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.

BlueDagger wrote:'[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.
'A kustom force field gives all [vehicles] within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+'

How does this show anything at all? Simply quoting rules without context or the argument they support isn't helpful.

The cover save given by the kff is a normal cover save. Noone is saying that vehicles aren't units and hence don't get it, or saying that obscured vehicles don't have this save available to them.

However, the KFF grants the ability of being obscured even in the open and does not specifically define a save for it, the vehicle hence gains a 4+ cover save from the wargear rule.

The more I think about the logic on that the more I believe you are correct. A KFF does not give two different types of cover saves, but rather literally gives two cover saves.

'A kustom force field gives all [models] within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+'

Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets. If a piece of wargear confers to the vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, '[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.

Both of these would mean that the KFF provides both a 5+ and a 4+ cover save, but using the rule about best save possible the KFF would always be a 4+ cover save.


I really can't see any way around this this being pure RAW, GJ Gorkamorka



RAW - KFF gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles within 6" and gives a 5+ cover save to all other units

Ork Codex p.34 wrote:A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+.

I think that the fact it says all units necessarily includes vehicles. The second phrase was evidently functional in 4th but is now simply descriptive. It does not matter that the vehicles is obscured, vehicles are included and thus specified to have a 5+ save.

Dracos - except vehicles cannot take cover saves unless they are Obscured, therfore the second sentence is not redundant - without it vehicles cannot benefit.

The secodn sentence does not specify the save, as required by the wargear rules. As the save is not specified it defaults to a 4+.

Fits the rules and RAI.

Late to the game, but agreed with the above.

"A KFF gives all units within 6" of the Big Mek a 5+ cover save" (Full Stop) "Vehicles within 6" are treated being obscured targets" (Full stop).

Two different clauses, two different saves.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dracos - except vehicles cannot take cover saves unless they are Obscured, therfore the second sentence is not redundant - without it vehicles cannot benefit.

The secodn sentence does not specify the save, as required by the wargear rules. As the save is not specified it defaults to a 4+.

Fits the rules and RAI.

Well said.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Ordznik wrote:Honest question, not trying to be snarky-how convinced are you that the person that wrote that prep sheet was really familiar with the Ork codex and the 5th edition rulebook?

I'm not trying to be snarky either, but why would you think a GW released document that came out just prior to 5th edition release and includes references to specific ork rules and how they'll work in 5th ed would be written and edited by people unfamiliar with either the codex or rules?
It's certainly not an official errata sheet or a faq, but in the absence of either it's the closest thing we've got to determine the intention of the rule under the new system.

GW has trouble sometimes keeping rules consistent from codex to codex. I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that a piece of promotional material that was quite possibly written by someone in their advertising department might be a little off.

The way I read it, the first sentence in the KFF rules specifies a 5+ save. The second sentence merely clarifies that the save applies to vehicles, by saying that vehicles are obscured. I'm influenced by the paragraph earlier in the obscured rules (BRB pg 62) which says that obscured vehicles take the same save as an infantry model would for the same cover. I'm with Insaniak in thinking that "obscured" is just a state, and not an ability, and that once a cover save has been specified for "units" it's also been specified for obscured vehicles.

BlueDagger wrote:The more I think about the logic on that the more I believe you are correct. A KFF does not give two different types of cover saves, but rather literally gives two cover saves.

'A kustom force field gives all [models] within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+'

Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets. If a piece of wargear confers to the vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, '[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.

Both of these would mean that the KFF provides both a 5+ and a 4+ cover save, but using the rule about best save possible the KFF would always be a 4+ cover save.


I really can't see any way around this this being pure RAW, GJ Gorkamorka



RAW - KFF gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles within 6" and gives a 5+ cover save to all other units

Holy pop culture reference Batman, did someone just actually change their mind because of a YMDC thread?!

BeRzErKeR wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:The more I think about the logic on that the more I believe you are correct. A KFF does not give two different types of cover saves, but rather literally gives two cover saves.

'A kustom force field gives all [models] within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+'

Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets. If a piece of wargear confers to the vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, '[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'.

Both of these would mean that the KFF provides both a 5+ and a 4+ cover save, but using the rule about best save possible the KFF would always be a 4+ cover save.


