Kustom Force Field Question

[Ail'Slath'Sleresh]

It was written with 5 th Ed in mind. What was fleet in 4th edition?

[BlackSpike]

It was written with 5 th Ed in mind. What was fleet in 4th edition?

 

RUN was a special ability granted by Fleet USR, I think (didn't play 4th, myself). One major change was giving all Infantry RUN.

[Grey Mage]

Yep, fleet used to be run. Now fleet is run+assault.

[Hlakir]

Doesn't the fact that Vehicles is mentioned separately from "all units" suggest that it's excluded from the 5+ save? And if it's exluded then it's excluded. Just because a new edition of the main rules come out doesn't mean that it's all of a sudden included.

 

Luckily for me I live in a country where the ruling (40k) elite have decided that it's a 4+ save for Vehicles and that the effects of the KFF (for some reason) apply to everyone (friend or foe!), so I don't have to think about it. :D

[Morticon]

Doesn't the fact that Vehicles is mentioned separately from "all units" suggest that it's excluded from the 5+ save? And if it's exluded then it's excluded. Just because a new edition of the main rules come out doesn't mean that it's all of a sudden included.

 

The only prob matey, is that even though its separate, the fact that its written as "all units" means that when we complete the "obscured" rule sentence we loop back to the issue that it says "unless otherwise specified". Regardless of it being in a different sentence, its still an all inclusive rule that otherwise specifies a cover save.

 

Thats the the crux of the argument, and why this is so hotly debated in other forums. If im not mistaken this hit 10 pages plus at dakka ><; (even though INAT ruled it 4+ :) )

 

Personally, I just need to be shown why we can ignore the "unless specified" caveat. Im happy to play either way - just want to "know". And havent been shown why just yet ><;

[Ail'Slath'Sleresh]

Morticon, you haven't been shown because it is a fuitile argument. There is nothing to show that there is a 4+ save other than the separation of the two sentences. The only way a vehicle, according to warhammer 40k rules, can have a cover save is for it to be obscured, that is what that second sentence is just stating. Why else do you think I switched sides!!!!

[Grey Mage]

Thats not true though, a vehicle can have a cover save from a non-obscured source. Weve been over that one before.

[Ail'Slath'Sleresh]

Please show the good people of the Warhammer world where that can be found in the rulebook. For models shooting out of cover for being more than 2" in shooting at other footsloggers grants the target a cover save yet none to a vehicle because it has to be obscured. The only non-obscured source can be from special rules/wargear such as the KFF and that is what I just said by the KFF rule stating vehicles count as being obscured.

[SeattleDV8]

Luckily for me I live in a country where the ruling (40k) elite have decided that it's a 4+ save for Vehicles and that the effects of the KFF (for some reason) apply to everyone (friend or foe!), so I don't have to think about it. :devil:

You might wish to point out to your 'ruling elite' that the KFF does not work on enemy units as per the BRB FAQ

"Q. Am I able to gain the benefits of any of my

opponent’s wargear or special rules, such as

Teleport Homers, Chaos Icons, Tyranid Synapse,

Necron Resurrection Orbs etc?

A. In most occasions this is clear, as the rules use

the words ‘friendly’ or ‘own’ to indicate your

units, and ‘enemy’ for the opponent’s. On the

other hand, some rules clearly specify that they

affect ‘friend and foe’. A few rules are, however,

slightly ambiguous as they don’t clearly specify

this distinction. As a general principle, we

recommend that you cannot use or gain the

benefits from any of the wargear or special rules

of your opponent’s army, unless specifically

stated in the rule itself (‘friend or foe’) or in an

official FAQ."

 

The KFF rule does not have the phrase ‘friend or foe’ and so only effects the Ork units.

[Mordekiem]

Morticon, you haven't been shown because it is a fuitile argument. There is nothing to show that there is a 4+ save other than the separation of the two sentences. The only way a vehicle, according to warhammer 40k rules, can have a cover save is for it to be obscured, that is what that second sentence is just stating. Why else do you think I switched sides!!!!

Let's not get on this again. :P

[Morticon]

Morticon, you haven't been shown because it is a fuitile argument. There is nothing to show that there is a 4+ save other than the separation of the two sentences. The only way a vehicle, according to warhammer 40k rules, can have a cover save is for it to be obscured, that is what that second sentence is just stating. Why else do you think I switched sides!!!!

