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.

sourclams:

I don't think you quite understand what Traskel is arguing there. He's saying that because the Kustom Force Field mentions a 5+ cover save given to all units, that the obscurement that it lends to vehicles is 5+ because vehicles are units.

No, I understand what he's saying perfectly. And he's right. The KFF grants a 5+ cover save to the Trukk unit.

And then it grants Obscurement in addition to the 5+ cover save.

And as we all know, obscurement is a 4+ cover save.

The Ork Codex would have to say that KFF changes Obscurement to a 5+ cover save in order for it to be interpreted the way Traskel is concluding.

sourclams wrote:Obscured grants a 4+ cover save. We know this because the rule for vehicle obscurement says so.

This is only the case if the codex doesn't describe a cover save for the vehicle benefiting from the obscurement. It's clearly stated in the codex that the vehicle gets a 5+ cover save.

Nurglitch wrote:Sorry, but could you explain where in the Ork Codex that it says the Kustom Force Field confers a 5+ cover save for obscurement instead of the standard 4+?

Rules wrote: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.

I'm claiming that the wargear gives vehicles a 5+ cover save if they are within 6 inches, and I'm claiming the save described in the rulebook doesn't apply, because the wargear explicitly states what the cover save should be.

So essentially, the first sentence that I quoted would be the answer to your question. Bring on the argument that this isn't explicitly mentioning that it's a result of the obscurement, but I don't think it needs to be.

Traskel:

So why don't you think that the rule doesn't need to explicitly mention that the cover save is the result of the obscurement?

All that KFF discusssions are funny for sure. Most people act like politicians. Talking your earz off without any sense in their sentences.

The KFF is easy.

5+ for units and 4+ for vehicles, the codex says so and it clearly says so.
If it would´ve been meant to be 5+ the codex should say something along this lines: "Every unit around 6" of the Mek w/KFF recieves a 5+ including vehicles".
But codex is nice to uz orkiez and says 5+ for units and "beeing obscured" for vehicles. So I really, really dont get why people even bother to discuss this.
Same for the RAM. Codex says, anything with RAM is allowed to Tankshock - too bad MANz cant get a RAM. Tankshock includes ramming. Special rule or not doesnt matter in any way here.
All that about it´s beeing a special rule or not or whatever is well, special. I could jump in and argue you need to be a special kind individual aka a brain forked Ork to ram Tanks with a Trukk.

DaDok:

Don't suppose you could show us how it is that your reading of the rules should be clear everyone?

Traskel wrote:I'm claiming that the wargear gives vehicles a 5+ cover save if they are within 6 inches, and I'm claiming the save described in the rulebook doesn't apply, because the wargear explicitly states what the cover save should be.

And that's where your interpretation fails. The codex says nothing about modifying the Obscurement save. Therefore, it doesn't. The Trukk gets a 5+ cover save for being a unit, and a 4+ cover save for being an obscured vehicle.

It's impossible to read it otherwise without injecting additional meaning that doesn't actually exist in the rules.

The KFF grants the vehicle both a 5+ cover save and obscurement. They're both from the same effect (the wargear), so it shouldn't be a large leap to assume that the 5+ cover granted in the previous sentence qualifies as a cover save the vehicle is benefiting from as a result of the wargear.

If you look in the rulebook, depending on how a vehicle is obscured (if it's obscured by a hedge, building, or fortification, etc.) it can receive either a 5+, 4+, or 3+ cover save. Essentially, the qualifier for what save the vehicle gets is based off of what cover it is in.

That doesn't help too much from a RAW standpoint, but the wargear does explicitly state that it provides 5+ cover to all units. I feel like the 4+ cover save described in the rulebook only applies if the wargear doesn't explicitly state what type of cover save is being provided by the wargear.

By looking at the entire section on obscurement, I think that the KFF would still confer a 5+ cover save to vehicles.

Traskel wrote:

sourclams wrote:Obscured grants a 4+ cover save. We know this because the rule for vehicle obscurement says so.

This is only the case if the codex doesn't describe a cover save for the vehicle benefiting from the obscurement. It's clearly stated in the codex that the vehicle gets a 5+ cover save.

Nurglitch wrote:Sorry, but could you explain where in the Ork Codex that it says the Kustom Force Field confers a 5+ cover save for obscurement instead of the standard 4+?

Rules wrote: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.

I'm claiming that the wargear gives vehicles a 5+ cover save if they are within 6 inches, and I'm claiming the save described in the rulebook doesn't apply, because the wargear explicitly states what the cover save should be.

So essentially, the first sentence that I quoted would be the answer to your question. Bring on the argument that this isn't explicitly mentioning that it's a result of the obscurement, but I don't think it needs to be.

