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.

Posted By onlainari on 12/07/2006 5:53 PM

RB.25.03 slightly clarifies my question with the note. 76.E.02 by itself appears to make the unit mixed armour, even if the wounds do not ignore the save. For example, chappy and 6 assault marines are wounded 9 times. Powerfist is allocated the torrent of fire save. I want to take the other 8 saves all on the assault marines, but if the unit is mixed armour, I must allocate 1 or 2 to the chappy (1 or 2 due to there being a choice of who to allocate to first, 3+ saves or 3+/4++ saves). I want the option of allocating 1, 2, or 0 wounds to the chappy.

Is that too much to ask?

RB.25.03 deals with a situation where the unit's "Armor" save is all the same but some models have invulnerable saves (or some models have different invulnerable saves than others).

RB.76E.02 deals with units that are using the mixed armor rule (i.e. they have differing "Armor" saves in their unit) AND have some models with invulnerable saves (or differing invulnerable saves) within the same Armor type "set".

If your example above is a Chaplain in power armor with 6 Assualt marines, then it would fall under the jurisdiction of RB.25.03 (as all the models have a 3+ Armor save in the unit).

As explained in RB.25.03, this new allocation process ONLY applies to wounds that ignore the unit's basic armor save. So if the unit is suffering 9 wounds that ignore armor saves, then the Chaplain is absolutely going to take wounds no matter how you look at it.

If those 9 wounds DON'T ignore the units basic 3+ armor save, then RB.25.03 isn't used. . .you just make saves for the unit and then allocate the unsaved wounds as you see fit.

If SOME of the wounds ignore "Armor" saves and SOME of the wounds don't ignore "Armor" saves, then you use RB.25.03 to allocate the wounds that ignore "Armor" saves first. After those wounds are resolved you move onto making general unit Armor saves for the rest of the wounds.

Is that clear? Do you have any suggestions on making RB.25.03 more clear? I spent a lot of time working on it to make it play how most everyone seems to intuitively play the issue, but I'm sure the wording can still be improved for clarity.

 

You're talking about the IC targeting restrictions still applying to Stealth teams when they probably shouldn't? I agree, but don't you think that question should go in the Tau FAQ rather than the general rulebook FAQ?

 

Posted By yakface on 12/07/2006 6:42 PM

If those 9 wounds DON'T ignore the units basic 3+ armor save, then RB.25.03 isn't used. . .you just make saves for the unit and then allocate the unsaved wounds as you see fit.

AH HA! Ok thanks now I understand.

Is that clear? Do you have any suggestions on making RB.25.03 more clear? I spent a lot of time working on it to make it play how most everyone seems to intuitively play the issue, but I'm sure the wording can still be improved for clarity.

It should be clear enough for most people!

You're talking about the IC targeting restrictions still applying to Stealth teams when they probably shouldn't? I agree, but don't you think that question should go in the Tau FAQ rather than the general rulebook FAQ?

 Yes I meant Codex FAQ sorry.

Okay, now both the codex and RB FAQs have been updated into the new style.

Again, any feeback on the layout or any paticular question is always greatly appreciated.

Vibrocannon shots should read clarification. Or maybe I'm just to geeky in going with the definition of a line being the shortest distance between to points, and anything else being a curve.

WH.18.03 ? If a unit has Multiple
Blasts/Templates and wants to use
Divine Guidance Act of Faith, how exactly
does this work?
A: In this case (and this case only), the
player must declare they are using Divine
before rolling to hit [rules change].
Ref: RB.30.01C

Wouldn't it make more sense for them to roll to hits with anything that requires a roll (ie bolters, pistols, etc) first.

I love the new layout. Very easy on the eyes.

That said, for the second time, I still disagree with the farseer and warlocks being lumped into one unit. I am not going to repeat myself regarding why, as I already stated the rules earlier in this thread.

Posted By frenrik on 12/08/2006 6:41 PM
Vibrocannon shots should read clarification. Or maybe I'm just to geeky in going with the definition of a line being the shortest distance between to points, and anything else being a curve.

Well, there are definitions of the word line that include a curved line, so I'm just playing it safe and sticking with a "clarification".

That's a good idea, I'll change it in the next update.

 I, of course, completely agree with you from a RAW perspective. There is absolutely no argument there.

However, there simply is no other codex that allows a bodyguard as a seperate unit, and nothing in the Eldar codex this time around specifically indicates a reason why GW would suddenly change this concept.

