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.

Hulksmash wrote:@Corrode

But the squadron rules specifically tell you when you will get a cover save so they wouldn't get the 5+.

Units within 6" get a 5+ cover save.

A vehicle squadron is a unit, so they will get the cover save. There's nothing in the squadron rules that indicates they're somehow ineligible. The only argument that kinda works is that vehicles can't use cover saves, but there's enough precedent now that I don't think it holds.

Why waste time answering a question like that...

Because people ask them and argue about them, repeatedly and often. And when one looks at the rules arguments that appear online, what seems obvious to one person clearly isn't to everyone. If someone had gone in the rules forum for 40K here six months ago and asked, "does the lascannon/plasma gun turret weapon on the Razorback count as one weapon or two?" there would have been a HUGE debate going on about it, some of the comments would surely have been acrimonious, and no resolution would have been reached to everyone's satisfaction. That is why GW answers questions like that.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes, I understand the rules mechanic, I'm more talking about the absurdity of a tank ramming an aircraft.

Haven't you seen Live Free or Die Hard? All the tank needs is a ramp and John McClain driving and you're set.

Because people ask them and argue about them, repeatedly and often. And when one looks at the rules arguments that appear online, what seems obvious to one person clearly isn't to everyone. If someone had gone in the rules forum for 40K here six months ago and asked, "does the lascannon/plasma gun turret weapon on the Razorback count as one weapon or two?" there would have been a HUGE debate going on about it, some of the comments would surely have been acrimonious, and no resolution would have been reached to everyone's satisfaction. That is why GW answers questions like that.

The answer to that question seems 100% clearcut to me. There could be no other way to play it. Other questions like how Ork Trukks work if it rolls a Kareen! result while immobilized does not seem so clearcut to me. My group plays it RAW and it doesn't move, but I have seen the threads over this tidbit and they are long and exhausting and it seems obvious to me that no two people agree on how it should work. What about the Shock Prow of a Raider counting as part of the hull? Have you seen THAT thread? The answers to those questions don't seem clearcut to me at all, and yet GW chooses to answer this one... not to mention countless other questions I have seen in the FAQs that just seem so mind-numbingly dumb that it boggles me as to how GW could even consider wasting the time answering such questions.

it seems obvious to me that no two people agree on how it should work.

That was my point and again, I'm sure it's why GW took the time to answer it in the FAQ. The next time someone tries to argue about it everyone can be glad that GW took the time to create an official ruling for it. I don't see any point in some people criticizing GW over answering questions like this, the constant arguments over items like that are why they do so. Everyone always thinks their point of view is the "obvious" common-sense view, the problem is there always seem to be at least two diametrically opposed views that are "obvious" to someone. And that's why there's a need for FAQs with "obvious" answers. To some, the answer was obvious, to others the answer is the exact opposite of what they thought was obvious.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Q: Can you ram a skimmer on a large oval flying base?
(p71)
A: Yes, you have to make contact with either the base
or the hull

Uhh... what? I can ram a Valk with a Demolisher?

You gotta set up the wood ramp, get your Evil-Kenevil gloves and a good start so that maybe you can hit that low flying plane with your multi-ton tank

Interesting:

Games Workshop Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: Do any upgrades or special rules a vehicle has cease
to work once it is destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes. For example if a Land Raider Crusader is
destroyed by ramming an enemy vehicle, its embarked
passengers would not be able to launch an assault in
the ensuing Assault phase as they would no longer
benefit from its Assault Vehicle special rule.

Looks like that may solve anything to do with Trukks too.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes, I understand the rules mechanic, I'm more talking about the absurdity of a tank ramming an aircraft.

What? Didnt you see Rambo 3? How could you possibly call that absurd?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes, I understand the rules mechanic, I'm more talking about the absurdity of a tank ramming an aircraft.

I imagine that Valk's to be the 40k equivalent of a Huey with some attached AT weapons. If a Huey is low to the ground dropping off troops, then it most certainly could be rammed. It is very possible for a Huey to be rammed by a tank, although most pilots will be able to get into the air before the tank gets there and dodge. Hence the save.

