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.

BuFFo wrote:

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.

Probably for the best. As you say, when you post in YMDC it's not to persuade, and it's not to be persuaded. You've made up your mind on how a given rule works, usually in a manner that best benefits your army, and talking about it is generally a waste of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

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.

I disagree with your first sentence but respect your right to that opinion.
I categorically disagree with your second sentence; it's a casual insult to all the guys who work hard on the INAT to facilitate smoother, better tournaments.
I agree with your third sentence.
I disagree again with your fourth sentence. The INAT never muddies waters. Players muddy waters when they speak/write unclearly, and don't reference their sources. The INAT explains quite a few concepts (like LOS and cover saves, with their great, additional diagrams) in ways that help players understand them. The waters were considerably muddier 5+ years ago when we didn't have such good FAQ resources.

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

Thanks!

Ok guys, look to the Rulebook. Because it is quite clear.

Page 64: "Then he takes any cover saves available to the squadron--use the rules for vehicles to determine if each squadron member is in cover (ignoring other members of the squadron , as if they were not there)," ...so each vehicle within 6 inches gets the 4+..."AND THEN the rules for NORMAL units to work out if the entire squadron is in cover or not"...so here the 50% rule applies to the last kan, giving it a 5+ cover, as per the KFF rules.

Really, I can see the argument, but only until you read the rulebook.

Hey, rules question: what's the page number in the rulebook which states that one model within 6 inches confers the cover to the whole unit, versus 50% of the unit being within 6 inches? I can't lay a finger on it.

Measuring to units. You are only told the unit has to be within 6" to get the save, which if one model is, the unit is

One cannot read a thread like this without thinking what a pig's ear GW have made of the way they write rules.

We're five editions into 40K, on top of seven editions of WHFB, and they still produce toss like this.

What I mean is, people in this thread aren't trying to rules-lawyer their way to an advantage, or disadvantage for the opponent. The problem is that the rules are badly explained, which makes them difficult to understand.

Late to this party, but it appears that one interpretation of this issue is a little under-represented...

We've had the KFF vs Vehicles debate before, some time ago, with no clear resolution... But I'm still not seeing how people get vehicles (squadrons or otherwise) with a 4+ cover save from the KFF rules as written.

Being Obscured grants a 4+ cover save if the rule granting the obscured status does not specify otherwise. But the KFF does specify a save: 5+ for all units in range.

In 4th edition, when the codex was released, being obscured had a different effect (downgraded penetrating hits to glancing), so the fact that the KFF grants Obscured status is written as a separate statement. Most people seem to take this to mean that it should be read completely separately to the sentence preceding it.

Personally, I think that as it's written, all the mention of being obscured does is in the current edition is clarify that the cover save provided by the KFF is available to vehicles. The KFF provides a 5+ save, and counts vehicles as obscured. Being obscured allows the vehicle to make use of the cover save. It doesn't grant an 'obscured save'... there is no such thing. The 4+ save listed in the Obscured Targets rule is a cover save that is applicable if no specific save is listed in the rule in question... so doesn't apply to the KFF, which does list a specific cover save value.

Whether the unit is made of infantry, a single vehicle, or a squadron makes no difference under this interpretation. The unit gains a 5+ cover save.

Because the two sentences are separate, discrete entities. The second sentence is not reliant upon the first, at all - in fact it works entirely differently to the first

The other part being that the games designers told us, at least twice, that it gives a 4+ save.

Mannahnin wrote:
I disagree with your first sentence but respect your right to that opinion.
I categorically disagree with your second sentence; it's a casual insult to all the guys who work hard on the INAT to facilitate smoother, better tournaments.

Oh believe me, its not a casual insult. Its purposeful- no matter how hard they worked, THEIR interpretation is no better then anyone elses-whether its stelek's, TFG, here on dakka YMTC or wherever, nor with any more authority. I really dont reconize it, and wouldnt show up to a tourney that used it as an "authority" on matters.

carmachu wrote: I really dont reconize it, and wouldnt show up to a tourney that used it as an "authority" on matters.

You must not actually play in tourneys much then since almost all of them including GW 'ard boyz have used INAT in part or in whole. GW references Yakface by name and the contributions of INAT in creating GW FAQs.