I can't find anything in the fluff or think of any reasoning why a Warlock unit that is only allowed to be taken if the army includes a Farseer would now be able to run around on their own. It doesn't logically fit to me as a change as much as it could be simple omission/error.

I could be totally off base, but I also think that the majority of players will continue to play the Farseer/Warlocks as a single unit for the "intent" reasons I've just stated.

I could be totally wrong here, and I haven't had a chance to play against people using the new codex to "feel" how they play this issue. I think this could call for a nice little YMTC poll to help me make a decision.

 

 

After reading the 1h/2h thread and thinking about it, I have to change my earlier suggestion that unspecified weapons should be treated as two-handed: It appears to me that the simplest and most parsimonious solution to this is to go strcitly by RAW: Any weapons that are not specified to be single handed or two-handed do not receive the rules associated with either weapon type.

Posted By Lowinor on 12/12/2006 11:31 AM
After reading the 1h/2h thread and thinking about it, I have to change my earlier suggestion that unspecified weapons should be treated as two-handed: It appears to me that the simplest and most parsimonious solution to this is to go strcitly by RAW: Any weapons that are not specified to be single handed or two-handed do not receive the rules associated with either weapon type.

I don't personally think that the goal of a FAQ should be to stick with the simplest answer if it goes against how most people intuitively play the issue.

In all the games I've played or watched players generally just make an assumption of whether a weapon is single or two-handed based on the model itself.

Obviously there are exceptions to this, as some models are holding their two-handed weapons with one hand (such as Terminators with Storm bolters), and that is exactly where a FAQ needs to step in and clarify the issue.

What you may not realize is how many weapons are undefined, and if we suddenly changed them all to "two-handed", players would not only want to ignore the FAQ, but would think I was lazy and stupid for going with that answer.

The Axe of Khorne (or many of the Cult Daemon weapons in the Chaos codex) are good examples. If you try to tell Chaos players that the Axe of Khorne cannot be used to gain the +1A bonus they will scream bloody murder, and with good reason too. It is a CC weapon that is pretty clearly shown being used by Kharne with a single hand while wielding his pistol.

The fact is, if you go through the codices (as I have), and look at what weapons are undefined, making undefined CC weapons into single-handed weapons and other types of undefined weapons two-handed makes the game function 95% of the time exactly like players already play the issue without even thinking about it.

And that, IMO, is the hallmark of a good FAQ answer.

 

In reading back over the Chaos codex, I'm forced to agree. I was under the quite erroneous belief that most close combat weapons were actually specified, when even within the Chaos codex it's slipshod.

Posted By yakface on 12/12/2006 12:32 AM

Hellfury wrote:
I love the new layout. Very easy on the eyes.

That said, for the second time, I still disagree with the farseer and warlocks being lumped into one unit. I am not going to repeat myself regarding why, as I already stated the rules earlier in this thread.

 I, of course, completely agree with you from a RAW perspective. There is absolutely no argument there.

However, there simply is no other codex that allows a bodyguard as a seperate unit, and nothing in the Eldar codex this time around specifically indicates a reason why GW would suddenly change this concept.

I can't find anything in the fluff or think of any reasoning why a Warlock unit that is only allowed to be taken if the army includes a Farseer would now be able to run around on their own. It doesn't logically fit to me as a change as much as it could be simple omission/error.

I could be totally off base, but I also think that the majority of players will continue to play the Farseer/Warlocks as a single unit for the "intent" reasons I've just stated.

I could be totally wrong here, and I haven't had a chance to play against people using the new codex to "feel" how they play this issue. I think this could call for a nice little YMTC poll to help me make a decision.

Just as an info point, you'll recall the IG codex offers a number of additional, independen units which can be included only in the presence of the Command Platoon. A platoon, for that matter, does much the same thing. Multiple scoring units, a single force org slot - what's the issue, exactly? Just the semi-historical hangup associated with "seer council"-like retinues?

btw, shouldn't this post be stickied?

I didnt see anything about the Kroot. Thats one army that got No help at all in Fourth Ed

Yeah, I don't have any Kroot questions at all.

It would be a tremendous help if someone who is a Kroot player would take the time to let me know about some of their common questions.

Q: What happens when someone has bought wargear like a Blacksun Filter and tries to use it's effects against the Veil of Tears psychic power? How about indirect-fire weapons such as Smart Missile Systems?