I don't find it that absurd.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes, I understand the rules mechanic, I'm more talking about the absurdity of a tank ramming an aircraft.

Well Duh...

Send in Mclane...

They added the Cities of Death FAQ as well, interesting.

EDIT: Confirmation that you can use the Warding Staff vs. Perils while in close combat is nice...

The thought of a Str 10 war boss on bike moving on from their board edge...then splitting off from their group to wreck havoc is pretty entertaining.

reds8n wrote:

Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a
vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those
within 6” of the custom force filed will count as
obscured

.... errr... okay...

.. not how we'd been playing it.. makes the kan wall a bit less viable.

Unless I'm reading it wrong this just clarifies the way Kan Wall works. Only the the Kanz in a squadron with in 6" of the KFF are obscured. So if 50% of squadron are obscured, the whole squadron gets 4+ Cover.

mrfantastical wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a
vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those
within 6” of the custom force filed will count as
obscured

.... errr... okay...

.. not how we'd been playing it.. makes the kan wall a bit less viable.

Unless I'm reading it wrong this just clarifies the way Kan Wall works. Only the the Kanz in a squadron with in 6" of the KFF are obscured. So if 50% of squadron are obscured, the whole squadron gets 4+ Cover.

yeah,
I've been playing it wrong, I thought you only needed 1 kan.
But now I need 2 kans in range to get the 4++, this will makes it harder to keep the Kans covered but should still be do'able.
Time will tell!

I'm not sure about the idea of claiming a 5+ save for a squad with only one kan in range!? but it does say unit..

Panic...

Wow, who wouldn't take Snikrot now that he can attach biker bosses?

reds8n wrote:

Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a
vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those
within 6” of the custom force filed will count as
obscured

.... errr... okay...

.. not how we'd been playing it.. makes the kan wall a bit less viable.

Yeah, this is a big, big deal. The lines of logic for the old rationale (if more than one half of the squadron; i.e., 2 in three) seemed pretty solid.

Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force filed will count as obscured

It sounds like people are misinterpreting this already. Even FAQs don't seem to help with some rules. So much for anything being "obvious" to the whole gaming community.

Isn't this pretty clear that only the vehicles in the squadron that are within 6" of the field get the save from the force field? It doesn't say anything about majority of models and the effect on the whole squadron. It doesn't say anything about a 5+ save for models farther away. So be careful to which vehicles you allocate the hits, you'd clearly want to allocate them to the ones inside the force field first. For best FAQ results, try keeping it simple and don't extrapolate things from the language that aren't there.

BrassScorpion wrote:

Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force filed will count as obscured

It sounds like people are misinterpreting this already. Even FAQs don't seem to help with some rules.

Isn't this pretty clear that only the vehicles in the squadron that are within 6" of the field get the save from the force field? It doesn't say anything about majority of models and the effect on the whole squadron. So be careful to which vehicles you allocate the hits, you'd clearly want to allocate them to the ones inside the force field first.

Right on. You're clarification of the clarification much appreciated!

By the way, I'm very suprised nobody has mentioned this:

GamesWorkshop FAQ wrote:Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)
A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

BrassScorpion wrote:

Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force filed will count as obscured

It sounds like people are misinterpreting this already. Even FAQs don't seem to help with some rules. So much for anything being "obvious" to the whole gaming community.

Isn't this pretty clear that only the vehicles in the squadron that are within 6" of the field get the save from the force field? It doesn't say anything about majority of models and the effect on the whole squadron. It doesn't say anything about a 5+ save for models farther away. So be careful to which vehicles you allocate the hits, you'd clearly want to allocate them to the ones inside the force field first. For best FAQ results, try keeping it simple and don't extrapolate things from the language that aren't there.

Please go back and reread the rules on cover for squadrons of vehicles. What you propose breaks some fundamental rules.

Units either benefit from cover saves, or they don't. If at least half of the models in a unit have a cover save, the whole unit gets a cover save. Nothing in the FAQ changes that - in fact, it ties in very easily (any vehicles w/in 6" of the KFF count as obscured; if 2/3 Kans are within 6", 2/3 of the Kans count as Obscured, so the unit has a 4+ cover save).