I really can't see any way around this this being pure RAW, GJ Gorkamorka



RAW - KFF gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles within 6" and gives a 5+ cover save to all other units

Holy pop culture reference Batman, did someone just actually change their mind because of a YMDC thread?!

lol I've always played it 4+ because doing 5+ goes into some rules lawyering which kills the spirit of friendly games. A logical debate back and forth though shows that it's a 4+ until someone can break the logic of how to beat this sentence:
'If a piece of wargear confers to the vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, '[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex'. because the 5+ granted by the wargear doesn't state that it is for shear ableness (didn't want to say ability) of being able to claim cover in the wide open. The wargear conferring this ableness gives the wargear a 4+ to vehicles as well as a 5+.

I play SW and I was playing an Ork player last week and we ended up talking about this subject. The Psyker ability that I have specifically states that it provides a "5+ cover save to the target unit", and never says the word "Obscured" or even mentions vehicles. This implies that the cover save is the same no matter what you place it on, Land Raider or GH squad.

Now the KFF says that infantry receive the 5+ while vehicles count as obscured, which is a 4+ save. I know every group will play it their own way, but at my FLGS the vast majority agreed on the 4+ to vehicles with the KFF.

Wow Phill kelly strikes again, with yet ANOTHER perfectly written rule

Im sorry I brought up this insanely crazy Ork rule with no foreseeable answer lol.

I am an Ork player (surprised I know) but I now agree with the 5+ crowd. The period doesnt separate the fact that vehicles count as units, and units get a 5+ cover save when within 6inches of the KFF

Its there in the black and white of the codex. Yes if you count the second sentence about the obscured rules, it does seem like the vehicle gets a 4+, but it does say it depends on what the codex says. And the codex says, and again Ill post it, ALL UNITS GET A 5+ COVER SAVE

Please just lock this before people get murdered over it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaotik wrote:I play SW and I was playing an Ork player last week and we ended up talking about this subject. The Psyker ability that I have specifically states that it provides a "5+ cover save to the target unit", and never says the word "Obscured" or even mentions vehicles. This implies that the cover save is the same no matter what you place it on, Land Raider or GH squad.

Now the KFF says that infantry receive the 5+ while vehicles count as obscured, which is a 4+ save. I know every group will play it their own way, but at my FLGS the vast majority agreed on the 4+ to vehicles with the KFF.

That is completely incorrect. It says the KFF gives all UNITS within 6 inches a cover save. A vehicle is a unit just as you stated about your SW ability. You basically made the same sense about your SW ability as the KFF does. Its a 5+ on ANY UNIT

And as an IG player who has had unbelievable numbers of penetrating shots ignored by a KFF agrees with the 4+ crowd.

My name is KingCracker, and Ive been THREAD LOCKED!!!!! (please?)

KingCracker wrote:
Its there in the black and white of the codex. Yes if you count the second sentence about the obscured rules, it does seem like the vehicle gets a 4+, but it does say it depends on what the codex says. And the codex says, and again Ill post it, ALL UNITS GET A 5+ COVER SAVE

I'm curious who you're arguing with. Neither side is arguing that anyone does not get a 5+ save.
Why would you not count the second sentence about the obscured rules, exactly?

As you yourself said, the vehicles get a 4+ from the wargear obscuring rules. There's no 'seems like'. The codex does not specify the save given by the obscuring it grants at any point, and the 5+ cover save granted separately from the obscuring does not ovveride the 4+ just because you think it should. We're talking about RAW here, not that the saves being the same would make logical sense.

And RAW can easily be read that the 5+ save to units specifies what save vehicles would get by being obscured.

It's not nearly as cut and dry as many of the posters are making it seem.

willydstyle wrote:And RAW can easily be read that the 5+ save to units specifies what save vehicles would get by being obscured.

It's not nearly as cut and dry as many of the posters are making it seem.

No one is contesting that the first sentence gives a 5+. The problem lies in that the second sentence grants a 4+ for the shear ability to claim a cover save despite being in the open. The 5+ cover save given from the wargear does not define that is is give for the shear ability to claim a cover save despite being in the open. While it makes common sense that that is what is happening from a fluff stand point, it isn't RAW.

KFF gives a 4+ cover and a 5+ cover to vehicles, you take the better of the two.

willydstyle wrote:And RAW can easily be read that the 5+ save to units specifies what save vehicles would get by being obscured.

It's not nearly as cut and dry as many of the posters are making it seem.

It is only "easily read" IF you alter the language of the second sentence to make it connected to the first one.