Q: When Vectored Engines take effect (I.E. your SMF vehicle just suffered an immobilized result) does the vehicle count as immobilized immediately and for the rest of the turn, or does SMF stay in effect until the beginning of the owning player's next turn?

---This ambiguity stems from "as if it was immobile" phrase in the Vectored Engines text. The question arises from "As if it was immobile" being interpreted as *after* the VE take effect, or *in reference to* the fact that this is an exception to the normal case? Obviously the implication in interpretation is huge here, meaning the difference between a expensive upgrade working for a whole turn or only against a single damage result a single time...

Q: What is the correct method of firing a Tempest Launcher? (I.E. Multiple Barrage or Barrage rules?) The weapon description is not helpful other than listing it as a "G" weapon and giving it 2 shots base...

Issue with YakFaq: Why did you decide it was necessary to outright kill an Autarch that rolls doubles with a Warp Jump Generator? When a Chaplain with a Jumpack runs into a tree, he only loses one wound, but when an Autarch's equipment malfunctions he dies an immediate and horrible death!? They seem like similar rules to me, and in every circumstance EXCEPT this one GW has specifically noted/FAQed that ICs only take one wound from Dangerous Terrain checks. The support of RAW is in your favor, of course, but since this is an entirely subjective FAQ and you're trying to interpret things as "not rediculous" and "fair" I think I'd have to disagree with your FAQ here.

Issue with YakFaq: Your interpretation (as insignificant as it seems) of two Fire Prisms out of range from each other still contributing shots to one another rubs me very much the wrong way. Not only does it go against all the rules for firing a weapon (which admittedly do not apply but give us an intuitive or "intent" base from which to work), and the "intent" of the "contribution" rules seems to indicate that one weapon is actually firing directly at another weapon of the same type on another vehicle. Common sense seems to indicate that it would need Line of Sight and Range, just as if firing at a real target...

Read the rules for the Warp Spider jump pack; if you use it to move 2d6" in the assault phase, and roll doubles, you lose one model in the unit. If the Autarch is alone and uses the pack, and rolls doubles, he's the only model available, and thus is lost. It's not Dangerous Terrain; it's the pack's special rule.

Well, he DID say RAW was in favor of the way the FAQ rules. He just was saying that the RAW doesn't make sense.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 02/05/2007 4:27 PM
Q: What happens when someone has bought wargear like a Blacksun Filter and tries to use it's effects against the Veil of Tears psychic power? How about indirect-fire weapons such as Smart Missile Systems?

I don't see any reason why the Veil of Tears rule is anyway connected to the Night Fighting spotting rules. They are similar in some regards (in that you roll a few dice and multiply the result to see if the unit can be fired at) but they are ultimately two different things. I see no current special rules or wargear that would exempt a unit from following the Veil of Tears rule. In short, I don't see a reason to include this question in the FAQ, but I guess if enough people keep asking the question it might just be included for the sake of clarity.

 

First, the vectored engines rules don't say "as if it was immobile" they say: "If the vehicle would crash due to being immobilised, it instead makes a forced landing as if it had not moved that turn."

However, I think your question was about the Skimmers Moving Fast rule, and if you look at the SMF rule it states that the vehicle may only utilize the rule if it is a "mobile" skimmer. So once an Eldar vehicle becomes immobile it can no longer utilize the SMF rule regardless of whether it moved last turn or not.

That is a good question. I'll add it to the FAQ.

Those are both two very difficult situations. I originally had the Fire Prism ruling opposite (that they had to be within range) but some people argued that since GW had been very specific about the range, there's a good chance that they actually intended for them to be used beyond 60". More importantly, since the range issue will hardly ever be an issue (60" is pretty darn far), it 'felt' best to me to leave the ruling with the RAW.

For the Autarch, any other ruling would require me to essentially 'make up' a rule. Having the Autarch only suffer one wound on a doubles roll? There's absolutely no basis for that in the rules. The Jump Generator is a specialized piece of equipment, and the Autarch can already Fleet along with moving 12" in the movement phase. If he really wants to push it in the Assualt phase (and he's not joined to a Spider unit) then I guess he is taking a big risk.

I just don't see any other fair way to rule on it, personally. But I respect your difference in opinion.

 

Thanks so much for the feedback and be on the lookout for an updated version of my FAQ to be out very, very soon.

