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.

The way I see this is that the sentences are linked by proximity. However, the statements within the sentences are not necessarily linked. The range requirement is a precedent for the future statements, while the 5+ save is a self-contained statement that does not confer anything onto anything else, therefore it is a 4+ obscured save.

Gwar! wrote:

Lt Lathrop wrote:But it if isn't in a rulebook

This part made me Laugh. It IS in the rulebook.

I was refering to this reference sheet. Which isn't in the rulebook, or codexes, or GW FAQs which is all we use to discuss rules on YMDC.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Lt Lathrop wrote:The rule says that units within 6" get 5+ cover, it says nothing about the proximity of having vehicles near the KFF for them to get obscured. If you don't link the sentences, you can't link the KFF mechanics... as such you can't have half the sentence applying because it does, and the other not... because it doesn't.

I see you haven't even bothered reading the rule you are arguing? Well done! I also have no real idea what you are trying to say with that second sentence, it is complete nonsense....

Ok, so here I am thinking it is awful silly for you to be saying I can't read rules... when you aren't getting the rule correct. If you read the Ork rule for the KFF. It states that "Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets." This does not state that you have to be within 6" of the KFF, only of something. You can figure out what that sentence is referring to by reading the previous sentence in the KFF paragraph, "A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+." Thus you learn that the second sentence would read "Vehicles within 6" [of the Mek] are treated as being obscured targets." But you have to infer that from the other sentence. My argument is that if you are going to infer the "[of the Mek]" then it is equally valid to infer that the obscured save would give "[a cover save of 5+.]" Thus, the way I would read the rule would be: "Vehicles within 6" [of the Mek] are treated as being obscured targets [with a cover save of 5+].

I have no idea how else to explain it to make it more clear. If you honestly don't understand my argument, that's fine, I'll try to make it more clear. If you are disagreeing or playing dumb, at least stop saying other people's opinions are less valid than yours, illogical, or otherwise confronting people instead of the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I have not attacked you - I have attacked your argument for lacking any coherent rules basis, either GW or even the English language (which is always a good fall back when GW fails....)

My argument on this point *is* more valid as I can show a logical argument that removes the validity of your argument from an objective basis: you can show nothing even approaching it. The rulebook agrees, the codex agrees, the English language agrees *and GW even agreed in print*

Unless you can find a rational argument that even starts to debunk these I would suggest not posting further, unless you wish to concede?

nosferatu1001 wrote:The two sentences are entirely seperate, and do not have any links between them whatsoever. You can only say the save is a 5+ if you have no idea of how the Enlgish language works.

nosferatu1001 wrote:See now how they arent linked? or do I have to speak slightly slower?

I am not saying that your arguement is invalid, or that you are an idiot. Only that I have a different interpretation of the RAW. Since you contradict your own statements, I cannot agree that your opinion is more valid. As I am not the only person who's noticed and stated that you are contradicting your own statements... I don't feel like I have made a mistake in thinking so. See my above arguement for a rational arguement. I don't know what more you want.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rule specifically staes that "vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets" - meaning that it is a) from a piece of wargear and b) does not define its own "obscured2 save therefore the save is a 4+

It's worth noting at this point that there is no such thing as an 'obscured save'

Obscured vehicles take a cover save.


With that in mind, If it weren't for the 5th ed changes document, I would be firmly leaning towards the interp that vehicles only get the 5+ specified by the KFF rules. The rulebook rules for obscured vehicles state that the save is a 4+ unless otherwise specified... and the KFF rules state that the cover save from a KFF is a 5+.

The KFF doesn't list a specific 'obscured save' because there is no such thing. It lists a cover save which applies to all units, and states that vehicles count as obscured because otherwise they wouldn't benefit from the KFF at all, since vehicles don't get cover saves unless they are obscured.


The 5th ed changes document muddies things a little from an intent POV. Either they intended the KFF to grant a 4+ to vehicles or whoever wrote that document was confused.

As it stands, I would probably be playing it as a 5+ for my Orks, but would be happy to go either way for an Ork opponent who disagrees.

Lt Lathrop - you don;t need the previous sentence, because this is all under the heading "Kustom Force Field" which is Wargear.

