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.

kirsanth wrote:
Yes?

Can you edit it to include a brick wall with "RAW" written on it that most of the 5+ crowd crashes into on each loop?

Gorkamorka wrote:

kirsanth wrote:
Yes?

Can you edit it to include a brick wall with "RAW" written on it that most of the 5+ crowd crashes into on each loop?

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.

I disagree. The SW codex states for stormcaller: "He and all friendly squads within 6" get a 5+ cover save". Besides debating the technical definition of "squad", the BRB specifically states that a vehicle can only benefit from a cover save if the vehicle is obsured, as insaniak has pointed out repeatedly in this thread.

Therefore, for a piece of wargear to provide a cover save, the rules would need to specify that the target unit is obscured. SW stormcaller ability does not mention that vehicles are obscured.

Gorkamorka wrote:
Wargear that grants 'the ability of being obscured in the open' gives a 4+ save unless specified otherwise, that is what the rule says.

Ok put it this way. You read the KFF rule, you get to "vehicles count as obscured". You go to the rulebook, to look up what does it mean that a vehicle is obscured, you find the "obscured in the open" rule, you have to go back to the codex to find if the cover save is specified, you find "all units inside the KFF get a 5+ cover save".

I don't understand how vehicles don't fall under "all units", thus that part of the rule specifying the cover save. Would every single rule have to explain in detail what applies and doesn't apply, in one single sentence, or do you actually have to think and apply other rules as well to how a specific rule should be interpreted?

Logically, to use a rule you have to read everything connected to it, not just one single sentence. Demanding that the cover save is specified in the same sentence as it is noted that the vehicle is obscured is to me absurd.

I dont know how many times I have to say it GorkaMorka, it says in the codex that units get a 5+ cover save. Thats what Ive been arguing about. As I read the line that says units get a 5+ cover save, Im taking it that the obscured result is treated with a 5+ cover save. I think this is the 10th time Ive said that.
Im not arguing that the KFF gives a cover save. Obviously it does as thats what it says. Im not arguing that it gives vehicles the obscured result, obviously because it does. That part I keep saying, is along the same lines of you saying your opinion over and over and over again as well.
The codex says 5+ cover save, and since in the obscured rules says its a 4+ unless stated in the codex, its a 5+ since the codex says it. I should just copy and paste this since you seem to be doing the same.

And I would look for the whitedwarf myself, if I knew what whitedwarf it was in.

Johnno I could hug you Why cant everyone else think like that

Johnno wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:
Wargear that grants 'the ability of being obscured in the open' gives a 4+ save unless specified otherwise, that is what the rule says.

Ok put it this way. You read the KFF rule, you get to "vehicles count as obscured". You go to the rulebook, to look up what does it mean that a vehicle is obscured, you find the "obscured in the open" rule, you have to go back to the codex to find if the cover save is specified, you find "all units inside the KFF get a 5+ cover save".

I don't understand how vehicles don't fall under "all units", thus that part of the rule specifying the cover save. Would every single rule have to explain in detail what applies and doesn't apply, in one single sentence, or do you actually have to think and apply other rules as well to how a specific rule should be interpreted?

Logically, to use a rule you have to read everything connected to it, not just one single sentence. Demanding that the cover save is specified in the same sentence as it is noted that the vehicle is obscured is to me absurd.

You are about the 15th person in the thread to misread the argument. Vehicles are certainly units, and certainly are granted a 5+ save by that part of the kff rules.
But, the strict raw of the wargear rule requires that you specify the save value that you want the ability of granting obscured to use to replace the standard 4+. The kff rules do not link the '5+' and 'obscured' ideas in any rulebinding fashion, and the 'obscured' part defaults to granting a 4+ save in addition to any other appicable saves.

KingCracker wrote:I dont know how many times I have to say it GorkaMorka, it says in the codex that units get a 5+ cover save. Thats what Ive been arguing about. As I read the line that says units get a 5+ cover save, Im taking it that the obscured result is treated with a 5+ cover save. I think this is the 10th time Ive said that.

