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.

Yakface, it's a bit hard to tell from all the quoting, but are you saying that a vehicle squadron can't benefit from the 5+ cover bubble if they have less than 50% in range?

AvatarForm wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Units within 6" get a 5+ cover save.

A vehicle squadron is a unit, so they will get the cover save. There's nothing in the squadron rules that indicates they're somehow ineligible. The only argument that kinda works is that vehicles can't use cover saves, but there's enough precedent now that I don't think it holds.

Except the FAQ now disagrees with you...

Vehicles, unlike infantry, cannot bunch up... this ruling is obviously to represent that the fact that a fixed base size unit could usually bunch closer together than the tabletop representation... however, bikes and Kans cannot.

I don't understand what you mean.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Yakface, it's a bit hard to tell from all the quoting, but are you saying that a vehicle squadron can't benefit from the 5+ cover bubble if they have less than 50% in range?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The FAQ specifically asks what cover save vehicles get from the KFF and the answer is a 4+, not 'a 4+ some of the time and a 5+ other times'.

Per the FAQ, vehicles get a 4+ cover save from KFF, and with a squadron you have to have at least 50% of the squadron within range.

With actually happens to be exactly how I've been playing for quite a while with my Kan wall, so I can tell you it is still a completely viable way to play, you just have to actually pay attention and make sure to keep 2 Kans from a squadron within range of the KFF at all times.

Da Boss wrote:Wow, who wouldn't take Snikrot now that he can attach biker bosses?

Me, I think this ruling is obsurd. Snkirots fluff is says nothing about letting him sneeks IC behind enemy lines. They have got this all wrong IMO this rulling should have never got through. Snikrot is a great character don't sell him based on obsured rules GW.

Well, it says that vehicles get a 4+ cover save if it is within 6", and that only models within range will get this obscured save. That's not really any different from the codex (aside from clarifying that it is indeed 4+).

It doesn't explicitly say that the squadron is ineligible for the unit-wide 5+; the two situations aren't mutually exclusive.

I could see the argument that vehicles couldn't take it because vehicles can't take cover saves directly, but GW's rulings in other, similar situations make me feel that argument doesn't hold anymore.

Kurce wrote:

Because people ask them and argue about them, repeatedly and often. And when one looks at the rules arguments that appear online, what seems obvious to one person clearly isn't to everyone. If someone had gone in the rules forum for 40K here six months ago and asked, "does the lascannon/plasma gun turret weapon on the Razorback count as one weapon or two?" there would have been a HUGE debate going on about it, some of the comments would surely have been acrimonious, and no resolution would have been reached to everyone's satisfaction. That is why GW answers questions like that.

The answer to that question seems 100% clearcut to me.

It isn't 100% clear cut as you see, dreds muddy the water on this one. A dread with a DCC and in-built storm bolter etc can be destroyed with one weapon destroyed result so the logic goes that if it is listed in the vehicle entry as one thing (like the twin plasma gun and lascannon combo is) then it counts as one thing for weapon destroyed result etc.

Personally i'd have called this the other way aswell and say that the twin plasma gun and lascannon is one weapon with regards weapon destroyed, just seems more fitting if people remember the old model.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Well, it says that vehicles get a 4+ cover save if it is within 6", and that only models within range will get this obscured save. That's not really any different from the codex (aside from clarifying that it is indeed 4+).

It doesn't explicitly say that the squadron is ineligible for the unit-wide 5+; the two situations aren't mutually exclusive.

I could see the argument that vehicles couldn't take it because vehicles can't take cover saves directly, but GW's rulings in other, similar situations make me feel that argument doesn't hold anymore.

No the question specifically asks what cover save does the KFF provide to vehicles and the first answer is: 4+.

That is the answer. A KFF gives a vehicle a 4+ cover save...and that's it!

It does give a vehicle a 4+ save, but that doesn't stop it from providing units with a 5+, which it has always done.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:It does give a vehicle a 4+ save, but that doesn't stop it from providing units with a 5+, which it has always done.

That's not true.

The problem has always been that the KFF was written in 4th edition when vehicles couldn't get a cover save and being 'obscured' meant something totally different. Even though vehicles were still 'units' in 4th edition, it was perfectly clear (although not technically correct) what it meant in 4th edition. You had two different effects: one for (non-vehicle) units and one for vehicles.

Obviously the release of 5th edition brought that technical issue to the forefront since now vehicles could get a cover save, now you had an issue where the rules seemed to suggest that the vehicle could get both a 5+ cover save for being a unit AND obscurement for being a vehicle.

Hence the FAQ question, which specifically asks what type of cover save a vehicle gains from a KFF, and the answer for that question is completely and utterly straight forward: a 4+.

Anyone who is now trying to claim that their vehicles can gain a 5+ cover save from a KFF is blatantly disregarding the FAQ IMHO.

yeah,
You seem to think that it is only capable of giving one type of save. dispite the wargear giving 5+ cover save to units (kans apply) and obscured to vehicles (kans apply)

So two Kans out of three under a KFF 6" gives the squadron a 4+/5+ save... and the ork player uses the best save available.