Therefore, using this little trick called context, the 6" is from the piece of wargear that the model holds. How to determine ranges to models are given elsewhere in the book, so you have your answer. And at no point in time do you need to refer to the previous sentence.

That is why they are not linked.

Also - I;m not entirely certain why you removed from your quote the fact I gave the exact same rules quote as whcih you accused me of now knowing. That is slightly underhanded "debating" techniques there.

Insaniak - it states the cover save for units in general is a 5+, but then has an entirely seperate sentence to talk about Vehicles which never mentions the 5+ save.

If they wanted these to link tpogether they could have simply made it a single sentence, or used a "because" or "therefore" or anything that indicates the two sentences arent seperate. They could have have stated the vehicle counts as Obscured with a cover save of 5+ - which is what the rulebook would require in absentia a linking phrase. As it stands each sentence can be read *without reading or even having knowledge of the existence of the other* and it does not either change the meaning of the sentence nor leave you unable to make a clear conclusion on what the rule is telling you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lt Lathrop - you don;t need the previous sentence, because this is all under the heading "Kustom Force Field" which is Wargear.

Therefore, using this little trick called context, the 6" is from the piece of wargear that the model holds.

So... you're making an inference about the line based on its position and context? Obviously 'weak'.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If they wanted these to link tpogether they could have simply made it a single sentence, or used a "because" or "therefore" or anything that indicates the two sentences arent seperate. They could have have stated the vehicle counts as Obscured with a cover save of 5+

Or... not, since the codex was written before the new obscuring rules and 'obscured' was entirely different and not related to cover saves.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - it states the cover save for units in general is a 5+, but then has an entirely seperate sentence to talk about Vehicles which never mentions the 5+ save.

It doesn't need to mention a cover save specifically for vehicles, because vehicles take the same cover save everyone else does. Stating that the vehicle is obscured simply allows the vehicle to take the cover save that they otherwise would not get.

There is no second type of cove save that applies to vehicles. A cover save is a cover save.

Units get a cover save from the KFF because the KFF entry says that units get a cover save. This does not in itself apply to vehicles because vehicle don't get cover saves unless they are obscured.

Vehicles get a cover save from the KFF because the KFF entry says that they count as obscured.

To determine what that cover save is, we look at the relevant rules.
- The rulebook says that the cover save from items of wargear that aren't actually physically obscuring the vehicle is 4+, unless the relevant codex specified otherwise.
- The codex says that the cover save granted by the KFF is 5+.

Since the KFF entry lists a specific cover save value, (or in other words, 'specifies otherwise') that is the value that you use.

As it stands each sentence can be read *without reading or even having knowledge of the existence of the other*

It can indeed. That's called 'taking a statement out of context' and is one of the biggest traps in RAW discussions.

You can't simply lift a single sentence out of its home paragraph. It has to be considered within the cotext of the entire textas context can have a significant effect on the meaning of a given statement.

Edited for clarity...

insaniak wrote:
To determine what that cover save is, we look at the relevant rules.
- The rulebook says that the cover save from items of wargear that aren't actually physically obscuring the vehicle is 4+, unless the relevant codex specified otherwise.
- The codex says that the cover save granted by the KFF is 5+.

Since the KFF entry lists a specific cover save value, (or in other words, 'specifies otherwise') that is the value that you use.

This is not what the rulebook actually means. The rule for obscured vehicles says that a piece of wargear that is not physically obscuring the model gets a 4+ save unless otherwise specified. The thing is, it doesn't specify otherwise. The 5+ is a save that can be taken exactly the same as if the vehicle is obscured. Even though the two sentences are linked, you have yet to show that the phrases are linked, as I said earlier. Funny that you ignored that argument.

thebetter1 wrote: The 5+ is a save that can be taken exactly the same as if the vehicle is obscured.

If the vehicle is not obscured, it doesn't get a cover save.

Check page 62 of the rulebook, "Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets"... Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as other models. They have to be obscured in order to get a cover save.

So despite the fact that the KFF states that it grants a cover save to 'units' the only reason that vehicles get to take this save is because the KFF rules also state that vehicles count as obscured.

The KFF save isn't an additional save on top of the save for being obscured. It is the save for being obscured, because being obscured is what allows the vehicle to take the save in the first place.

