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.

Wrong.

Seriously, try again. Reread the thread where you're proven wrong, repeatedly

Each vehicle within 6" gets a cover save of 4+ from being obscured. Imagine this is like a model standing in a ruin.

Count the number of vehicles that are obscured - if that is a majority of the unit then, like infantry standing in terrain, the majority of the unit is in cover and gets the save of the terrain / wargear.

If less than a majority are within 6" then a majority are NOT OBSCURED and thus do NOT get the 4+ save.

One. Final. Time. Majority within 6" == 4+ save. Minority within 6"== 5+ cover save

THe ONLY CONTENTION at all in this is whether you get to use the 5+ save.

Agreed, except on one. I dont personally get why people are arguing against the 5+ save. It sounds like total rules lawyering to me. If less then half the unit is out of the field, then the whole unit gets a 5+ cover save in my book. Period.

Because there are no rules that allow you to use a cover save on a vehicle, UNLESS you can fulfil the truth statement "if obscured"

Now, as I pointed out 2 pages ago - GW don't understand that this is against the rules, some people dont allow it and some do.

Thing is, the KFF doesn't specifically say that it provides cover. It says it gives units a 5+ Cover Save. That's a type of save, against, say, AP1 weapons or such, as opposed to a 5+ invuln, or a 5+ armour save, which would be negated by certain weapons. Therefore, rulings about Vehicle squadrons in cover would be invalid. It's not in cover, it's a squadron using a piece of Orky Know-whats to get a save it wouldn't otherwise have.

Same for the Obscured, though that's a lot more Obscure than the Cover Save. Does a squadron count as a single Vehicle? Or is it doled out on a vehicle by vehicle basis? And if it's on a vehicle by vehicle basis, even if 2 of the kanz are under the field, then the third wouldn't get the save, since, once again, it's not that the squadron is 'behind cover', but that something's giving them a Cover Save.

And the KFF does not say Only Units of Boyz, or else Gretchin couldn't get the save. The Squadron is described and defined as a Unit of vehicles, therefore, the entire squadron would get a 5+

IMHO, of course.

Squadrons of vehicles are treated as units of infantry for cover saves

Cover saves apply to a unit entirely or do not apply; you do NOT get a situation where one model has a cover save and the other models in the unit do not

somerandomdude wrote:BRB FAQ

Q: If a unit is in multiple different types of cover, which
cover save is used? (p22)
A: Whichever has the highest number of models in, or the
best in a tie (as long as over half the unit is in some kind
of cover).

...

Well this is a horrible find. Basically If all three Kanz are within 6" they get a 4+ if 2 or less are its a 5+.

I'm not debating what the rules for infantry state in the RB, i'm arguing that because the KFF rule states that only one model in a squad needs to be within 6" of the mek to gain the 5+ cover save, and since the RB also states for vehicle squadrons that they share the same rules for infantry to determine if they are in cover, then why wouldnt they share the infantry ruling of the KFF in addition to the obscured because thats that is says happends to vehicles. We all know it doesnt provide cover, just the save and makes vehicles obscured. I still think i am right.

Because they are two difference sentences which deal with two entirely different situations.

Your error, and you HAVE made one, is you have somehow conflated the two sentences together. They are entirely, 100%, incontrovertibly different.

Any vehicle, SINGULAR, within 6" is Obscured. If this is 1 of 3 vehicles in the squadron then only ONE vehicle is Obscured. As the rules for taking saves tells you, this means the Squadron is NOT obscured, and therefore CANNOT take a 4+ save

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:As I (and Nos) said before, the KFF does two things:

1. It makes each vehicle in 6" count as Obscured. Per the squadron rules, if half or more of the vehicles in a squadron are obscured, they get the cover save (which defaults to 4+ if not otherwise specified).

2. It gives every Ork unit with at least one model within 6" of the KFF a 5+ cover save.

Vehicle squadrons are eligible for both. They get to use whichever they qualify for at that moment.