Every tourney (at least good ones) have some sort of FAQ which is going to be arbitrary and possibly different from your opinions. So you are basically going to not play in any tourney with an FAQ ruling you disagree with ever? Only events you can argue till you are blue in the face until you get your way. That doesn't sound fun to me.

nkelsch wrote:

carmachu wrote: I really dont reconize it, and wouldnt show up to a tourney that used it as an "authority" on matters.

You must not actually play in tourneys much then since almost all of them including GW 'ard boyz have used INAT in part or in whole. GW references Yakface by name and the contributions of INAT in creating GW FAQs.

Every tourney (at least good ones) have some sort of FAQ which is going to be arbitrary and possibly different from your opinions. So you are basically going to not play in any tourney with an FAQ ruling you disagree with ever? Only events you can argue till you are blue in the face until you get your way. That doesn't sound fun to me.

Well by the sound of your logic, it doesnt appear your much fun to play against.,

If it uses INAT, I wont play. If it uses GW, I will. Folks running the tournment of course choose to make their rulings on the spot and one just has to accept it, thats part of the game.

Some random schmucks on a message board making a FAQ? Not so much.

carmachu wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

carmachu wrote: I really dont reconize it, and wouldnt show up to a tourney that used it as an "authority" on matters.

You must not actually play in tourneys much then since almost all of them including GW 'ard boyz have used INAT in part or in whole. GW references Yakface by name and the contributions of INAT in creating GW FAQs.

Every tourney (at least good ones) have some sort of FAQ which is going to be arbitrary and possibly different from your opinions. So you are basically going to not play in any tourney with an FAQ ruling you disagree with ever? Only events you can argue till you are blue in the face until you get your way. That doesn't sound fun to me.

Well by the sound of your logic, it doesnt appear your much fun to play against.,

If it uses INAT, I wont play. If it uses GW, I will. Folks running the tournment of course choose to make their rulings on the spot and one just has to accept it, thats part of the game.

Some random schmucks on a message board making a FAQ? Not so much.

Well-run tourneys do not make random inconsistent rulings on the spot. Almost all of them have a pre-written FAQ that will be consistently enforced throughout the event and so people will know how rules will work while building lists. Anything else is literally chaos. How can you play half a game expecting a rule to work one way only to have it work another way and impact the whole game?

So it sounds like you play in ZERO tourneys or at least zero good ones because almost all of them will have pre-tourney FAQs instead of on the spot rulings... and it sounds like anyone who rules against you instantly becomes a random internet schmuck... but at least they have the effort to actually run the event which is why they get to rule however they wish. If you want your versions of FAQs to be used, run your own events.

nkelsch wrote:

Well-run tourneys do not make random inconsistent rulings on the spot. Almost all of them have a pre-written FAQ that will be consistently enforced throughout the event and so people will know how rules will work while building lists. Anything else is literally chaos. How can you play half a game expecting a rule to work one way only to have it work another way and impact the whole game?

So it sounds like you play in ZERO tourneys or at least zero good ones because almost all of them will have pre-tourney FAQs instead of on the spot rulings... and it sounds like anyone who rules against you instantly becomes a random internet schmuck... but at least they have the effort to actually run the event which is why they get to rule however they wish. If you want your versions of FAQs to be used, run your own events.

Sounds like your confiming your own bias as to who or what I do. But hey, more power to you.

Yes they do. And I can choose to play in ones or not based on what they say or what they use. INAT? Not interested. Radom rulings to make things "interesting?" Not interested. Been to too many in the past that have done that. Not interested anymore. Its GW or nothing as far as I'm concerned.

Sounds like anyone that disagrees with your ideas is well......the filters wont let me say.

This really isn't the place for debating the merits of the INAT. How about we all just settle down and return to the actual topic?

insaniak wrote:Late to this party, but it appears that one interpretation of this issue is a little under-represented...

We've had the KFF vs Vehicles debate before, some time ago, with no clear resolution... But I'm still not seeing how people get vehicles (squadrons or otherwise) with a 4+ cover save from the KFF rules as written.

Being Obscured grants a 4+ cover save if the rule granting the obscured status does not specify otherwise. But the KFF does specify a save: 5+ for all units in range.