Even though the two sentences are linked, you have yet to show that the phrases are linked, as I said earlier. Funny that you ignored that argument.

No, I've shown how they're linked: Vehicles only get a cover save if they're obscured. So the second statement is what allows the first to apply to vehicles.

Insaniak - Except that the codex does not specify the cover save in relation to obscured vehicles. It states a cover save for units, and then specifies that vehicles are to be treated differently - and nowhere in *that* sentence does it define a save. See the WBB vs SA argumement - this shows you exactly what is meant by "specified" and KFF does *not* specify the cover save that vehicles will recieve as a result of being Obscured.

Gorkamorka - yes, I am aware of that - as you well know. So an (unintended? the newsletter suggests not) consequence of writing a codex that works both in 4th and 5th is that you are forced to write rules in a certain way. So they were forced to not linkt he two statements together, as this would not have worked in 4th.

Neatly disproven your own argument.

Also look at Ghazghull whos rules for Adamantium Skull did not work *at all* in 4th. Waagh being called "a waagh move" as they could not state "run" as it did not yet exist.

Re: position. Using something under a *heading* to conclude that the sentence refers to the item in the *heading* is not weak - it is how all the rules are written in the rulebook. Stating that two sentences *mu8st* be linked because they are next to eachother IS weak. As I said: one is a sufficient condition the other is not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - Except that the codex does not specify the cover save in relation to obscured vehicles. It states a cover save for units, and then specifies that vehicles are to be treated differently - and nowhere in *that* sentence does it define a save.

The statement about being obscured does not refer to treating vehicles differently. Being obscured grants vehicles a cover save that they otherwise would not have. So what that statement is doing is ensuring that vehicles are treated the same as other units.

Without that statement they would be treated differently, as they would not get a cover save.


As has been pointed out, the statement about being obscured couldn't mention a save, because in 4th edition (when the codex was released) being obscured didn't grant a save. It downgraded a Penetrating hit to a Glancing one.

But it doesn't need to define the save again. We've already been told in the immediately preceeding statement that the KFF grants a 5+ save. All that second statement is for is to grant obscurity to the vehicle, which gives it access to that save.

And again I ask you to look at how Sweeping Advance considers "specific"

- ATSKNF works against SA because it specifically mentions the rule SA and what happens if SA affects the unit.

- WBB does *not* work against SA because, despite it alluding it should always work against anything (whenever models are removed....etc) it does not specifically mention if it works against SA.

Here we have 2 seperate sentences: the second sentence deals with giving the vehicle the ability to take a cover save, and nowheer in this sentence, or any indication of a link to the prior sentence, does it *specify* the save granted to vehicles in a way that would be consistent with other uses of "specify"in the book. No save has therefore been specified, so you fall back to the default as per the BRB.

As you mentioned, vehicles cant normally take cover saves - so the line about "units receive a 5+" *cannot* apply to the line dealing with vehicles.

I already pointed out that a (not unintended, if you read the changes pdf) consequence of not being able to specify a save in the Obscured sentence *must mean* the save is a 4+, as the save has *not been specified* and indeed could not be. Same as a Waagh move is defined only implictly as no explciit definiiton would have survived the transition.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Gorkamorka - yes, I am aware of that - as you well know. So an (unintended? the newsletter suggests not) consequence of writing a codex that works both in 4th and 5th is that you are forced to write rules in a certain way. So they were forced to not linkt he two statements together, as this would not have worked in 4th.

Neatly disproven your own argument.

Wait... what?
"They could have have stated the vehicle counts as Obscured with a cover save of 5+"
"(No), since the codex was written before the new obscuring rules."
"I know! That proves you wrong!"

I corrected a nonsensical argument on your part that they could have written the codex to refer to rules that didn't exist.
How does you agreeing that it was impossible prove me wrong about anything?

Your argument is that they cannot specify a save within the Obscured sentence, as it would not have functioned in 4th.

This is provably false, as they wrote other rules that did not function in 4th (seriously, can you read my posts so i dont have to repeat myself to you? Ghazghull had rules the did not work in 4th, Adamantium Skull and S&P interactions) however, for now, we will assume it is true in this case. This is *your premise* remember, not mine.