The second sentence deos NOT specify the save itself, nor does it refer to the first sentence. Without either of these two elements it cannot be considered to have specified the save sufficiently well to change it to a 5+.

If you consider it "specified" well enough then please cf to WBB and SA - by your definition of "specific" (ie not at all) you will start allowing WBB from SA.

How we play it locally (and pretty much everywhere I've played without anyone getting bent or even raising an eyebrow):

5+ Cover save to non-vehicles.
4+ Obscurement save to vehicles.

Ok well does anyone have a PDF or something similar of the white dwarf that actually shows them using as 5+ to troops and the 4+ to the vehicles? Im sorry but I wont budge on my view unless I actually see it used like that in a published magazine. Thats all I ask


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:

KingCracker wrote:
Its there in the black and white of the codex. Yes if you count the second sentence about the obscured rules, it does seem like the vehicle gets a 4+, but it does say it depends on what the codex says. And the codex says, and again Ill post it, ALL UNITS GET A 5+ COVER SAVE

I'm curious who you're arguing with. Neither side is arguing that anyone does not get a 5+ save.
Why would you not count the second sentence about the obscured rules, exactly?

As you yourself said, the vehicles get a 4+ from the wargear obscuring rules. There's no 'seems like'. The codex does not specify the save given by the obscuring it grants at any point, and the 5+ cover save granted separately from the obscuring does not ovveride the 4+ just because you think it should. We're talking about RAW here, not that the saves being the same would make logical sense.

Im curious why you want to leave out the fact that further in the obscured rules it says and I quote "its a 4+ cover save unless specified in the codex" Which it DOES say all units receive a 5+ cover save in the codex. This is why Im getting so confused with you 4+ guys. Its the deff rolla debate all over again

KingCracker wrote:
Im curious why you want to leave out the fact that further in the obscured rules it says and I quote "its a 4+ cover save unless specified in the codex" Which it DOES say all units receive a 5+ cover save in the codex. This is why Im getting so confused with you 4+ guys. Its the deff rolla debate all over again

That is not all of what the rule says or how that half of the sentence works in context, as several of my posts have pointed out.
Please refute the wording I gave at least twice for my reading above with another legitimate reading, not just half the relevant sentence incorrectly quoted.

This is not the deff rolla debate. The 5+ crowd is making a connection in the kff rules where one is not specifically defined as such.

If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.'

The kff grants 'the ability of being obscured even in the open' to a vehicle, so the conditional is satisfied and the rest of the rule applies.
With the only logical reading I can come up with, the 'this' has to refer to the ability. Hence the rule states that '[the ability of being obscured even if in the open] is a 4+ cover save unless specified otherwise in the codex', which requires that the save given by 'the ability of being obscured even in the open' be specifically defined (as it is in the example on that page for smoke launchers).
The rules don't say to use a general cover save value if the wargear gives one, they ask for a directly attached value for the save for this granted obscured status. The general value does not somehow overwrite the 4+ save unless the wargear specifically says that it does, and thus 2 cover save values are granted with the 4+ being the better value.

Gorkamorka wrote:This is not the deff rolla debate.

That is a good thing!

Just saying.

I think the RAW is quite clear.

KFF grants units a 5+ cover save.
Vehicles are obscured. Obscured is a 4+ cover save.

By RAW, a vehicle has access to two different cover saves: a 5+ for being a unit, a 4+ for being obscured.

If KFF was meant to read that vehicles were intended to receive a 5+ save, it would simply say "Units within 6" receive a 5+ cover save" full stop. Vehicles are units so they therefore would get the benefit. Similarly if KFF was meant to specify the Obscurement save, it would say "Vehicles count as Obscured with a 5+ save".

The most literal reading supports 2 separate cover saves at different values. I cannot find a way to interpret it as one universal save at 5+ without injecting further meaning into the rules that I am not sure the writers intended.

Like I said, Someone give me a pdf or somehting similar of the whitedwarf where they played a game using the KFF and it gave vehicles a 4+ cover save
And Gorkamorka, you can write a damn novel about how your right and Im wrong. I have quoted the whole section a couple times in these 3 pages of arguing. And as Im reading it, I see it say in the codex that its a 5+ on units, vehicles count as obscured. And seeing as it SAYS right there "units get a 5+ cover save" Im taking it that vehicles are still considered units.