And I don't know how many times I've said that the language does not support the leap 'you took' to the 5+ applying to the obscuring sentence. Saying that the kff grants 5+ cover alone does not mean that it uses that 5+ save value for the wargear obscuring rule caveats.

sourclams wrote: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.

I disagree, the BRB states that in order for a vehicle to get a cover save it must be obscured. If the rule for KFF had only read "Units within 6" receive a 5+ cover save" full stop, then vehicles would not have been able to use the 5+ cover save. The second statement in the KFF entry (vehicles count as obscured) is the condition that was needed to be met in order for orc vehicles to be able to use 5+ cover save that KFF grants.

You see what you are doing is the very definition of rules abuse. God forbid the writers actually use punctuation when they write. It does to specify. Its a 5+ cover save. Plain and simply. Thats it. 5+ to all units. You find me a spot in the rulebook where it says that vehicles do not count as units and Ill buy a crate of beer of your choice

KingCracker wrote:You see what you are doing is the very definition of rules abuse. God forbid the writers actually use punctuation when they write. It does to specify. Its a 5+ cover save. Plain and simply. Thats it. 5+ to all units. You find me a spot in the rulebook where it says that vehicles do not count as units and Ill buy a crate of beer of your choice

You are completely misrepresenting the argument, and are making no sense.

Quote the hard and specific rules and make arguments based upon them. You quoting single lines out of context and claiming they apply in situations they do not say they apply in and the situation does not say they apply in is not a solid base for an argument. Post and logically break down the wargear obscuring rule in a way that supports your argument, and I'll be happy to discuss it.

kirsanth wrote:
Yes?

Win

And I don't know how many times I've said that the language does not support the leap 'you took' to the 5+ applying to the obscuring sentence. Saying that the kff grants 5+ does not mean that it uses that 5+ for the wargear obscuring rule caveats.


Wait a minute. Saying that the KFF grants a 5+ does not mean it uses that 5+ for the wargear obscuring rule? So since the RULES stat that this is how it works, by your logic, means that you can pull out a purple crayon and just write how youd like it to work? Thats how your comming off anyways.

And Im also failing to see how I leapt to that conclusion when it says it in the codex. And Im pretty sure I didnt buy a fake codex that was also written in purple crayon either


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:

KingCracker wrote:You see what you are doing is the very definition of rules abuse. God forbid the writers actually use punctuation when they write. It does to specify. Its a 5+ cover save. Plain and simply. Thats it. 5+ to all units. You find me a spot in the rulebook where it says that vehicles do not count as units and Ill buy a crate of beer of your choice

You are completely misrepresenting the argument, and are making no sense.

How am I misrepresenting the argument? Im writing the rules in my books just as you are. But since I disagree with how it works Im not only completely wrong, but just writing nonsense as well apparently

Gorkamorka wrote:You are about the 15th person in the thread to misread the argument.

I am not so sure that he misread the arguement.

Vehicles are certainly units, and certainly are granted a 5+ save by that part of the kff rules.

I disagree. The BRB states that a vehicle must be obscured to get a cover save, so the first sentence alone would not provide orc vehicles with a cover save.

MODQUISTION ON:

Gentlemen, its time everyone takes a breather here. Lets remember Rule #1 and tone it down before it gets out of control, thread gets closed, and I have to start chasing people with a stick.

We don't want a replay of this now do we?

Why not just lock it?

Nobody is adding anything new.

Both camps fail to see the rules that make their own argument ambiguous.

I honestly don't think there's clear RAW here.

I agree. Ive asked a page ago to lock it for the same reason.... AND ITS MY THREAD!

Everytime a thread gets closed, Frazzled beats a teddy bear

Good, I hate teddy bears.

Errm..... if that thing up there is a teddy, I better go take the teddy bear out of my daughters crib........*runs to her room*

Please... lock it.

Just talked to Gorka in private, and I figured out what he is arguing... I will have to update this post later.

Yep, I think we're about done here...