They either get a save or dont, 4+ is the only possiblity. how are people coming to think obscured Kans can ever get a 5+ save through the infantry rule? It specifically states that any model of any unit gets the use of the KFF. The second part dictates 1 of 2 things....vehicle obscured or not a vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because they are two difference sentences which deal with two entirely different situations.

Your error, and you HAVE made one, is you have somehow conflated the two sentences together. They are entirely, 100%, incontrovertibly different.

Any vehicle, SINGULAR, within 6" is Obscured. If this is 1 of 3 vehicles in the squadron then only ONE vehicle is Obscured. As the rules for taking saves tells you, this means the Squadron is NOT obscured, and therefore CANNOT take a 4+ save

This also doesnt make sense, you HAVE to "conflate" the sentances together because the rulebook says they share rules for infantry when determining cover.

Thunder child.

The two sentences you are merging are the ones for the KFF.

The KFF has two UTTERLY separate sentences.

1) UNITS within 6" get a 5+ cover save
2) VEHICLES within 6" are obscured

Note that you cannot state that every vehicle in a unit of vehicles is within 6" just because 1 is - you *can* state that the UNIT is within 6", but NOT come to the same conclusion as regards all vehicles (this would be a basic logic error)

So, if you have 1 vehicle in range of the KFF, 2 outside.

1) Well, the unit IS within 6", they are granted a 5+ cover save
2) Only 1 vehicle is within 6", therefore only ONE vehicle is Obscured. As only one vehicle is obscured the unit is not "majority" obscured, and therefore cannot claim the 4+ save

That's it, and is the only way the rules work. If this still does not make sense, please lay out your argument slightly clearer and I'll try to explain differently!

The Thunder Child wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:As I (and Nos) said before, the KFF does two things:

1. It makes each vehicle in 6" count as Obscured. Per the squadron rules, if half or more of the vehicles in a squadron are obscured, they get the cover save (which defaults to 4+ if not otherwise specified).

2. It gives every Ork unit with at least one model within 6" of the KFF a 5+ cover save.

Vehicle squadrons are eligible for both. They get to use whichever they qualify for at that moment.

They either get a save or dont, 4+ is the only possiblity. how are people coming to think obscured Kans can ever get a 5+ save through the infantry rule? It specifically states that any model of any unit gets the use of the KFF. The second part dictates 1 of 2 things....vehicle obscured or not a vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because they are two difference sentences which deal with two entirely different situations.

Your error, and you HAVE made one, is you have somehow conflated the two sentences together. They are entirely, 100%, incontrovertibly different.

Any vehicle, SINGULAR, within 6" is Obscured. If this is 1 of 3 vehicles in the squadron then only ONE vehicle is Obscured. As the rules for taking saves tells you, this means the Squadron is NOT obscured, and therefore CANNOT take a 4+ save

This also doesnt make sense, you HAVE to "conflate" the sentances together because the rulebook says they share rules for infantry when determining cover.

I think you messed up your quote, I didn't say any of those things.


EDIT Actually I think this thread is cursed!

Of course, you could just take a Squadron of two, and then if one gets the save, then 50% or more is Obscured, meaning that both get the save. See? You get better survivability on the whole squadron, AND you save on points! Win win!

KingCracker wrote:Agreed, except on one. I dont personally get why people are arguing against the 5+ save. It sounds like total rules lawyering to me. If less then half the unit is out of the field, then the whole unit gets a 5+ cover save in my book. Period.

Vehicles don't get "5+ cover saves". They either count as "Obscured", or they don't. The only time a vehicle will get a save different than 4+ is in the case of Bjorn, where it says specifically that he receives a "4+ invulnerable saving throw", SoS as per the FAQ, and a 3+ save for obscurity when the only visible facing is one in which the firing model does not stand.

IMO, the entry provides rules as for how it applies to infantry (5+ cover save), and vehicles (obscured, 4+ save), and that's it. Why even mention that vehicles count as "obscured" if they were meant to get a "cover save" anyway? They would just say, "The KFF grants a 5+ cover save to units (4+ for vehicles) within 6"".

