they have not yet FAQ'd it, we have no idea what 'GW' thinks it is.

Grey Templar wrote:We have to consider the context that was written in. at the time, Obscuring wasn't a cover save, ....

GW's attitude towards edition split rules if you even care about what they think, wrote:Q: If my Codex includes some options (or other rules)
that seem to have no effect in the new edition, are you
going to publish an errata to change them to
something else that does work?
A: No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just leave
it until the next edition of the Codex rather than
change its effects through an errata.

Time of codex's publication means nothing. Obscured vehicles now = 4+ cover save. I don't even understand how or why people would even argue anything else. Vehicles = obscured = 4+ cover save. Everything else = 5+ cover save.

Now regarding MANZ, it bugs me why they made a totally separate entry for them. They should've just added in mega armor as a 20 points upgrade for nobz if their goal was to make them cheaper. Personally, I would imagine they specifically did this to limit MANZ's wargear options which, from my perspective, is completely stupid.
Nobz with mega armor, wound allocating shenanigans, cybork bodies, FnP and warboss would be crazy..... expensive. A deathstar to compete in the arena of deathstars. Even so, what a terrible reason to deny them basic wargear. This kind of balancing is bad for tabletop games imo. Its like them going:

Mat Ward: Hey man, devastator squads are ranged right? They should be weak in defense then. We should totally balance 40k as if it was a RTS game.
GW CEO: Oh good point, lets make them T2 with 4+ armor save then.
Mat Ward: HIGH 5 \o
GW CEO: HIGH 5 o/
Mat Ward: Raise prices in celebration!?
GW CEO: RAISE PRICES IN CELEBRATION!

Personally, i always enjoyed the fact that everything was wysiwig in TT. (No, in the physical model sense) Having moved from classic RTS's to TT, it was awesome to see that a soldier with a rocket launcher would have the same "HP" as a soldier with basic rifle. It always annoyed the crap out of me in RTS games when a unit's ranged capability increased inversely with it's "HP"
Now how does this apply to MANZ? well, MANZ are nobz in mega armor so why wouldn't they have access to the same wargear nobz have? A bosspole is a stick with heads on it ffs.
Ok so maybe that was a horrible analogy.
Also, I've never even though about this before but why aren't flash gitz just a weapon upgrade for nobz?

Dammit, as I was writting this I realized the answer to my own questions. GW is moving 40k away from customization and focusing on streamlined unit stats since it's more appealing to 12 year olds (evidence of CSM and nid codex). Damn you GW.

terranarc wrote:Obscured vehicles now = 4+ cover save. I don't even understand how or why people would even argue anything else.

They would argue it because it's not true. But, again, this isn't the place for rehasing this argument.Go have a browse through YMDC if you want the full story from both sides.

And most often, including in major tournaments, it's counted as a 4+.


And Meganobz have a couple other nice things, too, such as being able to Sweeping Advance, ride in any Orky vehicle, include Stikkbombz (useless in 5th, but really, really nice in 4th), and don't discount the twin-linked Shootas they've got. That's 2 re-rollable Str. 4 ap5 shots there. I think I actually may have killed more models with my 5 Meganobz shooting than with their Powerklaws.

insaniak counts as having the 'Stubborn' USR

Insaniak is the founder, CEO, chairmen and first 5 highest ranked members in the club that is against the 4+ obscured rule

While I realise that your intent was to be humorous, I should point out that I'm not 'against' the 4+ at all. I play orks. I would love for my battlewagon to gain a 4+ instead of the 5+. I just don't see any support for it in the rules as they currently stand, and so until GW say otherwise in an actual rules document, I'm going to continue to assume that the WD article was an error, exactly as I would if someone in White Dwarf mentioned that bolters fired three shots instead of two, and continue to play it as written in the codex.

Thats fine, I just personally think, since your obviously in a very small minority or people that think that, AND since Ive shown multiple sources saying its 4+, that you shouldnt be telling everyone that even mentions the KFF thing, that they are wrong and its a 5+. You being a MOD carries some weight with alot of people, new members in particular, and I dont think its fair that you give them the wrong idea on how to play it.

Like Ive said before, a random misprint on something sure....but many misprints that say exactly the same thing, misprints by the author even? No way

And back to the topic {or at least a tangent therof} at hand, you shouldn't think of Meganobz as Terminator equivalents, but more like Grey Knight Paladins with fewer limitations in exchange for no invuln save.