Thanks Janth, you said it better than I was getting ready to

I could have sworn I clicked on news and rumors but I'm getting an overwhelming YMDC vibe instead. Can you guys post the question and debate it there?

AgeOfEgos wrote:The thought of a Str 10 war boss on bike moving on from their board edge...then splitting off from their group to wreck havoc is pretty entertaining.

If I remember correctly, you can't separate from the unit the turn you arrive.

Janthkin wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:

Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force filed will count as obscured

It sounds like people are misinterpreting this already. Even FAQs don't seem to help with some rules. So much for anything being "obvious" to the whole gaming community.

Isn't this pretty clear that only the vehicles in the squadron that are within 6" of the field get the save from the force field? It doesn't say anything about majority of models and the effect on the whole squadron. It doesn't say anything about a 5+ save for models farther away. So be careful to which vehicles you allocate the hits, you'd clearly want to allocate them to the ones inside the force field first. For best FAQ results, try keeping it simple and don't extrapolate things from the language that aren't there.

Please go back and reread the rules on cover for squadrons of vehicles. What you propose breaks some fundamental rules.

Units either benefit from cover saves, or they don't. If at least half of the models in a unit have a cover save, the whole unit gets a cover save. Nothing in the FAQ changes that - in fact, it ties in very easily (any vehicles w/in 6" of the KFF count as obscured; if 2/3 Kans are within 6", 2/3 of the Kans count as Obscured, so the unit has a 4+ cover save).

Except that the FAQ specifically states that, " Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force field will count as obscured." So if a vehicle is not within 6 inches, it is not obscured. That seems pretty cut and dry to me. This is an example of a rule for a specific piece of wargear, trumping a general rule about squadrons and cover.

augustus5 wrote:Except that the FAQ specifically states that, " Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force field will count as obscured." So if a vehicle is not within 6 inches, it is not obscured. That seems pretty cut and dry to me. This is an example of a rule for a specific piece of wargear, trumping a general rule about squadrons and cover.

I think that you will find that this is actually a case of a FAQ answer causing more problems than it solves. Won't be the first and it won't be the last. If it was cut and dry, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Real answer is 'check with your opponent'.

yeah,
Take the KFF out of the equation for a minute.

If I have a squad of three walkers and and two are behind a building.
two count as obscured and one counts as unobscured.

The squad as a whole counts as obscured because squadron rules tell us so and they recieve a 4+ save.
Which is fair since you can only see one member of the squad.


now put the KFF back into the equation.
If I have two kans within 6" they both count as obscured. the third kan does not.
two obscured and one unobscured... Squadron rules now tell us that the whole squad counts as obscured and they all get a 4+ save.

But
If I have only one kan within 6" it counts as obscured and the other two kans do not not.
Squadron rules now tell us that the whole squad does not count as obscured.
and none of the Kans gets a save.

Panic...

augustus5 wrote:Except that the FAQ specifically states that, " Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force field will count as obscured." So if a vehicle is not within 6 inches, it is not obscured. That seems pretty cut and dry to me. This is an example of a rule for a specific piece of wargear, trumping a general rule about squadrons and cover.

That doesn't contradict the normal unit rules for cover, though. Units gain a cover save if at least half of the unit is in cover. So if half of the squadron is obscured by the KFF, the squadron counts as in cover. If less than half the squadron is obscured, they don't.

pretre wrote:I don't find it that absurd.

*glares*

Fine then. Replace the Valk in this example with one of these.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

pretre wrote:I don't find it that absurd.

*glares*

Fine then. Replace the Valk in this example with one of these.

Now that's going to require a ramp, a rebel flag painted on the roof of your Demo and a good ol' Yee-haw.

yeah,
I agree with HBMC..
Jetfighters shouldn't get rammed.
but yeah a transport should be rammable only if it dropped off/ picked up troops in it's previous turn.

Panic..

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)
A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’

Well I guess that finally answers the Vindicare assassin versus Monolith debate.