 

 

*sigh*

 

Its not a futile argument.

But it is a complex one.

 

If you will allow me the opportunity to explain it and if you have the patience to sit through it, I can at least show you why the argument is there.

 

 

Here we go.

 

"The only way to have a cover save for vehicles is to be obscured".

 

This is not true.

 

The Wolves and BA both have powers that give saves to vehicles.

This is proved deductively by this ->

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...04164549AAR9Ves

 

Where A.1 = Vehicle

B = Obscured

C = Cover save

A = Unit

and X = psychic power.

 

This argument also holds true for the KFF.

 

The fact that we have a sentence that includes ALL units (of which vehicles are a subset) means that vehicles are bound to this.

 

The second sentence then goes on to say "obscured" which then loops back to my original argument, which is:

 

"The rules say obscured = 4+ unless otherwise specified."

 

 

 

I know thats a lot to take in. But, please, please, please try and read it over and over until it makes sense.

The logic is perfectly sound.

If you have are able to refute or have a rebuttal for that then I really am all ears (and I mean that in as least a patronising/arrogant way as possible).

The logic in the initial query is water tight though. And its based on that, that the problem arises.

 

 

Looking forward to the thoughts!

Cheers.

[Mordekiem]

Uh oh. Morts busting out his logic and letters. I'm outta here. :mellow:

[Grey Mage]

Morticon, I see what your saying, but my logic tells me this:

 

If it was just a 5+ save they could have left it at "all units" and been fine. That they made a second set of results for vehicles says to me that its different, not the same. And that difference would be the base obscured status of 4+.

[Ail'Slath'Sleresh]

Bravo Morticon! But what I said about vehicles isn't incorrect it is just phrased without the mentioning the wargear/special rules. Vehicles need to count as being obscured to get a cover save. Now lets see someone try and correct that! Hazaa!

[Mordekiem]

Bravo Morticon! But what I said about vehicles isn't incorrect it is just phrased without the mentioning the wargear/special rules. Vehicles need to count as being obscured to get a cover save. Now lets see someone try and correct that! Hazaa!

Last paragraph in the left column of pg 62. It says how a vehicle can get a 3+ cover save without being obscured.

[Grey Mage]

Bravo Morticon! But what I said about vehicles isn't incorrect it is just phrased without the mentioning the wargear/special rules. Vehicles need to count as being obscured to get a cover save. Now lets see someone try and correct that! Hazaa!

Last paragraph in the left column of pg 62. It says how a vehicle can get a 3+ cover save without being obscured.

 

*claps* As an example.

 

Another would be a special power or ability that gives it a cover save... such as Storm Caller, or Shield of Sanguinius.

[Morticon]

Bravo Morticon! But what I said about vehicles isn't incorrect it is just phrased without the mentioning the wargear/special rules. Vehicles need to count as being obscured to get a cover save. Now lets see someone try and correct that! Hazaa!

 

 

Yeah matey, if youre still in that line of argument you didnt understand how I disproved that already. GM sums it up nicely above this post.

Additionally, if you are arguing that it needs to be obscured to claim a cover, this adds more credence to my argument. As the separation of sentences marks to A: inform you that it is obscured and then B: what the "otherwise specified" save of the obscured is.

 

 

 

GM - Its my belief that sentence is in two parts because Orks were written in 4th. (Yes, I know with 5th in mind)

There needed to be two different sentences since you couldnt get cover saves before on vehicles.

However, I believe the rule book has that caveat for precisely this reason- the ork KFF that says obscured and has a different save.

 

 

Let me ask one last question, aside from this issue, can you guys think of a piece of wargear in any existing codex(Im not aware of one at the moment) that offers obscurement and a save other than 4+ ??

 

If you cant, have you thought about why a games developer would write that caveat in without intending for it to be used on anything prior, or any of the (5?) codicies that came after 5ths release? It makes no sense unless they were basing it off of a recent/current dex (like Orks - which was in development at the same time as the rules).

[Mezkh]

They could just as much write it in for future-proofing. Say a codex comes out and they come up with a piece of wargear that "gives all units within 12" a 5+ cover save. Vehicles count as obscured, but with a 6+ cover save.

 

It is avoiding 'painting yourself into a corner'.

 

I say without the exception provided as clarification after the obscured status in bestowed, it's 4+

 

Ah, but arguing covers saves and vehicles on B&C is pretty rough! :D