The *direct result of this* assumption is that the sentence *must* be standalone as it CANNOT REFER to the cover save sentence - if it did it would not work in 4th (as vehicles could not use cover saves), and your premise is the rules were written to work equally well in 4th and 5th.

So you did, by making the assumption (again, provably false) that in all cases the rules were written to "work" in 4th and 5th, disprove your argument about the cover save being specified for Obscured.

Understand now? I'll reqord it in an even simpler format: By assuming the rules worked well in 4th, you cannot therefore have the two sentences linked together, meaning the save cannot be specified.

BTW: it was not a "nonsensical argument" as I have already given you one example where they wrote a rule which did not exist in 4th: the ability for a S&P model to gain a bonus attack for charging. Quite amusingly in your selective reading you missed the example I had already posted. Nice going btw. If you want to put words in other peoples mouths (I'll leave it as an exercise to you to find out which debating fallacy that is) it would probably help to read their posts first.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The *direct result of this* assumption is that the sentence *must* be standalone as it CANNOT REFER to the cover save sentence - if it did it would not work in 4th (as vehicles could not use cover saves), and your premise is the rules were written to work equally well in 4th and 5th.

So you did, by making the assumption (again, provably false) that in all cases the rules were written to "work" in 4th and 5th, disprove your argument about the cover save being specified for Obscured.

...wait what?
Where was my premise that the rules were written to work equally well in 4th and 5th?
Where did I ever support the assertion that the cover save was specified, other than to clarify a misreading of the argument?
Why are you complaining about peoples reading comprehension when you continually misquote people and are apparently intentionally misreading their arguments? I'm not seeing these points you claim I'm making in my posts at all.

If the cover save is not specified, then are you saying that vehicles get a 4+ save? Anything else would be making up rules.

The final sentence in post at 2009/11/04 01:20:46 talks about them not being able to talk about cover saves as this was written in the previous edition - you are therefore postulating they wrote the rules to work equally well in 4th and 5th, otherwise what you posted was meaningless.

I also showed that your argument that they could not have written rules that did not work was nonsensical, and had previously given you the exact example that showed this. You chose to ignore this, or you didnt bother to read it and connect it to your argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your argument is that they cannot specify a save within the Obscured sentence, as it would not have functioned in 4th.

This is provably false, as they wrote other rules that did not function in 4th (seriously, can you read my posts so i dont have to repeat myself to you? Ghazghull had rules the did not work in 4th, Adamantium Skull and S&P interactions) however, for now, we will assume it is true in this case. This is *your premise* remember, not mine.

The *direct result of this* assumption is that the sentence *must* be standalone as it CANNOT REFER to the cover save sentence - if it did it would not work in 4th (as vehicles could not use cover saves), and your premise is the rules were written to work equally well in 4th and 5th.

So you did, by making the assumption (again, provably false) that in all cases the rules were written to "work" in 4th and 5th, disprove your argument about the cover save being specified for Obscured.

Understand now? I'll reqord it in an even simpler format: By assuming the rules worked well in 4th, you cannot therefore have the two sentences linked together, meaning the save cannot be specified.

BTW: it was not a "nonsensical argument" as I have already given you one example where they wrote a rule which did not exist in 4th: the ability for a S&P model to gain a bonus attack for charging. Quite amusingly in your selective reading you missed the example I had already posted. Nice going btw. If you want to put words in other peoples mouths (I'll leave it as an exercise to you to find out which debating fallacy that is) it would probably help to read their posts first.

I know I've been going back and forth with you so I might not be the most impartial 3rd party, but I just want to jump in here and inform you that Gorkamorka stated that you didn't make any sense... you then agreed with him that you made no sense, and used the reasoning that you made no sense to make a completely unrelated point which had nothing to do with what Gorka said. You when Gorka corrected you, you claimed he wasn't reading your posts... which is crazy... because you didn't read his... or yours, apparently.

Ironically enough, Gorka said he thinks the KFF gives a 4+ obscured save... but is arguing with you now because what you've been saying doesn't make any sense. Which you would know if you had been reading his posts... lol.

Gorkamorka postulated that they could not write a rule that would not work in 4th ed, and I showed that was a flawed argument.

I then showed the consequence of making the assumption that they did write rules that worked equally well in 4th and 5th by showing this proved that the save cannot be linked to the unit save.