Because it seems to ignore things like Walker Squadrons, which, yes, are Vehicles, but other than the Armour and the lack of a Waaagh!! (which as grots they wouldn't get anyways) they act in all respects as Infantry.


You know what would be funny, though? If we managed, in this thread, to totally smash the Kan Wall tactic into little Meta bitz.

So is the consensus the following,


if you have 1 Kan, out of 3, within range of the KFF, the Squadron gets a 5+ cover save.

if you have 2, out of 3, or 1 out of 2, within range the squadron gets a 4+ cover save.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Vehicles don't get "5+ cover saves". They either count as "Obscured", or they don't.

Flat out wrong. "Obscured" gives you the SAME cover save as the terrain covering the obscured status (e.g. Fortified Ruins can give you a 3+ cover save) OR, in the case of Wargear, gives you a flat 4+ UNLESS the save specifies otherwise

Your entire argument fails at this first hurdle: your conjecture is wrong.

Anvildude wrote:Of course, you could just take a Squadron of two, and then if one gets the save, then 50% or more is Obscured, meaning that both get the save. See? You get better survivability on the whole squadron, AND you save on points! Win win!

Even better, if you are running a squadron of 3, you can choose to always take hits on the farthest model from the KFF first, thus ensuring that it is the first one to die, and let the two survivors now benefit from a 4+ even if only one is in 6", as at that point half the squad would count as obscured.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Agreed, except on one. I dont personally get why people are arguing against the 5+ save. It sounds like total rules lawyering to me. If less then half the unit is out of the field, then the whole unit gets a 5+ cover save in my book. Period.

Vehicles don't get "5+ cover saves". They either count as "Obscured", or they don't. The only time a vehicle will get a save different than 4+ is in the case of Bjorn, where it says specifically that he receives a "4+ invulnerable saving throw", SoS as per the FAQ...

Ah, no. Re-read the rules for vehicle cover saves. If Obscured by terrain, they get whatever cover save that terrain normally provides. If Obscured by any means which doesn't specify the cover save granted, it defaults to a 4+.

SoS grants a 5+ cover save to vehicles as well, as does Storm Caller. And KFFs give a 5+ to any ork unit within 6".

Bjorn has an Invulnerable save, which is different. So do DE vehicles with Flickerfields.

As Ive been saying for months now, we REALLY just need a new codex, thats the only way to wash these problems (and naturally get new ones ) away. As much as I love the Orks, their codex is a shinning example of why you DO NOT write a codex for a new edition, when you havnt even finished,worked the bugs out, thought it all through or anything of that nature. This codex is what happens. It has rules for 4th, it has rules for 5th....sometimes, and because of the cluster feth of the 2 it just turns into people like us, arguing till we are blue in the face and getting no where.

We all know GW wont fix it, hell Im sure within a year or so we will get a new Ork dex, and probably, itll be made with 6th in mind. Either way, this is my advice. If your playing in a tourny, ask them before you start where their stance is on it. That way you know how hard you can push your KFF/Kans. If your playing at home or just for fun at a FLGS, same deal, before the start see what everyone thinks on the matter and then your solid.




*cant spell*

I doubt orks are going to get a new codex in the next year - there are still Witch Hunters, eldar, Necrons and Tau... Maybe even a new race as well. I think Dark Angels, Black Templars and CSM are much more deserving than orks. Just look how long it took GW to finally write the new ork codex.

deleted.

Taking both the +4 cover is more than 50% are in 6" and taking a +5 if there's only one seems like bending the rules in two directions at the same time to me. Either it's a group of vehicles or it's a group of infantry. It can't be both in my mind. The way I play mine is if there's more than 50% within 6" I get a +4 if not I get nothing.

General_Chaos wrote:Taking both the +4 cover is more than 50% are in 6" and taking a +5 if there's only one seems like bending the rules in two directions at the same time to me. Either it's a group of vehicles or it's a group of infantry. It can't be both in my mind. The way I play mine is if there's more than 50% within 6" I get a +4 if not I get nothing.