In 4th edition, when the codex was released, being obscured had a different effect (downgraded penetrating hits to glancing), so the fact that the KFF grants Obscured status is written as a separate statement. Most people seem to take this to mean that it should be read completely separately to the sentence preceding it.

Personally, I think that as it's written, all the mention of being obscured does is in the current edition is clarify that the cover save provided by the KFF is available to vehicles. The KFF provides a 5+ save, and counts vehicles as obscured. Being obscured allows the vehicle to make use of the cover save. It doesn't grant an 'obscured save'... there is no such thing. The 4+ save listed in the Obscured Targets rule is a cover save that is applicable if no specific save is listed in the rule in question... so doesn't apply to the KFF, which does list a specific cover save value.

Whether the unit is made of infantry, a single vehicle, or a squadron makes no difference under this interpretation. The unit gains a 5+ cover save.

I don't know for sure (I played exactly one game under 4th years ago and am just getting back into 40K now) but I would imagine that this is not the first, and will not be the last, codex rule that suddenly works very differently when a new edition of the core rules comes out. So an argument based on what the rule did under 4th edition doesn't seem very convincing. As someone who only played one game under 4th edition it seems absolutely logical to me that when the codex says that a vehicle is obscured I should go look in the main rule book to figure out what happens to vehicles who are obscured.

Arguing that vehicles should get a +5 cover save instead of the more beneficial +4 cover save granted by obscurement would be like arguing that some foot sloggers behind fortifications would only get a +5 cover save because the KFF says that a model's cover save within its effect is +5.

kmdl1066 wrote:I don't know for sure (I played exactly one game under 4th years ago and am just getting back into 40K now) but I would imagine that this is not the first, and will not be the last, codex rule that suddenly works very differently when a new edition of the core rules comes out. So an argument based on what the rule did under 4th edition doesn't seem very convincing. As someone who only played one game under 4th edition it seems absolutely logical to me that when the codex says that a vehicle is obscured I should go look in the main rule book to figure out what happens to vehicles who are obscured.

Arguing that vehicles should get a +5 cover save instead of the more beneficial +4 cover save granted by obscurement would be like arguing that some foot sloggers behind fortifications would only get a +5 cover save because the KFF says that a model's cover save within its effect is +5.

Sadly there is an FAQ that say just that in the case of multiple cover saves you use the one belonging to the most models ... not that any one plays it that way.

kmdl1066 wrote:I don't know for sure (I played exactly one game under 4th years ago and am just getting back into 40K now) but I would imagine that this is not the first, and will not be the last, codex rule that suddenly works very differently when a new edition of the core rules comes out. So an argument based on what the rule did under 4th edition doesn't seem very convincing. As someone who only played one game under 4th edition it seems absolutely logical to me that when the codex says that a vehicle is obscured I should go look in the main rule book to figure out what happens to vehicles who are obscured.

I wasn't making an argument based on how the rule used to work. I was pointing out why they rule is written the way it is, based on the fact that the rule used to work differently.

Arguing that vehicles should get a +5 cover save instead of the more beneficial +4 cover save granted by obscurement would be like arguing that some foot sloggers behind fortifications would only get a +5 cover save because the KFF says that a model's cover save within its effect is +5.

How is that the same thing?

insaniak wrote:I wasn't making an argument based on how the rule used to work. I was pointing out why they rule is written the way it is, based on the fact that the rule used to work differently.

And once again, I'm sure this isn't the first codex rule that suddenly started working differently than originally intended because the codex rule was written for a different edition. Pointing out that it was written a certain way to get a certain result under a certain edition has little bearing on the result that you get with that specific wording under the current edition. (I'm really not nearly as big a jerk in real life as that sentence makes me out to be!)

insaniak wrote:How is that the same thing?

I'm probably totally misunderstanding your reasoning, so bear with me if you have to spell it out.

The KFF grants a +5 cover save to all units with 6".
Additionally, the KFF makes vehicles within 6" obscured.

Obscured grants a +4 cover save. But you're saying that because KFF specifically mentions units get a +5 cover save, the cover save for being obscured is only +5. So you're saying that the KFF +5 cover saves overrides the cover save the model should get?