 

Posted By yakface on 02/05/2007 5:59 PM

For the Autarch, any other ruling would require me to essentially 'make up' a rule. Having the Autarch only suffer one wound on a doubles roll? There's absolutely no basis for that in the rules. The Jump Generator is a specialized piece of equipment, and the Autarch can already Fleet along with moving 12" in the movement phase. If he really wants to push it in the Assualt phase (and he's not joined to a Spider unit) then I guess he is taking a big risk.

I just don't see any other fair way to rule on it, personally. But I respect your difference in opinion.

Thanks so much for the feedback and be on the lookout for an updated version of my FAQ to be out very, very soon.

 

How would "making up a rule" be any different that what you've already done on several occasions? I'm not trying to personally attack your admirable effort in trying to put together a FAQ that fills all the gaps GW leaves, but...

1) I thought an IC counted as his own unit at all times. I questioned your Warp Generator ruling because I was under the impression I'd have to roll a "special" roll just for the Autarch if he *ever* wants to use his pack... (kind of like "gets hot" ) To put it another way, why would being joined to a unit of Spiders somehow protect the Autarch's personal gear from malfunctioning just the same as anyone else's?

2) Why would an Autarch get to fleet with a WJG and not a jetbike? In both cases the "base" unit that uses such wargear does NOT benefit from fleet. Since you say that consistency is necessary in any FAQ, you can hardly nullify the Autarch's Fleet rule in one circumstance and not in another identical one... Same goes for Farseers and Warlocks (although just jetbikes here). It would seem to me that if we are using "other units" in the codex as a reference baseline, then nobody would be able to fleet with a WJG either. (BTW--saying that Fleet is not allowed on these units with wargear upgrades is *precisely* making up your own rules. The RAW contradicts you bitterly here...)

3) I know you're set on the Fire Prism issue, but during Cleanse missions it *is* possible to get more than 60" between two friendly units, and I think that your ruling opens up avenues of abuse, whereas sticking with the normal firing rules does not... (I am being critical here because a local tourney is considering using these rules and if they do it'll pretty much be our own local precedent on rulings I think...so this is important to me)

4) You're right about vectored engines. While the Codex seems to imply that the SMF rule should stay in effect, the Rulebook definitely does not. I wonder how much of this is due to poor editing and writing... What a useless upgrade for 20 points. I think I hate GW...

P.S.-- Around here, many of our frequent GT competitors seem to be under the impression that Smart Missiles and BSFs nullify Veil almost completely. I haven't checked the exact wording on these issues myself, but perhaps this is more worth your consideration than you think... (we're talking at least 1/2 dozen people with the same impression here...not just me...)

Posted By yakface on 12/20/2006 10:18 AM

Yeah, I don't have any Kroot questions at all.

It would be a tremendous help if someone who is a Kroot player would take the time to let me know about some of their common questions.

Kroot are pretty straight forward. The only thing you might want to throw in is "Can Kroot Mercs Sweeping Advance?"

By the RAW, they certainly can. Their special 'eaters of the dead' rule says that they "must consolidate" and nothing more. In 3rd edition, this meant they couldn't sweeping acvance, as it was either sweep or consolidate, you couldn't do both. Now, in 4th, you can both sweep and consolidate, so you can sweep someone while still fulfilling the 'must consolidate' rule.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 02/07/2007 7:30 AM

How would "making up a rule" be any different that what you've already done on several occasions? I'm not trying to personally attack your admirable effort in trying to put together a FAQ that fills all the gaps GW leaves, but...

1) I thought an IC counted as his own unit at all times. I questioned your Warp Generator ruling because I was under the impression I'd have to roll a "special" roll just for the Autarch if he *ever* wants to use his pack... (kind of like "gets hot" ) To put it another way, why would being joined to a unit of Spiders somehow protect the Autarch's personal gear from malfunctioning just the same as anyone else's?

Well, I"m just going with the rules in this case. An Autarch with a unit wouldn't roll seperately because you'd make one distance roll for the whole unit. As for a fluff reason. . .perhaps its Daemons in the warp or getting lost during the extra jump that causes most of the casualties and having a unit around him means that the regular Spiders 'jump on the grenade' to save the Autarch. Ultimately, it would make just as little 'sense' to have the Autarch lose only one wound. If he's lost in the warp he's lost in the warp, it doesn't matter how many wounds he has.

The only reason I've ruled against models on bikes fleeting is because the Dark Eldar codex specifically disallows this and it would seem quite unfair for regular Eldar to do it when DE don't. Now, when the new DE codex comes out, perhaps GW will reverse their position and allow DE bikes to fleet too. If that's the case, then obviously I'd change my position.