Isn't it possible that a piece of wargear give out two different saves? it's not that far fetched eg 2+/5++ terminator armour.

The FAQ rules say what save a single vehicle gets if it's under the KFF... 4+
and it adds to that that only models from a squadron within 6" count as obscured...
It doesn't say units of vehicles do not benifit from the 5+ cover save...

Panic...

A KFF does provides two functions:

1. It gives a cover save to units.
2. It grants the obscured status to models.

These two functions are not mutually exclusive.

The FAQ answer also clarified two things:

1. The obscured status granted by the KFF is indeed 4+.
2. Reiterated the fact that the obscured status is only granted to models, and not units, so only the models in range can receive it.

There is no problem with a unit having multiple cover saves (see the Astral Aim vs 3+ cover debate), and the best is always taken. Therefore, a vehicle within 6" will have a 4+ save, as the 5+ is redundant. Likewise, a unit of vehicles will need a majority within 6" (or otherwise be obscured in their own right) to be counted as having a 4+. Again, this is not in opposition to the 5+ the unit already has.

The key concept here is the delineation between models and units.

I think Yak does understand the difference between model and unit.
The key concept is actually the ability to use cover saves by vehicles without being obscured. If that is true, and right now GW seems to ignore this BRB entry, then one kan = 5+.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:A KFF does provides two functions:

1. It gives a cover save to units.
2. It grants the obscured status to models.

These two functions are not mutually exclusive.

The FAQ answer also clarified two things:

1. The obscured status granted by the KFF is indeed 4+.
2. Reiterated the fact that the obscured status is only granted to models, and not units, so only the models in range can receive it.

There is no problem with a unit having multiple cover saves (see the Astral Aim vs 3+ cover debate), and the best is always taken. Therefore, a vehicle within 6" will have a 4+ save, as the 5+ is redundant. Likewise, a unit of vehicles will need a majority within 6" (or otherwise be obscured in their own right) to be counted as having a 4+. Again, this is not in opposition to the 5+ the unit already has.

The key concept here is the delineation between models and units.

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make made as accurately as it can be put. The ability to get the obscured 4+ save doesn't prevent the Kans from also being eligible for the 5+ save.

jspyd3rx wrote:Oh man, the thought of ghazkull coming in on an enemy's board edge then waagh, has me salivating. Any Ork IC warboss for that matter. Talk about a game changer.

Except you can't Waagh on the first turn. Ghaz can't even Waagh first turn anymore per the errata.

"Page 58 – Prophet of the Waaagh!, first paragraph Change the second sentence to “Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! can be summoned at any time, but only once per game, and not on the first game turn.”

I don't believe Snikrot can come in on turn one either so jspyd tactic would work fine.

I thought he could come in on turn one for some reason.

He doesn't. Turn 2 would the be the earliest Snikrot/Kommandos/IC would come onto any board edge.

hungryp wrote:like no destroying a Deff-Rolla

When you think about it that really shouldn't have needed clearing up...because you know, normally you can't get rid of wargear with Weapon Destroyed results.

Sidstyler wrote:

hungryp wrote:like no destroying a Deff-Rolla

When you think about it that really shouldn't have needed clearing up...because you know, normally you can't get rid of wargear with Weapon Destroyed results.

Unless that wargear is a gun, like a pintle-mounted storm bolter.

yakface wrote:... now you had an issue where the rules seemed to suggest that the vehicle could get both a 5+ cover save for being a unit AND obscurement for being a vehicle.

Hence the FAQ question, which specifically asks what type of cover save a vehicle gains from a KFF, and the answer for that question is completely and utterly straight forward: a 4+.

The thing is, the fact that they only want vehicles to gain a single effect from the KFF is exactly why this FAQ answer is backwards. What I've been arguing for the KFF was that the obscured status and the 5+ save were one and the same thing... being obscured simply gave the vehicle the ability to use the save. By 'clarifying' that vehicles get a 4+ save despite the KFF specifying a 5+ for all units, they've reinforced the idea that the effect from being obscured is something separate from the cover save provided by the wargear.

Which is what results in the 4+/5+ situation.

I completely agree that vehicles should only get a single cover save... the 4+/5+ thing is ridiculous. But they needed to either go with the 5+ that the KFF specifies, or be a little clearer on the fact that they want squadrons to ignore the 5+. Or just make up their minds as to whether or not vehicles need to be obscured to take cover saves...

shealyr wrote:

jspyd3rx wrote:Oh man, the thought of ghazkull coming in on an enemy's board edge then waagh, has me salivating. Any Ork IC warboss for that matter. Talk about a game changer.

Indeed. It's always been legal in my opinion, but now, no one can argue about it. This will quickly become a staple in many Ork lists. People will hate the color green for it, and I will rejoice.

It's a good day to be an Ork.