It is impossible to count the wrong here. The ork codex says that it renders vehicles obscure; the rules say that obscured vehicles get a 4+ save.

olympia:

Is it really necessary to quote an entire post along with a single sentence comment?

Nurglitch wrote:olympia:

Is it really necessary to quote an entire post along with a single sentence comment?

yes

Traskel wrote:The KFF grants the vehicle both a 5+ cover save and obscurement.

Right.

They're both from the same effect (the wargear)

Right.

so it shouldn't be a large leap to assume

And that's where the line of reasoning fails. We're writing things into the rules.

Except the rule book states that war gear that grants obscurement gives a +4 cover save. Since the Ork codex doesn't specifically say that it gives vehicles a +5 save, but grants obscurement, and the rulebook states that war gear/upgrades that grant obscurement give a +4 save, it is only reasonable to think that vehicles give a +4 save.

@ Nurglich: Honestly, it is probably better to agree to disagree and wait on a faq ( ) rather then just fire back our thoughts back and fourth. We're going to get nowhere, and it isn't as clear
cut as some of the questions that are raised (like that weird "landraider surfing" one that surfaced a while back).

[off-topic]

Mekanikal:

We already agree to disagree by disagreeing. I think it's more interesting and constructive to work on figuring out where the truth lies while we wait for an FAQ to arrive. Not only may we find the truth of matter, we may gain some insight into the next problem that crops up. This is a discussion forum after all. Let's discuss it (but somewhere else than this thread - seriously, there should be a one question per thread limit).

[/off-topic]

Start Sarcasm:

OMG guys! The rulebook has a major error! Clearly only one of the following can be true!

Shooting at vehicles or shooting at infantry and monstrous creatures.

Both Roll to Hit

Shooting at vehicles rolls vs armor. Shooting at infantry rolls vs toughness.

Vehicles roll on a damage chart. Infantry get to make armor saves, which if failed is applied to something called "wounds."

Clearly shooting at vehicles and shooting at infantry are different things as they share only 1 out of 3 characteristics in common. But both are called SHOOTING!!!!! One is wrong! I need a FAQ before i can play again!

end rant

Seriously. Why are ramming and tank shock being taken out of context so much. Both can fall under the same GENERAL category and yet still be different. Ramming is a Subset of tank shock. This is also known as it has the rules of tank shock except the following...which ramming then goes on to conveniently list for us. After all SHOOTING at vehicles and infantry is different but both are accepted as shooting.

Nurglitch, you make me smile everytime I read one of your posts. Never Change, you're one of a kind, buddy.

Nurglitch wrote:DaDok:

Don't suppose you could show us how it is that your reading of the rules should be clear everyone?

Without acting like John, you know the strange advocate from Ally Mc Beal, yes, I suppose it should be clear in this case.
The KFF maybe not so 100% like the Ram thing but still.
It seems you got caught in your own world of devils advocate game sometimes. No offense but really, I sometimes sit just back in my chair and sigh, dear kid, please re-read some rules.
Ramming is one example. You are so into your "logical", "special" and "default" rules that you dont realise you quote some rules just wrong.
Tanks do not need to drive fullspeed for ramming. They need to drive and the highest possible speed. That includes 2+ " movement as well as 18" (Trukk with RAM).
Besides that Ork Codex clearly says "a unit with this equipment can do tankshocks even if it´s no tank". I barely understand how people came to the conclusion "ramming" is excluded here.

The KFF is strange for sure but well, the KFF is Orky Tech and no one ever should claim he/she understands Orky Tech eh
So as long as their is no Errate entry about KFF grants 4+ simply because the damn dex just says "vehicles within 6" counts as obscured. Without that sentence or another wording like units within 6" of the KFF includings vehicles get a 5+ save there´s not much room to discuss imo.
Personally I think they meant it the way that vehicles as well as units get 5+ save but what I think and what´s written down are two different things.
Everyone who had to make those crazy latin translations and interpretations of them after knows that you can say pretty much everything about the authors intention but that´s usually not what he´d meant. But that doesnt matter because if you can document your arguements pretty well with quotations you are right even if you´re wrong from the authors point of view.
Therefor it´s mostly the best way to follow the rules word for word without your own logic and interpretation.

I agree there are some things which are completely unclear or confusing at best though. But some of this discussions just went overboard.

I know this is in no way an argument for a ruling one way or the other on the KFF issue...

But does anyone know of another instance of a vehicle being obscured and granted a cover save other than a 4+ within the same entry?

Why do you think that line is even in the core rule book?

I guess they meant 5+ but took a wrong way to say it. So unless they clear the FoW or we get a FAQ entry here I would play with 4+.
Future will tell us I guess.