They're basically 2 wound, 2+ armour, Powerfist and Storm Bolter, Str4, T4, WS4 beatsticks that aren't hindered by all the special rules of TDA. Granted, I think they should have had the option of a Painboy (and thus cybork and FnP) but it'd have to be more expensive than the equivalent on regular Nobz.

KingCracker wrote:Thats fine, I just personally think, since your obviously in a very small minority or people that think that, AND since Ive shown multiple sources saying its 4+, that you shouldnt be telling everyone that even mentions the KFF thing, that they are wrong and its a 5+. You being a MOD carries some weight with alot of people, new members in particular, and I dont think its fair that you give them the wrong idea on how to play it.

Being in a minority doesn't make me wrong...

And presenting both sides of potential issues like this is a very large part of what forums like this are for. I'm not misrepresenting the problem... I'm presenting my opinion on how the rule works. People are free to make up their own minds from there.

Well as for my sake I believe I will use he 4+ on Vehicles just because I have been using 5+ all this time and will not argue a better chance.

King Cracker of course your comments have made me almost bust a seam in my side and I thank you for you comments.

Insaniak I thank you also for trying to make sure we follow it to the best of the rules..

Otherwise I also believe we should have been able to get a painboy because if we want to throw all the points there like we do nobs then that is our choice...But GW decided that we are not allowed and for that I will pout a sad face and then go and tear some Eldar stuff up.

As for the FAQ how does one get GW to answer such a question? And if this is such a huge question why have they not answered it yet?

at this point, the Ork codex is too old for them to bother with an FAQ.


they only did DA and BT FAQ because they were getting really old and had some major issues.


this is small potatos and GW won't do a new FAQ simply for 1 rules issue thats fairly minor.

they are probably assumng everyone is using a 4+ for their vehicles and arn't aware of the small 5+ crowd.


I wouldn't be surprised if a new ork codex kept the exact same wording to be honest.

Cutthroatcure wrote:As for the FAQ how does one get GW to answer such a question?

Nobody knows. Since they mostly don't have a rules answering service any more, exactly where the Frequently Asked Questions included in the FAQs are frequently asked is anybody's guess. (Not that the rules service was ever much good to begin with, but it would at least have been a source of data if they had wanted to use it as such).

And if this is such a huge question why have they not answered it yet?

That's part of the fun of GW's FAQs. They'll answer some of the big issues... and the rest of the FAQ will be made up of stuff that nobody was actually questioning in the first place, and will leave out actual issues that people are talking about. They'll sometimes update it down the track... and sometimes not.

Grey Templar wrote:at this point, the Ork codex is too old for them to bother with an FAQ.


they only did DA and BT FAQ because they were getting really old and had some major issues.


this is small potatos and GW won't do a new FAQ simply for 1 rules issue thats fairly minor.

they are probably assumng everyone is using a 4+ for their vehicles and arn't aware of the small 5+ crowd.


I wouldn't be surprised if a new ork codex kept the exact same wording to be honest.

Now thats the GW I know and love


But I agree, they wont FAQ and definitely wont ERRATA it, if I were a betting man thats what I would go for. And really, it is a pretty small annoyance of a debate. So its either a 4+ or a 5+? It wont REALLY ruin a game or win a game with that 1 point difference? Then forget it. And as said the dex is pretty old, they will wait until probably 7th edition to give us a new one anyways.


Also I dont want it to seem like I dislike or try to belittle insaniak on rules, because 99% of the time I agree with the guy. I think this one just kindda slapped me in the face it was so out of left field. I really do heart you Insaniak

Well yesterday I called our local GW store (local being an hour away) and asked their official judge, and he says that he always counts it as having a 4+.

Awww We all heart Insaniak because he is entitled to his take on the rule and without him we would not have had such a riveting debate!

Cutthroatcure wrote:Well yesterday I called our local GW store (local being an hour away) and asked their official judge, ...

Their what...?

GW don't have 'official judges'.

It's okay Insaniak, we all like you despite your obvious insanity.

(Psst, see? It's right there in his/her name!)

I called their store and asked the judge who does the tourneys.

all that means is that at that store its a 4+,


all well and good for that store, but there are probably a few out there that go for 5+.