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.

[strikethrough]Smoke Launchers would be another (although they do also specifically state that obscured also means 4+ cover).[/strikethrough]

Edit: I guess not smoke launchers because we were looking for wargear that specifically does not mention its save value.

Nope, smoke launchers are a different kettle of fish. There's no issue of codex granting obscured for them...

4th ed codexes have them downgrading Pens to Glances without actually referring to the Obscured rule.
5th ed codexes just refer to the rulebook, which specifically gives them a 4+ cover save.

utan wrote:

Ordznik wrote:...where is this document in which GW agrees with you?

Do a search for 40kposmajorchangesflyer_1_1.pdf.

I would attach it, but I believe that is against the forum rulez.

Below the heading "How 5th Edition Affects Each Army", you will find this statement:
"With the updated vehicle rules, Kustom Force Fields will provide Killa Kanz and Deff Dreads with a 4+ cover save."

Thanks, utan-that's really useful. Not entirely convincing, given how often the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing at GW, but exactly what I was looking for.

Ordznik wrote:Thanks, utan-that's really useful. Not entirely convincing, given how often the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing at GW, but exactly what I was looking for.

I'm particularly impressed with how that same document keeps referring to true LOS as a change...

Fair enough considering all the conditions there were on it. In 5th edition i can only think of Night Fighting and other "roll to see me" abilities. Even that still requires TLOS.

And OWN UNIT, of course. Trust me to forget that one.

Gorkamorka wrote:...wait what?

In 4th edition, obscured had nothing to do with granting a cover save.

As I have already said 10 or 12 times, so you are repeating this - why now?

Gorkamorka wrote: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.

So you are making the assumption that every rule written in the 4th edition Ork Codex was designed to work in 4th edition as well as 5th, yes? This is the premise you are postulating above.

Gorkamorka wrote: 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.

And here you are showing a double standard.

Ghaz had rules for things that did not exist yet - S&P gaining attacks on the charge did not exist until 5th, at all. So you are trying to suggest that they couldn't write rules that look forward to 5th edition as they would not know what the final rules would be, despite the fact that *they did exactly that* - which is why your premise above is *flawed* and provably so. Understand now?

In 4th Ghaz getting two attacks on the charge was NONSENSE as he could not gain any attacks on the charge. So why did they write the rule in this way, when you are making the assumption that only rules which worked in 4th were included in the codex? Does it mean that not all rules worked in 4th edition? So they could, indeed, have written that KFF gave obscured with a save of 5+ if they had wanted to - it would have meant in 4th that the KFF would have functioned less well, but Ghaz functioned less well in 4th as well so why not do so?

Gorkamorka wrote: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.

Because, as I stated, by stating that argument is nonsense or meritless you are therefore postulating that all the rules written were fully compatible with 4th. Its called "logically extending your statement" - otherwise you cannot say the argument is nonsense. I was showing how a) they could have done exactly that, as they wrote other rules that made no sense in 4th (and required foreknowledge of 5th to work, something you said they couldnt do - another incorrect statement), and b) even assuming all the rules were 4th compatible still means the save must be a 4+, as the two sentences cannot be linked as 4th edition would not have worked.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:...wait what?

In 4th edition, obscured had nothing to do with granting a cover save.

As I have already said 10 or 12 times, so you are repeating this - why now?

Probably because you are still misquoting him.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote: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.

So you are making the assumption that every rule written in the 4th edition Ork Codex was designed to work in 4th edition as well as 5th, yes? This is the premise you are postulating above.

That's actually the exact opposite of what he said, in the quote you just quoted him in.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote: 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.

And here you are showing a double standard.

Ghaz had rules for things that did not exist yet - S&P gaining attacks on the charge did not exist until 5th, at all. So you are trying to suggest that they couldn't write rules that look forward to 5th edition as they would not know what the final rules would be, despite the fact that *they did exactly that* - which is why your premise above is *flawed* and provably so. Understand now?

In 4th Ghaz getting two attacks on the charge was NONSENSE as he could not gain any attacks on the charge. So why did they write the rule in this way, when you are making the assumption that only rules which worked in 4th were included in the codex? Does it mean that not all rules worked in 4th edition? So they could, indeed, have written that KFF gave obscured with a save of 5+ if they had wanted to - it would have meant in 4th that the KFF would have functioned less well, but Ghaz functioned less well in 4th as well so why not do so?