After posting here I sent an email to the roolz guyz at GW. I got back a reply this morning. Here it is

My question:

What cover save does a vehicle get for being obscured by the kustom force field wargear? According to the 5th ed rulebook a vehicle obscured by a piece of wargear gets a 4+ save unless specified otherwise is the codex containing the wargear. Some people argue that the kustom force field does specify otherwise and that all vehicles within 6" of the mek only receive a 4+ save.

Their answer:

Vehicles would get a 4+ save as they count as obscured.


My question:

The reinforced ram upgrade for trukks allows a trukk to make a tank shock move. In the 5th ed rulebook ramming is refered to as a special tank shock. Does this mean that a trukk with a reinforced ram can ram vehicles?

Their answer:

No. A reinforced ram does not allow you to ram. This may change in a future FAQ as it would make sense for a ram to allow you to ram.

Hopefully they will release another FAQ some time soon that will officially rule on these items. I guess this is how I will play untill I hear otherwise. Although if my opponent is having a cow about the KFF I'll let them have it and hopefully still krump 'em. And if my opponent is playing orks also, and insists that reinforced rams allow ramming... well, a bunch of trucks ramming each other sounds like more fun than I have any buisness having so we'll have at it.

AZ

cervidal wrote:

middle wrote:
You cannot take two rules and combine them together when it suits you.

To which I reply:

"Ramming is a special kind of tank shock."

I'm not combining anything together when it suits me. I'm looking at the sentence in the rulebook.

Looking at the sentence in the rulebook, cutting it short, and adding a full stop to it to make it look like a statement? I'm sure you can't do that either to make a point.

Ghaz wrote:

middle wrote:You cannot take two rules and combine them together when it suits you.

And you can't separate one rule into two when it suits you. Tank Shock is one rule with two subsets. The first is 'Tank Shock' against Infantry, etc while the second is 'Ramming' against vehicles. Being able to Tank Shock allows a vehicle to do bothsubset rules unless specifically FAQed otherwise.

I have already said how the layout of the book works. To prove my point i'll use another example: pg 42 of the rulebook, the page about close combat weapons.

CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS this tells us about how close combat weapons work, just as the TANKS section tells us about tanks on the tabletop.

NORMAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS is one rule, much as the TANK SHOCK! rule is one rule.

SPECIAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS is one rule, much as RAMMING is one rule.

If tank shock = ram ?

Then does a normal ccw = special ccw ?

No it doesn't. Look at the heirarchy of the type on the page and we can see the rules are divided into seperate sections. Some rules form a base rule that others use but with a difference to work out some of their effect, eg: ramming.


As for the KFF. Yes a vehicle is a unit and so it gains a 5+cover save under the kff rule. A vehicle is also a vehicle believe it or not, so under the kff rule is treated as an obscured target (4+ cover save). Can a model have more than one cover save?

Yes it can pg 24 of the rulebook says " If a unit can benefit from cover, for example being behind a hedge (5+ cover save) and a low wall (4+) , the unit uses the best cover save available (in this case 4+)."


And a thank you to Az for the e-mail to gw.

For the people referring to the DE type equipment that allows tankshocking but not ramming:

Warning: I'm not going into RAW or rules quoting stuff, just my understanding of the upgrades and a little logical thoughts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the device enabling that DE vehicle to tankshock infantry was something that emits a scary-stuff-being-tortured-unsettling-noise that may cause nearby units to leg it, and for lack of any better sollution using that spooky soundblaster follows the same rules as a tank shock.

Now could someone please explain me how an overamped scary boombox would help, in any way, to plow yer floating sailing ship trough a tank, or any other vehicle for that matter?

Opposed to that I'm pretty sure rivetting a sollid steel monstrosity of a bar, or a 6 foot diameter sollid roll with enough spikey bits to envy yer local chaos space marine legion, could have some effect if you plunge it with enough brute force into something.

my 2 cents

Opposed to that I'm pretty sure rivetting a sollid steel monstrosity of a bar, or a 6 foot diameter sollid roll with enough spikey bits to envy yer local chaos space marine legion, could have some effect if you plunge it with enough brute force into something.

... and thats where it all falls down reinforced ram ownly boosts front armour against death or glory ... you're talking about trying to ram with an open top, non tank, av10 truck you're all going to die! ...

middle wrote:CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS this tells us about how close combat weapons work, just as the TANKS section tells us about tanks on the tabletop.

NORMAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS is one rule, much as the TANK SHOCK! rule is one rule.

SPECIAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS is one rule, much as RAMMING is one rule.

If tank shock = ram ?

Then does a normal ccw = special ccw ?

No it doesn't. Look at the heirarchy of the type on the page and we can see the rules are divided into seperate sections. Some rules form a base rule that others use but with a difference to work out some of their effect, eg: ramming.