Well, I wouldn't say I'm 'set' on it. Like I said, I originally ruled the same way you did but was convinced to change it by other people. I obviously know it's open for abuse, but I can't entirely rule out that it wasn't intended to function like that by GW. Look at it this way: The Fire Prism doesn't have to roll to hit in order to combine it's Prism Cannon, so obviously there is some advanced linking technology going on between the vehicles. GW spelled out the LOS restriction it really seems they would have included the range restriction in that same sentence.

You're joking right? Vectored Engines are a great upgrade for 20 points when you're talking about a several hundred point vehicle that would otherwise be totally destroyed by an immobilized roll.

I think a lot of that is the fact that the rules are so new and people are unfamiliar with them. I say give it a few months and you won't see these interpretations still around. Although I could be wrong, and like I said, If I keep seeing the question asked I'll definitely add it into the FAQ.

 

Posted By Sir Drake on 02/07/2007 9:17 AM

Kroot are pretty straight forward. The only thing you might want to throw in is "Can Kroot Mercs Sweeping Advance?"

By the RAW, they certainly can. Their special 'eaters of the dead' rule says that they "must consolidate" and nothing more. In 3rd edition, this meant they couldn't sweeping acvance, as it was either sweep or consolidate, you couldn't do both. Now, in 4th, you can both sweep and consolidate, so you can sweep someone while still fulfilling the 'must consolidate' rule.

Thanks a bunch, I'll add that to the FAQ.

Anyone else doesn't have any Kroot Merc questions? Wasn't there some issues caused by the new Tau codex coming out (like different statlines or something)?

 

Posted By yakface on 02/07/2007 5:51 PM

2) Why would an Autarch get to fleet with a WJG and not a jetbike? In both cases the "base" unit that uses such wargear does NOT benefit from fleet. Since you say that consistency is necessary in any FAQ, you can hardly nullify the Autarch's Fleet rule in one circumstance and not in another identical one... Same goes for Farseers and Warlocks (although just jetbikes here). It would seem to me that if we are using "other units" in the codex as a reference baseline, then nobody would be able to fleet with a WJG either. (BTW--saying that Fleet is not allowed on these units with wargear upgrades is *precisely* making up your own rules. The RAW contradicts you bitterly here...)

The only reason I've ruled against models on bikes fleeting is because the Dark Eldar codex specifically disallows this and it would seem quite unfair for regular Eldar to do it when DE don't. Now, when the new DE codex comes out, perhaps GW will reverse their position and allow DE bikes to fleet too. If that's the case, then obviously I'd change my position.

I didn't know your position was based off the DE bike rule. Regardless, maybe I didn't state myself clearly before. Shining Spears and Guardian Jetbikes do not get to Fleet. Neither do Warp Spiders. But technically (by RAW) an Autarch with either wargear option *can.* Since we're ruling that that doesn't make sense, it's unfair to only penalize the Jetbike crowd, and an Autarch w/ WJG also shouldn't be able to fleet in order to maintain consistency. The fact that Swooping Hawks specifically *can* Fleet, since we're applying common sense here, then that means that for whatever reason a WJG prevents you from Fleeting just the same as a Jetbike. I belive Dark Eldar on a Skyboard also can't fleet. And so there seems to be a precedent that if "basic" units loose fleet due to their method of transport, then so do HQ units despite having Fleet in their profile. Do you agree with this assertion?

GW spelled out the LOS restriction it really seems they would have included the range restriction in that same sentence.

It *seems* GW would have done a lot of things had they thought out the codex properly... I guess it would make more sense to me to use a ruling that's not open to abuse, and unlikely to cause disputes between players. That's my bottom line. (I can just see it now: [whiny Smurf player] "But you're *out of RANGE!* How can you still contriubte when you *can't reach*!?)

4) You're right about vectored engines. While the Codex seems to imply that the SMF rule should stay in effect, the Rulebook definitely does not. I wonder how much of this is due to poor editing and writing... What a useless upgrade for 20 points. I think I hate GW...

You're joking right? Vectored Engines are a great upgrade for 20 points when you're talking about a several hundred point vehicle that would otherwise be totally destroyed by an immobilized roll.

