Kustom Force Field Question

[RastlinD]

Hello was playing a game tonight and got into a debate with the another player who was playing Orcs. He claimed that the kustom force field gave his vehicles 4+ cover saves? Is this the case or does it follow the standard 5+ that the kustom gives troops. Thanks.

[Ashe Darke]

It counts them as obscured which is a 4+ cover save.

[Ntin]

Kustom Force Fields are carried by Ork Meks (or Big Meks) for non vehicles it grants a 5+ cover save, to vehicles it grants obscure which is a 4+ cover save.

[Ashe Darke]

Edit : Whoops

[Morticon]

Did a searchy here, and I know this is going to open up a can of worms, but Im not sure if there is a bigger thread on this elsewhere on the BnC.

 

Asche and Ntin,

 

The rule for obscure in the book says : "if a special rule or a piece of wargear connfers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured eben if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex."

 

Why are we ignoring this part when the ork codex specifies its a 5+ ? (Does it specificy? Or does the wording imply otherwise?)

 

Thoughts please.

[Albion de Heaven]

Did a searchy here, and I know this is going to open up a can of worms, but Im not sure if there is a bigger thread on this elsewhere on the BnC.

 

Asche and Ntin,

 

The rule for obscure in the book says : "if a special rule or a piece of wargear connfers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured eben if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex."

 

Why are we ignoring this part when the ork codex specifies its a 5+

 

Thoughts please.

 

I don't know if this part of the sentence can suite KFF wording

 

Orkx codex p.34

"A kustom force field gives all units within 6" if the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets."

 

 

More i read more I'm unsure.

 

The "dot" that separate the 2 sentencts make me think a lot :blush:

(oh, but i would be happy about this 5+ :P)

[Gaz1858]

Why are we ignoring this part when the ork codex specifies its a 5+

 

I think this maybe due to a lack of understanding the ORk codex, which im guilty of myself. I recently played against an Ork player and if i remember rightly he was rolling 4+ for his cover saves on his vehicles.

 

Its difficult to stay ahead of all the rules for all the races so thanks for bringing this up. Be more aware next time i take them on.

[Gaz1858]

Why are we ignoring this part when the ork codex specifies its a 5+

 

I think this maybe due to a lack of understanding the Ork codex, which im guilty of myself. I recently played against an Ork player and if i remember rightly he was rolling 4+ for his cover saves on his vehicles.

 

Its difficult to stay ahead of all the rules for all the races so thanks for bringing this up. Be more aware next time i take them on.

[Morticon]

From what i've seen online, people have assumed that since it says "obscured" its 4+, (which in most cases that would be fair) yet the fact that the obscured rule says its only 4+ if its not specified otherwise brings the KFF into doubt since it very clearly says "all units have a 5+".

We get no conflict of rules when we follow the thinking its 5+.

 

Im very interested to hear what the counter is though. Gents? Cause ive heard this debate has raged on for pages and pages in other threads.

Your thoughts please.

[thade]

I've only seen the KFF played as 5+ cover around here. I'm pretty sure the rule is stating that vehicles count as obscured just to cover the bases, as in "How does this power work? Is it like Area Terrain? If it's like Area Terrain, then vehicles don't get cover from it." They could've left it at "All units" and gone with that. It worked for Shield of Sanguinius (some years hence).

[Cedric]

If Albion de Heaven is correct the Orkx codex p.34 reads;

"A kustom force field gives all units within 6" if the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets."

 

Add the info from Moritcon from the BRB;

"if a special rule or a piece of wargear connfers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured eben if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex."

 

Now, the latter sentence from the Ork codex tells us that vehicles are obscured, but it only specifies a value for the cover save. It does not state that the obscured save should be anything other than a standard obsucred save. E.g. 4+.

 

Thus it can be argued that KFF affecting a vehicle grants a 4+ obsucred save.