Still waiting on your responses - if you could explain why you removed from my quoted post the rule you claimed I had not read? It owuld be interesting to know why.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The final sentence in post at 2009/11/04 01:20:46 talks about them not being able to talk about cover saves as this was written in the previous edition - you are therefore postulating they wrote the rules to work equally well in 4th and 5th, otherwise what you posted was meaningless.

I also showed that your argument that they could not have written rules that did not work was nonsensical, and had previously given you the exact example that showed this. You chose to ignore this, or you didnt bother to read it and connect it to your argument.

...wait what?

In 4th edition, obscured had nothing to do with granting a cover save. Saying that 'they could have written in a specific 5+ save' as an argument makes no sense, as it has nothing to do with the rules at the time and would have made no sense in the codex at all. This is entirely separate from their ability to write in rules that are broken. The argument that Ghaz has broken rules has nothing to do with the fact that GW couldn't write in specific rules for effects that didn't exist yet. They didn't have a magical crystal ball that would tell them the final version of the obscured rules early and allow them to write in relevant clauses.

Your argument was "They could have have stated the vehicle counts as Obscured with a cover save of 5+ - which is what the rulebook would require...". I pointed out that this specific argument was completely meritless, I have no idea where you're extrapolating all these claims of mine from.

Large chunks of what you are saying directly to me has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am extremely confused by the words you are putting into my mouth.

Edit: I'd enjoy you specifying where I came out in support of the 5+ save, which you claimed I did without bothering to quote, if you're going to pick on Lathrop's quoting of you. I actually specifically supported the 4+ side of the argument multiple times, I'm just arguing against people who are misreading the other side entirely or making arguments that are baseless.

This makes it very convenient that the fact that this codex was written in 4th edition has no bearing on the rules whatsoever.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Gorkamorka postulated that they could not write a rule that would not work in 4th ed, and I showed that was a flawed argument.

No he didn't. No you didn't; and if that was what you were trying to do... you didn't. And if you did... it doesn't matter... cause that wasn't what he said to begin with. So you failed to argue a point, at something you made up that someone said.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I then showed the consequence of making the assumption that they did write rules that worked equally well in 4th and 5th by showing this proved that the save cannot be linked to the unit save.

I suppose you did. But that has nothing to do with anything anyone has talked about. You are basically arguing some point that you made up... in response to something you made up.

nosferatu1001 is actually spot on. I have yet to see anyone disprove his argument.

Gwar! wrote:nosferatu1001 is actually spot on.

Even the parts where he misquoted me and then argued with himself about points I didn't make?

Gwar! wrote:nosferatu1001 is actually spot on. I have yet to see anyone disprove his argument.

See:

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rule specifically staes that "vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets" - meaning that it is a) from a piece of wargear and b) does not define its own "obscured2 save therefore the save is a 4+

It's worth noting at this point that there is no such thing as an 'obscured save'

Obscured vehicles take a cover save.


With that in mind, If it weren't for the 5th ed changes document, I would be firmly leaning towards the interp that vehicles only get the 5+ specified by the KFF rules. The rulebook rules for obscured vehicles state that the save is a 4+ unless otherwise specified... and the KFF rules state that the cover save from a KFF is a 5+.

The KFF doesn't list a specific 'obscured save' because there is no such thing. It lists a cover save which applies to all units, and states that vehicles count as obscured because otherwise they wouldn't benefit from the KFF at all, since vehicles don't get cover saves unless they are obscured.

and,

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - it states the cover save for units in general is a 5+, but then has an entirely seperate sentence to talk about Vehicles which never mentions the 5+ save.

It doesn't need to mention a cover save specifically for vehicles, because vehicles take the same cover save everyone else does. Stating that the vehicle is obscured simply allows the vehicle to take the cover save that they otherwise would not get.

There is no second type of cove save that applies to vehicles. A cover save is a cover save.

Units get a cover save from the KFF because the KFF entry says that units get a cover save. This does not in itself apply to vehicles because vehicle don't get cover saves unless they are obscured.

Vehicles get a cover save from the KFF because the KFF entry says that they count as obscured.