Or are you just arguing that the KFF rule should be read as 'Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets but will only receive a +5 cover save from this obscurement."

kmdl1066 wrote:And once again, I'm sure this isn't the first codex rule that suddenly started working differently than originally intended because the codex rule was written for a different edition. Pointing out that it was written a certain way to get a certain result under a certain edition has little bearing on the result that you get with that specific wording under the current edition. (I'm really not nearly as big a jerk in real life as that sentence makes me out to be!)

I suspect that you've just missed the point I was making.

One of the common arguments was that the fact that the statement about being obscured is clearly supposed to be read separately to the statement about the save value because they are separate sentences. Pointing out that being Obscured worked differently in the edition in which the rule was written puts this argument into context.

insaniak wrote:The KFF grants a +5 cover save to all units with 6".
Additionally, the KFF makes vehicles within 6" obscured.

All good so far.

Obscured grants a +4 cover save.

No it doesn't. Being obscured allows a vehicle to use a cover save against incoming hits. If no cover is specified by whatever is granting that obscured status, then the cover save is a 4+.

But you're saying that because KFF specifically mentions units get a +5 cover save, the cover save for being obscured is only +5. So you're saying that the KFF +5 cover saves overrides the cover save the model should get?

No. I'm saying that because the KFF rule specifies a save value, the 4+ does not apply, because the Obscured rules state that the 4+ only applies if no specific cover save is specified by whatever is conferring Obscured status.

insaniak wrote:

kmdl1066 wrote:
Obscured grants a +4 cover save.

No it doesn't. Being obscured allows a vehicle to use a cover save against incoming hits. If no cover is specified by whatever is granting that obscured status, then the cover save is a 4+.

Ah, okay got it (finally). I now understand your reasoning.

Edit:
Oh, and I'm keeping my asshat on about how the rule worked in 4th. I didn't play 4th and its enough of a PITA to work out what GW mean in 5th. I'm going to put my frowny face on if someone tells me I need insight from how the rule worked in 4th to understand how it works in 5th!

I do have to say, it'd be mighty useful if KFFs made it impossible to get Pen hits on vehicles.

Just puttin' that out there.

Insaniak - the codex designer said it was a 4+. when 5th was released and in a WD Bat rep.

Which would be fine, if they had also said it in an FAQ, where it's of some use as a rules reference. Anyone who has been playing 40K for longer than 20 minutes knows not to trust battle reports for rules references, since even when it's the codex writer playing they frequently make mistakes, deliberately change the rules, or are using pre-release versions of the codex.

Having just finished building a battlewagon, and planning the KFF mek for later this week, I would love to be able to comfortably claim a 4+ save for it... but I'm just not seeing it in the rules we currently have.

The rule states:

If a special rule or 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.

What does KFF say? That all units within 6" get a 5+ cover save, and that all vehicles [within 6"] count as obscured.

It does not say that all vehicles count as obscured, and that obscured bonus uses a 5+ cover save.

It says they have a 5+ cover, and they count as obscured. Unless the Codex specifies what the obscured bonus gets, it must be a 4+.

Being Obscured grants a 4+ cover save if the rule granting the obscured status does not specify otherwise. But the KFF does specify a save: 5+ for all units in range.

It does specify a save, but it does not specify that that save is what the obscurement uses. Just saying it gives a cover save, and saying it obscures, does not mean "it obscures with this cover save."

somerandomdude wrote: Just saying it gives a cover save, and saying it obscures, does not mean "it obscures with this cover save."

Er... yes it does. It says that it obscures vehicles. It lists a cover save. Ergo, the vehicle is granted Obscured status, and as awarded a specific cover save.

I'm seriously not seeing how the part where it specifies a cover save is not the KFF specifying a cover save. Being obscured is not a completely separate mechanic, or a separate ave in its own right. It is simply a rule that allows the vehicle to benefit from the cover save.

insaniak wrote: It is simply a rule that allows the vehicle to benefit from the cover save.

Not true at all, as BA and SW now have the ability to confer cover saves to vehicles, but not obscured rules. With your interpretation, one could make the argument (and many have, unfortunately) that those abilities have no effect on vehicles.

Again, saying it obscures and listing a cover save DOES NOT mean that that obscuring USES that cover save.