This is not how logic works.

Special CCW's : CCW's :: Ram : Tank Shock

Special CCW's are a type of CCW. All Special CCW's are CCW's. Not all CCW's are Special CCW's.

Ram is a type of Tank Shock. All Ramming is Tank Shock. Not all Tank Shock is Ramming.

I think I need a venn diagram here.

Nurglitch wrote:Wrong. The rulebook states that Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock.

Funny how you keep leaving that key word out.

According to the rulebook:

Tank Shock
1. May move at any speed
2. May shoot if allowed by speed
3. Must stop 1" short of vehicles
4. May tank shock attack non-vehicles

Ramming
1. Must move at top speed
2. Cannot shoot
3. Rams vehicles across its path of movement
4. May tank shock attack non-vehicles

I'm going to expand the list of Arbitrary Things for you.

Ramming and Tank Shock:
5. Can only be performed by Tanks
6. Are used during the Movement phase
7. Involve moving the tank
8. Allows your vehicle to potentially move into spaces formerly occupied by enemy units
9. Are rules in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook
10. Can only be performed on days ending in Y

Oh sorry I left that word out.

Nurglitch, you're special.

Old John (our rule e-mail guy) has already seemed to state that the reinforced ram does not ram. So, end of this discussion on that front (it is a few posts up). This is as official as it is going to get without a FAQ.

In the purest RAQ, a ram is not a tank shock, because

1) the rule *does not say* "it is a tank shock", rather the say it is a "special" type of tank shock. This one word DOES move it to a different category altogether.

2) the vehicle performing either action *has* to declare one OR the other. IF they were the same, you could just tank shock and whilst tank shocking, hit all the vehicles in your way.

"or" whilst Raming you only go half speed because tank shock has that option. Hence they are not the same....

Well because the rule book says they are not by showing how different they are and how different they work and for the fact you HAVE to call out which one you can do.

3) in the ork codex it states in the Reinforced ram section that the vehicle with one can perform a "tank shock"------------------> Again by the purest RAW you can *only* ever call the words "Tank Shock" to your opponent because the rule in the BRB states you have to call one or the other (Ram or Tank shock) to your opponent, the ork player (I am one btw) can only ever say "tank shock" because his codex says that exactly in his codex. Again this is pure RAW and the only way we can read it.

IMHO, this one is real easy from a RAW point of view.

Old John (our rule e-mail guy) has already seemed to state that the reinforced ram does not ram. So, end of this discussion on that front (it is a few posts up). This is as official as it is going to get without a FAQ.

In the purest RAW, a ram is not a tank shock, because

1) the rule *does not say* "it is a tank shock", rather the say it is a "special" type of tank shock. This one word DOES move it to a different category altogether.

2) the vehicle performing either action *has* to declare one OR the other. IF they were the same, you could just tank shock and whilst tank shocking, hit all the vehicles in your way.

"or" whilst Raming you only go half speed because tank shock has that option. Hence they are not the same....

Well because the rule book says they are not by showing how different they are and how different they work and for the fact you HAVE to call out which one you can do.

3) in the ork codex it states in the Reinforced ram section that the vehicle with one can perform a "tank shock"------------------> Again by the purest RAW you can *only* ever call the words "Tank Shock" to your opponent because the rule in the BRB states you have to call one or the other (Ram or Tank shock), the ork player (I am one btw) can only ever say "tank shock" because his codex says that exactly in his codex. Again this is pure RAW and the only way we can read it.

IMHO, this one is real easy from a RAW point of view.

yeah, the problem with the reinforced ram, atleast what it seems to be to me, pretty much boils down to "it's called a ram but it can't ram? How silly"

Neil:

Aw, how sweet, you managed to repeat another poster's mistake, and make a flame while you're at it.

As I've pointed out, the list of elements that define Tank Shock and Ramming are relevant, and the bullshiat you're trying to cloud the issue with are not.

Drunkspleen:

That's only one argument. Another argument seems to be that Ramming is a type of Tank Shock because the phrase "Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock" is mentioned in the Ramming rules, and the equivalence of meaning would make the license to Tank Shock granted by the Reinforced Ram transitive to Ramming.

Nurglitch, if you apply the same rationale to any other set/subset relationship in 40k, you'll see why you're wrong

for example:
If you tank shock and go through terrain you take a dangerous terrain test: WHY?
Because you apply the general properties of 'moving' when doing a 'tank shock', even tough the tank shock rule doesn't specifically state you have to test for terrain.
Same goes for fallback move, if jump infantry falls back thru terrain they'll take a test.
If we were to apply your logic consistently throughout 40k the whole game would go to pieces so fast you'd be hit by shrapnell.