My intent is not to go O-T, but since we're sort-of discussing this on a side tangent, I'd like to point out that it's 20 points that only works once, and you can quite easily be subsequently blown up in the *same turn* by a follow-up shot. Maybe I just have phenomenally bad luck, but the one time VEs came into effect in my game, the vehicle was immediately blown up by the next follow-up shot. Although it protects you from the re-roll to wound, your expensive aspect squad is still pretty much dead if they're entangled. And a "6" just means you spent 20 points more than you had to on the vehicle... The limited applicability combined with what is essentially a *very* modest durability upgrade combine to make 20 points seem a steep price to pay. (How hard is it to destroy a non-skimmer AV12 vehicle? Look at the surviveability of Dreadnaughts and  you have your answer...destroying a waveserpent "twice" in a turn is very much within the realm of possibility for competitive opposing lists, especially considering that Wave Serpents' critical turn is the first one... Perhaps I'm just dissapointed that GW decided not to make the possibility of running only a single wave serpent (as a reliable transport--the gunboat option you use is the only viable one if you ask me) a good one---Vectoed Engines scales in effectiveness if you run multiple wave serpents though.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 02/08/2007 7:37 AM

I didn't know your position was based off the DE bike rule. Regardless, maybe I didn't state myself clearly before. Shining Spears and Guardian Jetbikes do not get to Fleet. Neither do Warp Spiders. But technically (by RAW) an Autarch with either wargear option *can.* Since we're ruling that that doesn't make sense, it's unfair to only penalize the Jetbike crowd, and an Autarch w/ WJG also shouldn't be able to fleet in order to maintain consistency. The fact that Swooping Hawks specifically *can* Fleet, since we're applying common sense here, then that means that for whatever reason a WJG prevents you from Fleeting just the same as a Jetbike. I belive Dark Eldar on a Skyboard also can't fleet. And so there seems to be a precedent that if "basic" units loose fleet due to their method of transport, then so do HQ units despite having Fleet in their profile. Do you agree with this assertion?

 

Y'know you're right. I did rule that DE characters can't fleet on a skyboard, and if that's the case then Autarch's shouldn't be able to fleet with a Jump Generator either. So I need to change both rulings either one way or another.

Ultimately, the problem is that the DE fleet rule allows all units to take fleet except for the ones listed (making it seem like if a character is given gear matching a unit that *can't* fleet they shouldn't be able to fleet either), where as the Eldar fleet rule is obviously expressly given to certain units (making it seem like they use that rule no matter what gear they have).

It's certainly a pretty tricky situation but I'm leaning towards your suggestion now (of not allowing jump generator equipped Autarchs to fleet).

 

 

Collar of Khorne, Sisters shield of Faith and the Null rod offer potential ways of getting around VoT I think...

I am not all too familiar with DE, and maybe things are alot differant with the new Eldar codex as I am still reading through that, but I remember in the old eldar codex fleet was related to a models armor save.  You could not have anything better then a 4+ and fleet unless it was specifically stated like with the Exarchs.
Aztralwolf

Another for you to mull over...

The GW FAQ for the Ork codex says that a KFF provides a vehicle with "Concealment."

There was some debate about what this actually meant around my area recently, but since nobody seriously plays Orks the issue was dropped...

But what exactly is a KFF in/on a vehicle supposed to accomplish? Does it provide Hull Down? Does it count as close-topped? There seem to have been many different rulings on this throughout most of 4th edition (different for Feral orks or Speed Freaks). So which one is an Ork player supposed to know to apply?

EDIT: Point of interest--the only place that "Concealment" shows up in the RAW is under the  "Smoke Launchers" entry. I also can't check the RAW verbatim on this right now, so this is from memory...

Posted By ColonelEllios on 02/14/2007 7:57 AM
Another for you to mull over...

The GW FAQ for the Ork codex says that a KFF provides a vehicle with "Concealment."

There was some debate about what this actually meant around my area recently, but since nobody seriously plays Orks the issue was dropped...

But what exactly is a KFF in/on a vehicle supposed to accomplish? Does it provide Hull Down? Does it count as close-topped? There seem to have been many different rulings on this throughout most of 4th edition (different for Feral orks or Speed Freaks). So which one is an Ork player supposed to know to apply?

EDIT: Point of interest--the only place that "Concealment" shows up in the RAW is under the  "Smoke Launchers" entry. I also can't check the RAW verbatim on this right now, so this is from memory...

Since that FAQ answer was produced, the KFF in the Ork codex has been revised (it is also in the Wargear Book).

It states that the KFF provides vehicles with "obscurement" not concealment.

Just a quick one...

Can Wraithguard be carried in a Falcon transport? (by RAW it appears that yes, they can)