But its not calling for the infantry.

All units within 6" get a 5+ cover save. What is a unit? Any model or group of models in the game.

vehicles would in addition become obscured.

Tri wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:Taking both the +4 cover is more than 50% are in 6" and taking a +5 if there's only one seems like bending the rules in two directions at the same time to me. Either it's a group of vehicles or it's a group of infantry. It can't be both in my mind. The way I play mine is if there's more than 50% within 6" I get a +4 if not I get nothing.

But its not calling for the infantry.

All units within 6" get a 5+ cover save. What is a unit? Any model or group of models in the game.

vehicles would in addition become obscured.

You don't have to explain it. I understand the argument. I just play it the way I feel it should be.

I play my Kanz as having a 4+c save whether there is one, two or three Kanz within the field range.

I have never seen an issue with this in the years I have seen a Kan wall played. Only here...

I can see both sides of the argument. As this cannot be resolved due to the wording of the rules across two different editions (yeah, for me Orks are 4th edition. not enough 5th was put into it for my tastes) just play it as you see fit.

Buffo =- slightly bemused, as everyone has just shown how it CAN be resolved.

It really isnt tricky, isnt ambiguous (unless you make stuff up), and comes to a consistent conclusion each time.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I doubt orks are going to get a new codex in the next year - there are still Witch Hunters, eldar, Necrons and Tau... Maybe even a new race as well. I think Dark Angels, Black Templars and CSM are much more deserving than orks. Just look how long it took GW to finally write the new ork codex.

I did say year or so, it could be 2 years. But the point still stands. They DID say they are going to update all the codices to current. I also just wanted to say new race? Where are you getting that idea?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Buffo =- slightly bemused, as everyone has just shown how it CAN be resolved.

It really isnt tricky, isnt ambiguous (unless you make stuff up), and comes to a consistent conclusion each time.

That is how interpretations work. What seems one way for one person may not seem the other.

The KFF, it seems for me, gives the unit it touches a save, regardless of the amount of models. Vehicle Squadrons are treated like Infantry. So just like the KFF gives an infantry unit a save regardless of the model count, so does it for Kanz.

But listen, I am not here to persuade anyone or dissuade anyone. No one here will change my mind on the subject, so attempting to do so to me is just a waste of time. I have read the entire thread, post by post, and I simply do not interpret the rules like others do, just like how my Reavers will make turns and draw curved lines, regardless of what the Dakka elite think. If I played someone who thinks differently, I would deal with the issue at that time, but this hasn't been the case, ever, not even in the last 'Ard Boyz.

Peace!

Mannahnin wrote:I care what the INAT says. It's made by a veteran group of gamers carefully hashing out issues much as we do here, with reference to the same rulebooks, FAQs, and similar cases which we consider.

While it does NOT have the status of official rules, it is certainly a useful resource for players, especially ones who play in tournaments which use it.

WHile I respect the work gone into it, I dont. Its no more useful then arguements with TFG. There were seevral rulings it made in the past I disagree with their interpretation. Its not that useful- as it muddies waters.

Having said that, your post on KFF is the most logical and correct. Kans are units AND vehicals.

I think folks are getting hot under the collar for nothing, as someone said its just clarified as a cover safe. They aren't actually in cover.

The reason its a cover save, is so flamers and the like can ignore it as it provides a shield, not full protection.

It does need a FAQ mind, just to resolve these silly arguements.

BuFFo wrote:No one here will change my mind on the subject, so attempting to do so to me is just a waste of time. I have read the entire thread, post by post, and I simply do not interpret the rules like others do, just like how my Reavers will make turns and draw curved lines, regardless of what the Dakka elite think. If I played someone who thinks differently, I would deal with the issue at that time, but this hasn't been the case, ever, not even in the last 'Ard Boyz.
Peace!

Well... That's not much of a surprise as the Codex wasn't released until after 'Ard Boyz...