[Ail'Slath'Sleresh]

Since the rule has been posted we all have it available to read. You cannot mesh two sentences together since it is seperated by a period ( . ). If it were a ***comma*** ( , ) the. You could easily try And debate it but otherwise this just starts becoming rulehammer and it starts to ruin games. The rule for obscured vehicles due to wargear states 4+ and the ork rule clearly says vehicles count as obscured with nothing else said because it is left to the user(s) to read the rulebook. It's not open ended because there was/is no errata on it. Remember it is only a cover save also so with some weapons ignoring cover (like flamers of tzeentch -breath of chaos) this rule cannot take effect. It maybe hard to accept because I myself get flustered when that rule gets pulled at a pivitol point but it is 100% legal.

[Grey Mage]

From what i've seen online, people have assumed that since it says "obscured" its 4+, (which in most cases that would be fair) yet the fact that the obscured rule says its only 4+ if its not specified otherwise brings the KFF into doubt since it very clearly says "all units have a 5+".

We get no conflict of rules when we follow the thinking its 5+.

 

Im very interested to hear what the counter is though. Gents? Cause ive heard this debate has raged on for pages and pages in other threads.

Your thoughts please.

Find no conflict? Yes we do. The rule says:

"A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets."

 

All units would include vehicles, the use of Vehicles within 6" as a seperate phrase shows that they are different in this regard, and since the number is not specified it would mean a 4+.

[Morticon]

From what i've seen online, people have assumed that since it says "obscured" its 4+, (which in most cases that would be fair) yet the fact that the obscured rule says its only 4+ if its not specified otherwise brings the KFF into doubt since it very clearly says "all units have a 5+".

We get no conflict of rules when we follow the thinking its 5+.

 

Im very interested to hear what the counter is though. Gents? Cause ive heard this debate has raged on for pages and pages in other threads.

Your thoughts please.

Find no conflict? Yes we do. The rule says:

"A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets."

 

All units would include vehicles, the use of Vehicles within 6" as a seperate phrase shows that they are different in this regard, and since the number is not specified it would mean a 4+.

 

That would be the case if the rule for obscured didnt contain the caveat of an exception- which it does.

 

Following the other way around creates a rules contradiction of "all units" and vehicles (being a unit) having different saves- one of which not being specified (except in the core rules....where theres the exception and then it loops again).

[Morticon]

If Albion de Heaven is correct the Orkx codex p.34 reads;

"A kustom force field gives all units within 6" if the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets."

 

Add the info from Moritcon from the BRB;

"if a special rule or a piece of wargear connfers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured eben if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex."

 

Now, the latter sentence from the Ork codex tells us that vehicles are obscured, but it only specifies a value for the cover save. It does not state that the obscured save should be anything other than a standard obsucred save. E.g. 4+.

 

Thus it can be argued that KFF affecting a vehicle grants a 4+ obsucred save.

 

Which we can only do by ignoring the first sentence in the Ork rule as well as the caveat in the core rules.

 

The caveat is part of the rule - "unless otherwise specified".

The specification is the first sentence of that rule.

 

"Obscured" can be both a condition for cover AND a description of its save (if there is no exception present). In this case there is.

[Morticon]

Since the rule has been posted we all have it available to read. You cannot mesh two sentences together since it is seperated by a period ( . ). If it were a coma ( , ) the. You could easily try And debate it but otherwise this just starts becoming rulehammer and it starts to ruin games. The rule for obscured vehicles due to wargear states 4+ and the ork rule clearly says vehicles count as obscured with nothing else said because it is left to the user(s) to read the rulebook.

 

As I mentioned above, "obscured" is a condition (a state of requirement) for receiving cover and unless noted, is 4+. Ignoring the comma (not coma) in the core rules is what is getting us into this place of issue. And its not ruleshammer by any stretch.

 

The argument that you and everyone else have to quash is that there is no case of "unless specified".

 

And, at preset (im happy to have my mind changed) I have not seen any argument that says "all units within 6" receive a 5+ cover save" is not an "unless specified" condition as laid out in the core rules.

