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.

I play orks and yesterday, I had a game with two of my friends.

Here is the situation: My big mek with the kff is stuck with a mob of nobz in melee vs a dreadnought (I had bad rolls and didnt kill it out right). The 3rd player arrives with a pack of blood claws and shoots in the combat. I say that the unit in assault get the cover save from the KFF since it 6" around the big mek. He says the unit in assault does not.

Now the rule specifies that in AN assault, the kff does not applie. The way I saw it is that the units in CC does not get the kff save but if and outside element shoots in the combat, the units in CC gets the cover save since the 3rd party is not in THE assault, but outside of it.

My friend said that I did not had the cover asve because i was in assault.

What do you guys think.

Also that arose a couple of other questions:
1. The kff rule says that all units in 6" gets 5+ cover save. Does this count for opponent troops?
2. If the opponent model shooting is at 2" from the Big mek and shoots at the Big Mek, does he get the cover save since the unit is in the kff?

There are no rules for 1vs1vs1 fights.

As such, by default, you cannot shoot into combat as the rules dont allow you to shoot at units locked in combat.

As for your others - no, BRB FAQ says it must specify it works for the opponent as well for them to gain the benefit.

You get a cover save no matter how far away the enemy is from your big mek.

Well dont the rules say you cant fire in CC, only because of your allys are stuck in? IMO, i think you should be able too, since its 2 foes, and theres no reason why anyone would really hesitate : /

DaKKaLAnce wrote:Well dont the rules say you cant fire in CC, only because of your allys are stuck in? IMO, i think you should be able too, since its 2 foes, and theres no reason why anyone would really hesitate : /

The rulebook says you can't fire into CC.

But, the rulebook was written for a game between two players, each with one army.

If you choose to expand this to take into account 3+ players (either in teams or in a FFA), you'll have to do some extensive house rules to allow for this. And, since house rules are the only way to handle this situation, it's not really something we can answer on YMDC as it will just be people's random thoughts and opinions.

Cover saves don't stop working in HtH. Even in a normal 2 player game, if (for example) an Ordnance weapon scatters onto models in close combat, they still get whatever cover saves they would normally have.

Cover saves don't work against CLOSE COMBAT ATTACKS. Which shooting certainly is not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:There are no rules for 1vs1vs1 fights.

As such, by default, you cannot shoot into combat as the rules dont allow you to shoot at units locked in combat.

Yes there are. pp272-273 of the rulebook. And theydo allow shooting into close combat.

As for your others - no, BRB FAQ says it must specify it works for the opponent as well for them to gain the benefit.

That part is correct, though. You randomise the hits on both combatants. Any that hit Orks will benefit from the KFF. Any that hit their opponent will not.

Which isnt applicable for people with only the small rulebook

There's a world of difference between 'There are no rules for...' and 'I don't have the rules for...'

If its not in the small rule book how can it be a rule? Are there secret rules that that my opponent will use that I'm not privy to because I didn't shell out the big bucks for the book with all the shiny pictures?

Oh and that wasn't a sarcastic question.

Its a rule that only comes into play in 3 way games, which are only covered in the larger book.

So in normal games you wont need to worry.

Edit: Ninja'd

kmdl1066 wrote:If its not in the small rule book how can it be a rule? Are there secret rules that that my opponent will use that I'm not privy to because I didn't shell out the big bucks for the book with all the shiny pictures?

The small book is not the complete rulebook. It's a condensed version produced for the start set, containing all of the rules for normal games but leaving out some of the extra stuff that is included in the normal rulebook.

If you're just playing standard games, then you're not missing anything. If you're looking to play different scenarios then you have the option of making them up for yourself or using the big book.

There certainly shouldn't be anything that your opponent will be springing on you mid-game... You should be ensuring that everyone involved is aware of any scenario-specific rules before starting the game.

Mannahnin wrote:Cover saves don't stop working in HtH. Even in a normal 2 player game, if (for example) an Ordnance weapon scatters onto models in close combat, they still get whatever cover saves they would normally have.

Cover saves don't work against CLOSE COMBAT ATTACKS. Which shooting certainly is not.

This is a little bit innaccurate ~ "This means that models do not get cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat," Pg 39

"and finally you resolve all close combats." Pg 9
"• Pick a combat.
• Fight close combat. Engaged models..." Pg 33
"Assaulting units must now move into close combat with the unit they have declared an assault against." Pg 34

Is the model engaged in CC? If yes, no cover saves may be taken.