To determine what that cover save is, we look at the relevant rules.
- The rulebook says that the cover save from items of wargear that aren't actually physically obscuring the vehicle is 4+, unless the relevant codex specified otherwise.
- The codex says that the cover save granted by the KFF is 5+.

Since the KFF entry lists a specific cover save value, (or in other words, 'specifies otherwise') that is the value that you use.

As it stands each sentence can be read *without reading or even having knowledge of the existence of the other*

It can indeed. That's called 'taking a statement out of context' and is one of the biggest traps in RAW discussions.

You can't simply lift a single sentence out of its home paragraph. It has to be considered within the cotext of the entire textas context can have a significant effect on the meaning of a given statement.

Edited for clarity...

And/or any of the posts I or others made arguing for a 5+ save, ad nauseam.

That argument has been defeated as well, at least how I understand what is going on in this insane topic. The codex specifically says that vehicles count as obscured, and the rulebook does not say that vehicles counting as obscured inherit the cover save that the piece of wargear would give under different circumstances, therefore the save is 4+. This is why you should read all the posts.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And again I ask you to look at how Sweeping Advance considers "specific"

Sweeping advance is a slightly different case, because the wording of the rules in question is different... but the same logic applies to both.

The rule for an Obscured Target hit by special wargear says that the unit receives a 4+ cover save unless otherwise specified.
KFF specifically mentions a 5+ cover save for units in its range. So the Obscured Target rule is over-ridden.

Here we have 2 seperate sentences: the second sentence deals with giving the vehicle the ability to take a cover save, and nowheer in this sentence, or any indication of a link to the prior sentence, does it *specify* the save granted to vehicles in a way that would be consistent with other uses of "specify"in the book.

...because the save was already specified by the sentence immediately preceding.

As you mentioned, vehicles cant normally take cover saves - so the line about "units receive a 5+" *cannot* apply to the line dealing with vehicles.

Why not?

Again, you can't just apply each sentence in a vaccuum. The paragraph lists two rules together: Units receive a 5+ cover save and Vehicles count as obscured.

The two rules are listed together. So there is no reason to not assume that they should work together. Without the second statement, the vehicle would not benefit from the first. But the second statement is there, and so applies to the section as a whole.

This is getting annoying. If people don't start to hear my posts, I might start posting in all caps to make sure you hear me .

The sentence immediately preceding the obscured statement is separate from the obscured statement itself. What is this, the third time I have said this with no response? Even though the sentences are linked, this does not mean that every element of the two sentences must change what all the elements mean.

thebetter1 wrote:This is getting annoying. If people don't start to hear my posts, I might start posting in all caps to make sure you hear me .

You're posting the same point as others are making. There's not much point making multiple posts responding to different people saying the same thing.

The sentence immediately preceding the obscured statement is separate from the obscured statement itself.

Simply stating that they are separate doesn't actually prove anything, sorry. Nor does it make any logical sense. They're in the same paragraph, and dealing with related things.

The rules for Obscured Targets say that the vehicle gets a 4+ save unless otherwise specified.
The rules for KFF specify that units in its area of effect get a 5+ cover save. This applies to vehicles, because the KFF rules also specify that vehicles count as obscured.

So, since a rule for a specific item states that it gives the vehicle a specific save, that over-rides the save awarded by the rules for Obscured Targets... because the rules for Obscured Targets say that's what happens.

@insaniak:

The only problem I have with that line of thinking is why the obscured rules would even mention wargear. By your logic, the only reason that rule exists is if there was a piece of wargear that said, "vehicle is obscured" and that's all. By your logic, there would have to be no cover save listed at all in the entry, because that would override being stated "specifically." I'm very new to 40k, so I honestly don't know if a piece of wargear exists like that, perhaps you could enlighten me (I'm being completely honest, not trying to be snarky)?

zatchmo wrote: By your logic, there would have to be no cover save listed at all in the entry, because that would override being stated "specifically."

That's correct.

I'm very new to 40k, so I honestly don't know if a piece of wargear exists like that, perhaps you could enlighten me (I'm being completely honest, not trying to be snarky)?

Tau Disruption Pods, for one. They simply state that the vehicle counts as obscured if the firer is more than 12" away. So the rulebook rule kicks in, and the vehicle has a 4+ cover save.