Is there a reason it says an independent character on a bike? I do not see anywhere as to why a bike would make a difference and I hope it doesn't mean that Ghazgkull or Grotsnik can't join and ambush.

Q: Can an Ork that is attacking an enemy vehicle by
using a boarding plank do so even if his unit fired at a
different target in the Shooting phase? (p93)
A: Yes.

I find this an interesting addition as I always felt like I had to shoot at the vehicle I was going to assault and opens up new options to destroy more vehicles. for 5pts. boarding planks are awsome!

Frothmog wrote:

shealyr wrote:

jspyd3rx wrote:Oh man, the thought of ghazkull coming in on an enemy's board edge then waagh, has me salivating. Any Ork IC warboss for that matter. Talk about a game changer.

Indeed. It's always been legal in my opinion, but now, no one can argue about it. This will quickly become a staple in many Ork lists. People will hate the color green for it, and I will rejoice.

It's a good day to be an Ork.

Is there a reason it says an independent character on a bike? I do not see anywhere as to why a bike would make a difference and I hope it doesn't mean that Ghazgkull or Grotsnik can't join and ambush.

Ghazkull and Grotsnik are both Infantry. Maybe they worded it that way to emphasis IC that use wargear to become a different unit type are still allowed?

Or they were doing it to allow Biker Boss' but not Wazzdakka?

Question about units with flying bases:

It says that enemy models cannot be within 1" of the base of the flying stand. In essence, this means that the wings or hull of the actual model could be hanging over enemy models. However, if you immoblize it, you are supposed to remove it from its stand and place it on the table. How can you do this if its wings/hull is over an enemy model? Is it destroyed? Do you move it the minimum distance possible?

There's not really any way to resolve it in the rules. Just move either the wreck as little as possible.

Kurce wrote:Question about units with flying bases:

It says that enemy models cannot be within 1" of the base of the flying stand. In essence, this means that the wings or hull of the actual model could be hanging over enemy models. However, if you immoblize it, you are supposed to remove it from its stand and place it on the table. How can you do this if its wings/hull is over an enemy model? Is it destroyed? Do you move it the minimum distance possible?

Actually, if you immobilize it, you remove it if you can. The rules fully allow a hovering immobile vehicle.

kronk wrote:I'll have to read the Kustom Force Field rules again for the exact wording, but I'm not thinking that this FAQ ruling allows the vehicle the 5+ cover save, Neconilis.

Also,

Q: If a Librarian embarked on a vehicle attempts to use
Vortex of Doom and fails his psychic test, what
happens? (p25)
A: Place the template over the vehicle the Librarian is
embarked in and resolve the hit against the vehicle’s
rear armor value. (Librarians. Dicks of the 40th Millennium! "Hey Einstein! Get the feth out of my Rhino if your going to fling that lightning gak around!")

Nothing comes with out some risks... You don't want a vortex hitting your Land Raider or Rhino? Then get him out and risk him getting shot. Simple...

LOL at the 4+ save thing, what game have you been playing obscured vehicles get a 4+ cover save.

if half of your squadron has cover the whole sqaudron gets a 4+ as normal.

I prefer the

Ironclad Dread
Chainfist counts as a dreadnought close combat weapon that adds 2d6 to AP

What means
it does not have I 1, it gives you a bonus attack.

Because normally Chainfist require to you have 2 of them b4 getting bonus attack
and they hit on I 1, cause they are powerfists.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:A KFF does provides two functions:

1. It gives a cover save to units.
2. It grants the obscured status to models.

These two functions are not mutually exclusive.

The FAQ answer also clarified two things:

1. The obscured status granted by the KFF is indeed 4+.
2. Reiterated the fact that the obscured status is only granted to models, and not units, so only the models in range can receive it.

The first part is correct, the two are not mutually exclusive.

At least, they were not. The FAQ specifies that vehicles get a 4+ cover save, and it does not say that they get a 5+ sometimes. That is a change to the rules, and a departure from how the rules tell you it works.

You second part is therefore wrong. Yakface has it absolutely correct IMO - and I don't always agree with him. The question is specfically about what cover save vehicles get, and the answer is specific to 4+. Vehicles can never get the 5+ cover save anymore, simply because the FAQ tells you they get the 4+ (subject to normal squadron rules where applicable).

ThatMG wrote:LOL at the 4+ save thing, what game have you been playing obscured vehicles get a 4+ cover save.

Only in certain situations. 'Obscured' does not always mean a 4+ cover save.

Platuan4th wrote:Ghazkull and Grotsnik are both Infantry. Maybe they worded it that way to emphasis IC that use wargear to become a different unit type are still allowed?

Or they were doing it to allow Biker Boss' but not Wazzdakka?

They directly addressed the issue of an IC on a bike because there never should have been any real debate on infantry IC's joining+Ambushing. Snikrot's Ambush special rule is not a unit special ability, but rather it is a special rule given to a unit by Snikrot. The last FAQ update that said IC's join units before deployment should have cleared up any confusion on the matter.

Simply because you don't like the rules doesn't give you a reason to ignore the rules.