Has nothing to do with what he said, which is why he was saying... it has nothing to do with what he said, in the quote you quoted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote: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.

Because, as I stated, by stating that argument is nonsense or meritless you are therefore postulating that all the rules written were fully compatible with 4th. Its called "logically extending your statement" - otherwise you cannot say the argument is nonsense. I was showing how a) they could have done exactly that, as they wrote other rules that made no sense in 4th (and required foreknowledge of 5th to work, something you said they couldnt do - another incorrect statement), and b) even assuming all the rules were 4th compatible still means the save must be a 4+, as the two sentences cannot be linked as 4th edition would not have worked.

If I might try to guess what Gorka was trying to say... I believe he was saying that you make no sense, because half the things you say had/have nothing to do with anything he was saying. And I believe he was saying that your premise that if GW had intended for the Obscured save to be a 5+ they would have written the rule to be more clear, better linking the two sentences. However Gorka says that's nonsense, because GW wouldn't have clarified a rule, written in 4th... for the upcomming 5th ruleset. Which is the same, and agrees with, your argument.

Which leads me to say:

Why you are arguing with Gorka is beyond me, cause he agrees with you that the save granted by the KFF is 4+. He just disagreed with some of the reasonings you gave... and now you are literally just making things up as you go. You quote him, then immediately misinterpret what he says, pretty explicitly, and then make up other things he says... so you can argue with him about them. Where the whole time his argument has been "That's not what I said"... (although it sounded more like "...wait what?")

After several people have told you plainly that you are not understanding what the other people you are arguing with are saying to you, you could either take a step back and try to have people explain it to you so you could rejoin the argument, knowing what you and others are talking about... or you could keep arguing with yourself... and not add anything to the discussion except nonsense which isn't helping your side of the debate. And that's serious advice, I'm not taking another jab at you... you just really aren't helping yourself unless you actually know what people are talking about, and thusly making any sense yourself.

Lt Lathrop wrote:After several people

Who are these several people? I see two incorrect people, not several.

Lt Lathrop - how is "they could not have written the rule that way as it would have made no sense [in 4th]" the exact opposite of what I said? I'll give you a hint: it isn't.

I'll try to explain things slower for you:

- Gorka stated the obscured save could not have been written with the cover save specified as it would have made no sense.

- The only sensible conclusion from that statement is that Gorka means "at the time the codex was written" it would have made no sense as we were in 4th ed at the time. Agreed - it would have made no sense, and KFF would not have worked. Which is exactly what I have already said, and is essentia;lly Gorkas premise for dispoving my argument

- I then showed that that is a patently *false* assumption, as Ghaz has rules that did not work at all in 4th ed.

Do you understand now? Gorka made a statement to the effect that the rule could not have been written in a certain way "as they did not have a crystal ball" - except in the very same codex they DID write a rule that did not work in 4th thus disproving his statement.

THis makes his "disproving" of my "nonsense" argument ithat they should have specified the save, if GW really wanted it to be a 5+ (which as you will hopefully agree, having been shown the evidence of intention, they did NOT mean) utterly *wrong*

That is why I am arguiing, I suggest you sit down and actually read the arguments mroe thoroughly - btw do you have anything to show specific saves yet? Still waiting.

You're still not reading my argument correctly. I'm not arguing that they couldn't have written it in because it would make no sense in the book (aside from in the single line you quoted, which I still stand behind), I'm arguing it would have made no sense for them to be able write it in in the first place.

Feel free to argue that 'GW should have written in an extremely specific clause for a rule that was months away from being printed, but they didn't so my argument is stronger' was a sensible point. It wasn't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is why I am arguiing, I suggest you sit down and actually read the arguments mroe thoroughly - btw do you have anything to show specific saves yet? Still waiting.

Just like I'm still waiting for you to show where I sided with the specified 5+ save. You seemed so happy to 'disprove my argument about the cover save being specified' at the time.
Or did you yourself not read the argument carefully before jumping on someone?

wow! really?! ... 4 pages

Gorkamorka - then why did they write Ghazghull so that his rule did not work in 4th ed?

It was as specific a change (S&P gaining charge bonus) as Obscured becoming a cover save.