[thade]

The BRB actually offers that, when discrepancies over how obscured a vehicle is comes up, you can take a 5+ cover instead of a 4+ cover save. Ironically, the KFF rule specifies a 5+ cover save... :P Perhaps not a coincidence.

 

5+ sounds more right to me than 4+ in this case, mostly for the reasons that Morticon has put forward.

[Ail'Slath'Sleresh]

***I deleted my former post because I confused what Morticon had written with Grey Mage's post.***

[Ail'Slath'Sleresh]

From what i've seen online, people have assumed that since it says "obscured" its 4+, (which in most cases that would be fair) yet the fact that the obscured rule says its only 4+ if its not specified otherwise brings the KFF into doubt since it very clearly says "all units have a 5+".

We get no conflict of rules when we follow the thinking its 5+.

 

Im very interested to hear what the counter is though. Gents? Cause ive heard this debate has raged on for pages and pages in other threads.

Your thoughts please.

Find no conflict? Yes we do. The rule says:

"A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets."

 

All units would include vehicles, the use of Vehicles within 6" as a seperate phrase shows that they are different in this regard, and since the number is not specified it would mean a 4+.

 

My point exactly! Yet I do see what Morticon and the others mean that it should be a 5+ but my question is when did a lone vehicle in the orkoid army become a unit? I don't remember any SM players call a land raider a unit yet refer it to belonging to a unit or a unit being mounted inside... Also a group of vehicles are considered a vehicle detatchment or formation and not a unit of vehicles. <--- should be enough to stir this hive eh guys? Lol

[Morticon]

but my question is when did a lone vehicle in the orkoid army become a unit? I don't remember any SM players call a land raider a unit yet refer it to belonging to a unit or a unit being mounted inside... Also a group of vehicles are considered a vehicle detatchment or formation and not a unit of vehicles. <--- should be enough to stir this hive eh guys? Lol

 

Pg 11

:(

[BlackSpike]

EVERYTHING is a unit.

A squad of Tactical marines, a detachment of Bikers, a Squadron of Leman Russ, a lone IC, a Monstrous Creature, a single land Raider; all are Units.

[Ail'Slath'Sleresh]

but my question is when did a lone vehicle in the orkoid army become a unit? I don't remember any SM players call a land raider a unit yet refer it to belonging to a unit or a unit being mounted inside... Also a group of vehicles are considered a vehicle detatchment or formation and not a unit of vehicles. <--- should be enough to stir this hive eh guys? Lol

 

Pg 11

:)

 

 

Good to know lol! I suppose that was a troll's question over a gamer's :( oh and the term for unit can be better found on page 3. So I suppose you guys can use this for your logic! And I may have to rethink mine!!!

[shatter]

I favour Mort's logic. 5+ is specified for all recipients (units) by the wargear.

 

My only query is why the need to label vehicles as being obscured at all.

Perhaps merely to overcome the brb's statement of requirement: vehicles need the 'obscured' classification to gain any cover save at all.

This seems to be the case... yet I understand the argument for both sides.

 

No wonder this has been worth "pages and pages".

[Ail'Slath'Sleresh]

This is probably a first for most people to see so I will make this as drawn out as possible! I would honestly say that my argument earlier was correct but after deliberation with my precious, we have decided that it makes sense that the ork vehicle receive a 5+ instead of a 4+. The rule says all units and vehicles being units cannot get a cover save. The rule then goes on to clarify that vehicles count as obscured instead (granting its cover save). So Morticon you are the lucky winner *ding ding ding ding ding*, and I've already eaten my words!

[Mordekiem]

Also remember that the book was written in 4th edition. Thus Obscured was an entirely different rule.

 

Most people believe that the orc codex was written with 5th edition in mind, but did they know exactly what the 5th edition rulebook was going to say when they wrote it? Or did they have just a general idea?

 

There is no clear cut RAW and RAI is shakey at best due to the edition change. But the 5+ to me seems the most reasonable and also fits the mold set by the SW and BA codexes which are 5th edition books.