The rule doesn't say that it must specify a cover save. It says that the wargear/ability must specify a cover save to be used by obscured vehicles.

somerandomdude wrote:Not true at all, as BA and SW now have the ability to confer cover saves to vehicles, but not obscured rules.

Pardon?

I didn't say that being obscured is the only way for vehicles to gain a cover save. I said that allowing a vehicle to use a cover save is what the obscured rule does. Which is true... it's the entire purpose of the Obscured rule.

Again, saying it obscures and listing a cover save DOES NOT mean that that obscuring USES that cover save.

No, that's exactly what it means.

Being obscured grants the vehicle a cover save. If the thing that is obscuring the vehicle specifies a save, you use that. If it doesn't, you use a 4+.

Does the KFF grant Obscured status? Yes it does.
Does the KFF specify a cover save? Yes it does.
Does that cover save apply to vehicles? Yes, it applies to all units, and is doubly covered by the fact that it grants Obscured status.
So, is the Obscured status being granted by something that has a cover save specified? Yes, it is.

So, you use the cover save specified.

How does Kff specify the value of the obscured save?

"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."

"within 6" a cover save of 5+. Vehicles are treated as obscured targets."

ChrisCP wrote:How does Kff specify the value of the obscured save?

This, I think, is exactly where the confusion is coming from.

There is no such thing as an 'obscured save'... the save you get from being obscured is not some different sort of entity to a normal cover save. All that being obscured does is allow the vehicle to take a cover save. That cover save is, as it is for all other unit types, defined by whatever is providing the cover. The Obscured rules provide an extra caveat that specifies a cover save for use in those situations where Obscured status is conferred by something that doesn't have it's own cover save value... This is not a 'default' Obscured save, though. It is a 4+ cover save, taken when the vehicle is obscured by something that doesn't specify a save for that situation.

"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."

"within 6" a cover save of 5+. Vehicles are treated as obscured targets."

Exactly. A cover save is specified by the rule in question. So that cover save is used. There is nothing in that rule that suggests that the cover save stated does not apply to vehicles.

You get the +5 cover save if any model in the unit is within 6". Depending on how many vehicles are within 6" will determine whether the unit can count as obscured. This purely 5th edition reading indicates sufficient difference between the two benefits to me that I would evaluate them independently.

That being said, I think insaniak's reasoning (now that he has patiently explained to me again and again until I got it) is equally sound and I'd play it that way without complaint if my opponent wanted to play it that way.

Of course if I actually played orks I might have an entirely different opinion!

kmdl1066 wrote:You get the +5 cover save if any model in the unit is within 6". Depending on how many vehicles are within 6" will determine whether the unit can count as obscured. This purely 5th edition reading indicates sufficient difference between the two benefits to me that I would evaluate them independently.

This.

Also, I never expect to meet an Ork player (Insaniak being on the other side of the world) who will accept less than a 4+ for his KFF obscuring his vehicles. And I've met quite a few. Even if a case can be made against it, the standard interpretation in tournaments seems well-established.

insaniak wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:How does Kff specify the value of the obscured save?

This, I think, is exactly where the confusion is coming from.

There is no such thing as an 'obscured save'... the save you get from being obscured is not some different sort of entity to a normal cover save. All that being obscured does is allow the vehicle to take a cover save. That cover save is, as it is for all other unit types, defined by whatever is providing the cover. The Obscured rules provide an extra caveat that specifies a cover save for use in those situations where Obscured status is conferred by something that doesn't have it's own cover save value... This is not a 'default' Obscured save, though. It is a 4+ cover save, taken when the vehicle is obscured by something that doesn't specify a save for that situation.

"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."

"within 6" a cover save of 5+. Vehicles are treated as obscured targets."

Exactly. A cover save is specified by the rule in question. So that cover save is used. There is nothing in that rule that suggests that the cover save stated does not apply to vehicles.

The biggest problem I have following this line of reasoning is it makes the second part/mentioning obscured superfluous if all the saves are 5+ - now that we seem to be all slowly and grudgingly accept that one does not need to be obscured to take a CS. I really do think that brb asks for that particular save to be specified ie. "Vehicles are treated as obscured targets with a cover save of 5+". I feel saying that there's one number in a rule so we'll use it elsewhere is akin to 'well my guns range is 36" and it's STR, oh no str specified guess it's 36 too..".