Your premise is flawed. I understand your argument, its just a double standard - they COULD have written a rule stating the cover save as they DID write a rule giving Ghazzy an assault bonus he could never receive in 4th. Any argument saying that they therefore could not have written this specific cover save change in due to rules incompatibility OR that they did not know what the rules were going to be is therefore wrong.

As they did it for one rule then, if they intended the cover save to be 5+, they could have written th e rule to actually say that. Now we know they didnt intend for it to be a 5+, as a GW publication specifically points this out, but it doesn't alter that they set a precedent in the codex for writing rules that did not work at the time of publication. Almost as if they knew what was coming up in 5th ed (which wasnt "months away from being in print", btw)

If you could actually address the ghazzy point, where your argument falls down, it would be good.

Edit: just noticed that you both stand behind that they could not have written rules that were incompatible at the time of publication, yet say you werent saying that? I assume some form of dual personality there - you both agree with something and you don't, all at the same time.

Ok... I'm honestly surprised how you guys (looking at you with a squinty eye Gwar!) can't see how the rules are genuinely ambiguous here.

I think it really comes down to the fact that GW uses words like "specify" and "normal" without really giving them game-standard definitions, and they do it really frequently.

I also see a third valid way to interpret the KFF vs. Vehicle rules.

Be aware that this is treading into the Land of Not-Quite RAW. If you look at the Shokk Attack Gun rules, on a double 6 you'll find the rule "any model touched by the template is removed from the game. Vehicles suffer a penetrating hit." Now, the RAW of the two sentences pretty clearly invalidates the second sentence. Since vehicles are models, and not ephemeral dust clouds, or bondage-hamsters, or something else, they would also be removed from the table. However, if you play it in the most intuitive fashion, it also means that GW intended (oh noes, not that word!) the item to function differently against vehicles than against non-vehicle units.

So, if we apply the SAG as a precedent to the KFF, we can read the KFF rules as having entirely different effects for vehicle and non-vehicle units.

This would mean that any vehicle within 6" of the KFF would have non-specific obscured status, and thus a 4+ cover save, but it would also mean that Kan squadrons would need half their members within 6" in order to gain the cover save for the whole unit.

willydstyle wrote:Ok... I'm honestly surprised how you guys (looking at you with a squinty eye Gwar!) can't see how the rules are genuinely ambiguous here.

Hey, they are ambiguous in many many cases. I never said they weren't

This is NOT one of them however.

@Willydstyle:

All I have to say is, bondage-hamsters? Really? Do you have any idea how disturbing of an image you just created for me?

zatchmo wrote:@Willydstyle:

All I have to say is, bondage-hamsters? Really? Do you have any idea how disturbing of an image you just created for me?

Just imagine your avatar in leather, and rodent sized.

willydstyle wrote:I also see a third valid way to interpret the KFF vs. Vehicle rules.

Be aware that this is treading into the Land of Not-Quite RAW. If you look at the Shokk Attack Gun rules, on a double 6 you'll find the rule "any model touched by the template is removed from the game. Vehicles suffer a penetrating hit." Now, the RAW of the two sentences pretty clearly invalidates the second sentence. Since vehicles are models, and not ephemeral dust clouds, or bondage-hamsters, or something else, they would also be removed from the table. However, if you play it in the most intuitive fashion, it also means that GW intended (oh noes, not that word!) the item to function differently against vehicles than against non-vehicle units.

So, if we apply the SAG as a precedent to the KFF, we can read the KFF rules as having entirely different effects for vehicle and non-vehicle units.

This would mean that any vehicle within 6" of the KFF would have non-specific obscured status, and thus a 4+ cover save, but it would also mean that Kan squadrons would need half their members within 6" in order to gain the cover save for the whole unit.

The argument, unlike it was made to seem by a good chunk of the back and forth, was not really about the sentences being linked in the sense that they were specifically refering to each other. I see what you are saying, however, it wasn't that the sentence was so much needed to specifically cite the previous sentence to get a 5+ save out of it... but that the rule that grants a 4+ cover save from being obscured says you only get this save if the save is by wargear (which it is) and not specified otherwise (which is up for debate). Since the KFF grants a 5+ cover saves to units, I simply think that the cover save has been explicitly specified (as vehicles are units too), and thus the obscured generic 4+ save is overridden by the 5+.