You are taking that quote out of context. The immediately preceding sentence is "Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting."

There's also the whole preceding paragraph, all of which makes perfectly clear that they're talking about actual close combat attacks ignoring cover.

I believe it's stretching the RAW, and violating the RAI, to deny normal cover saves against shooting because a unit is engaged in CC.

There's nothing to indicate it's referring to Close Combat Attacks, and if they had intended for it to apply only to close combat attacks then that would have been the language used, no?

"TAKING SAVES: Models struck and wounded in close combat can attempt armour saves to avoid becoming casualties.
Models usually get to save regardless of the attacker’s Strength, but some especially monstrous creatures and powerful close combat weapons will punch straight through armour. Otherwise, the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for Shooting.

Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it
does against shooting"

Leaving the quote in context it still reads the same way, 'models stuck and wounded in close combat' is not models hit by close combat attacks. They go on to mentiong that some attacks ignore armour "...monstrous creatures and powerful close combat weapons..." and then say "the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for Shooting"

Finally they say "Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting. This means that models do not get cover saves against any wounds suffered in close
combat, and for obvious reasons cannot go to ground."

Models do not get cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat. We have a clear definition that a model is in close combat when it's 'Locked in combat' etc.

RAW it's a-okay, RAI one could think it's accurate too.
Cover is described as "enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the rocks and (hopefully) avoid harm." Pg 21
"Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting" Pg 39
Is just telling us that it's hard to hide behind dirt or a wall while you in a swirling melee. You're in CC so one can't claim cover as one's too busy fighting. You're an Ork and the KFF doesn't work when there's all these 'umies mixed up with d'orks.

ChrisCP wrote:There's nothing to indicate it's referring to Close Combat Attacks,

Except for the phrasing and placement of the section.

ChrisCP wrote:...and if they had intended for it to apply only to close combat attacks then that would have been the language used, no?

No, not necessarily. This is GW.

ChrisCP wrote:"TAKING SAVES: Models struck and wounded in close combat can attempt armour saves to avoid becoming casualties.
Models usually get to save regardless of the attacker’s Strength, but some especially monstrous creatures and powerful close combat weapons will punch straight through armour. Otherwise, the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for Shooting.

Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting"

Leaving the quote in context it still reads the same way, 'models stuck and wounded in close combat' is not models hit by close combat attacks. They go on to mentiong that some attacks ignore armour "...monstrous creatures and powerful close combat weapons..." and then say "the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for Shooting"

"Models struck". You are "struck" with a blow or a close combat weapon. Not a bullet. "Monstrous Creatures" and "close combat weapons" is still clearly talking about close combat attacks.

I'm happy enough to agree to disagree on this one, if you like. I agree that the RAW could be read your way. I just don't expect to encounter that interpretation in actual play, as the RAI seems obvious to me.

Mannahnin wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:There's nothing to indicate it's referring to Close Combat Attacks,

Except for the phrasing and placement of the section.

ChrisCP wrote:...and if they had intended for it to apply only to close combat attacks then that would have been the language used, no?

No, not necessarily. This is GW.

ChrisCP wrote:"TAKING SAVES: Models struck and wounded in close combat can attempt armour saves to avoid becoming casualties.
Models usually get to save regardless of the attacker’s Strength, but some especially monstrous creatures and powerful close combat weapons will punch straight through armour. Otherwise, the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for Shooting.

Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting"

Leaving the quote in context it still reads the same way, 'models stuck and wounded in close combat' is not models hit by close combat attacks. They go on to mentiong that some attacks ignore armour "...monstrous creatures and powerful close combat weapons..." and then say "the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for Shooting"

"Models struck". You are "struck" with a blow or a close combat weapon. Not a bullet. "Monstrous Creatures" and "close combat weapons" is still clearly talking about close combat attacks.

I'm happy enough to agree to disagree on this one, if you like. I agree that the RAW could be read your way. I just don't expect to encounter that interpretation in actual play, as the RAI seems obvious to me.

I'm as always, more than happy to disagree

But 'struck' is probably the most important bit here "A creature’s Armour Save (Sv) gives it a chance of avoiding harm when it is struck or shot." Pg 7
"How many blows are struck" Pg 34
and
"Models struck and wounded in close combat can attempt armour saves" Pg 3

Fun

Any quotes you provide are taken from the description of the assault phase, also close combat is only ever fought in that phase. It is very unlikely to get shot during an assault phase.

Anyway, you'd still have to follow the rules for getting shot, the same way you can, when scattering onto a combat fought in cover.