So again, someone give me a site link, a pdf anything I can use to read said whitedwarf where they do that, and Ill be happy. Until either someone lock this thread or someone please do as Ive asked. Other wise, stop writing the same things over and over again, which is why I said its turning into ANOTHER deff rolla debate

KingCracker wrote:Like I said, Someone give me a pdf or somehting similar of the whitedwarf where they played a game using the KFF and it gave vehicles a 4+ cover save
And Gorkamorka, you can write a damn novel about how your right and Im wrong. I have quoted the whole section a couple times in these 3 pages of arguing. And as Im reading it, I see it say in the codex that its a 5+ on units, vehicles count as obscured. And seeing as it SAYS right there "units get a 5+ cover save" Im taking it that vehicles are still considered units.

Who are you arguing with? You aren't refuting anyones points on either side, with rules or otherwise.
Noone is arguing that vehicles aren't units. Noone is contesting that the kff grants units a 5+ cover save. Repeating these facts isn't doing anything for anyone.
The rules for wargear that grants obscuring are the only things under contention, and they determine whether the 5+ save is used or not as they define the specificity required to make changes to them.
Simply quoting the kff passage we all understand over and over is not useful information or helping your argument.

Find your own pdf or request it without demanding it or shouting in bold text if you want to use it as RAI proof to yourself, we're talking about the rules.

sourclams wrote:I think the RAW is quite clear.

KFF grants units a 5+ cover save.
Vehicles are obscured. Obscured is a 4+ cover save.

Incorrect. Being obscured gives you a cover save, which in turn is specified by which type of cover you're behind.

"If a target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would against a wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on)."

Johnno wrote:

sourclams wrote:I think the RAW is quite clear.

KFF grants units a 5+ cover save.
Vehicles are obscured. Obscured is a 4+ cover save.

Incorrect. Being obscured gives you a cover save, which in turn is specified by which type of cover you're behind.

"If a target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would against a wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on)."

Incorrect. Read the thread and the wargear obscuring rules, which work differently.

Johnno wrote:Incorrect. Being obscured gives you a cover save, which in turn is specified by which type of cover you're behind.

"If a target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would against a wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on)."

Incorrect. Obscurement granted by wargear defaults to a 4+ unless the wargear specifies otherwise. KFF, due to the separation between the two clauses, does not. Therefore it defaults to the 4+ exactly like other wargear, i.e. smoke launchers.

Gorkamorka wrote:Incorrect, read the thread and the wargear obscuring rules.

I have. Several times. "unless specified otherwise in the codex" is where the +4 cover save for being obscured while in the open falls, because it is specified.

sourclams points out that the 4+ is for being obscured. Not for being obscured in the open, without a specific cover save noted by the codex. Being obscured doesn't automatically give you a 4+. Being obscured relies on knowing what cover save you're allowed to take. The codex specifies 5+ cover save for all units. Are vehicles not units?

As has been discussed and pointed out, vehicles have to be obscured to receive a cover save. The same line specifies the cover save as 5+, for all units. You can't just pick and choose single lines or words from a rule, you have to not only put sentences together, but interpret the rule as a whole.

Johnno wrote:
I have. Several times. "unless specified otherwise in the codex" is where the +4 cover save for being obscured while in the open falls, because it is specified.

sourclams points out that the 4+ is for being obscured. Not for being obscured in the open, without a specific cover save noted by the codex. Being obscured doesn't automatically give you a 4+. Being obscured relies on knowing what cover save you're allowed to take. The codex specifies 5+ cover save for all units. Are vehicles not units?

As has been discussed and pointed out, vehicles have to be obscured to receive a cover save. The same line specifies the cover save as 5+, for all units. You can't just pick and choose single lines or words from a rule, you have to not only put sentences together, but interpret the rule as a whole.

Gorkamorka wrote:Incorrect, read the thread and the wargear obscuring rules.

I'm not sure what else I can say.
Wargear that grants 'the ability of being obscured in the open' gives a 4+ save unless specified otherwise, that is what the rule says. The rule says that you have to specify the value of the save for being obscured in the open by wargear to use a different value. Unless you have a logical reading of the rule I'm missing, that is what it says.
The kff does indeed have two sentences right next to eachother that involve cover and obscuring. But without any language that actually links the two, they are not specifically linked to eachother for the purposes of the rules outside of being included in the rules for the same piece of wargear, and the granting of obscured is without caveats.

Yes?