I do, very much so, agree the RAW are ambiguous... which brings rise to the question, "Why hasn't it been FAQ'd?"

Because they released a document before 5th came out stating it specifically gave a 4+ save?

Because the sentence at no poiont gives you any hint that a save has been specified?

There were bigger things that should have been FAQ'd (like Ghazzies auto 6 actually working...) than this.

If they intend that document to be used currently, they need to make it much more obviously available, and at least as "official" as their FAQs are. I wasn't playing in 4th, and this is the first time I've seen it. FAQ would be better, of course. I'll be interested to see how INAT rules on the question (if they do).

They don't have to rule on it because it's fething simple.

Well apparently for some it isn't.

Nothing specifies a save, so you default to the 4+. Thats it.

Trust me, I've been over this debate many times, and know all sides of it in detail.

I agree that a reasonable person can deduct from the 5+ cover save for "units" that the obscured save could also be 5+.

I also agree that a reasonable person could say, "well, it doesn't specify the obscured save as 5+ so it is 4+."

I think the best way to play it is as the SAG double-6 precedent: different effects for different unit types.

I think the idea of taking a badly written rule, i.e. the SAG... and applying it to other badly written rules... saying that if this one was badly written this way... then this one must have also been badly written in the same way... is not the best way to take your rules.

Both rules should be FAQ'd... since RAW... the SAG should be vaporising vehicles. That's a problem... not a precedent... lol.

Especially since the rules for the SAG haven't been changed by the 4th to 5th ed switch. Thus, the rules were written... and meant what they said. So being able to say that they were intended to act a certain way... that vehicles take a pen hit, and infantry get removed... is easier. The KFF however was written when obscured was a separate effect not related to cover, then with the edition change... the mechanics changed. So there is no way to say what was intended when the rules were written, as the rules were written for something else, for a different time. Lol. I think the jump from saying that this rule was written like that rule, and both are broken... if the second one hadn't started off as not being broken... and worked fine as written. Originally there was no confusion about either wargear, and how they were supposed to be played.

They definitely knew the big rules changes that were coming up - else Ghaz wouldnt have had the rules he did, and they were very careful to word the Waaagh move to not refer to fleet moves in the shooting phase.

The rules are seperate enough that it takes a very...odd reading to get 5+.

nosferatu1001 wrote:They definitely knew the big rules changes that were coming up - else Ghaz wouldnt have had the rules he did, and they were very careful to word the Waaagh move to not refer to fleet moves in the shooting phase.

The rules are seperate enough that it takes a very...odd reading to get 5+.

I am not looking to get into another discussion with you (as we seem to not get anywhere), but simply point out the humor in the idea that GW could see into the future to read the rules they were going to write... and that had they had the ability to see into the future... that they would actually take the time to be very careful to word their rules for any reason, as they seem unable to word a rule that works with itself, (like with the SAG example), let alone with other rules that haven't been written yet. Lol.

Well, either they knew the changes that were coming in the rulebook that was in development when the Ork Codex was written (5th ed was finished entirtely very early 2008) as they wrote Ghazghull a rule that only worked in 5th ed, or else they intentionally wrote a rule for Ghaz that, as far as they knew, would never work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Well, either they knew the changes that were coming in the rulebook that was in development when the Ork Codex was written (5th ed was finished entirtely very early 2008) as they wrote Ghazghull a rule that only worked in 5th ed, or else they intentionally wrote a rule for Ghaz that, as far as they knew, would never work.

Knowing GW, the 2nd option is not actually an impossibility.

This argument is about the funniest thing I have ever read on Dakka.

Three or four people are all (figuratively) screaming at each other, none of them are listening to what anyone else is saying. . . and Gwar is just standing off to the side, shaking his head in disbelief.

Oh we've gotten past the screaming, much more sensible incredulity at GW now

It isn't an impossibility, but its a bit of a fluke otherwise....

BeRzErKeR wrote:This argument is about the funniest thing I have ever read on Dakka.

Three or four people are all (figuratively) screaming at each other, none of them are listening to what anyone else is saying. . . and Gwar is just standing off to the side, shaking his head in disbelief.

Not entirely convinced Gwar! is as much of an impartial, or innocent, bystander as you think. Lol.
Also try not to confuse, disagreeing with each other... as not listening. It's just that if you shout louder it helps people understand better.