The Battle Barn

I figured I would throw this up to discussion since Todda mentioned it in my thread about the Kan Spam list. He has stated that Ork vehicles only gain a 5+ cover save when in range of a Kustom Force Field. I refute this understanding of the rule, and decided to bring the discussion here.



First, allow me to copy the entire rule for us to reference:



So now we have the rule. Let's look over it. The first sentence deals with fluff, as many rules amongst many codexes do. We can obviously ignore that, as it does not relate to the actual in-game rule. The next sentence tells us how the KFF works. It gives all units within 6" a 5+ save. Great! Very specific. No one can say that it means anything different. If that were the only sentence in the rule, then I would 100% absolutely agree that vehicles also gain a 5+ save.

Hold on...their is more writing after that though. It then goes on to clarify the rule, saying that vehicle within 6" are treated as being obscured targets. Well what does that mean to be an obscured target? Turning to page 62 of our rulebooks, we find out exactly what it means. Their is a whole nice long section detailing when a vehicle counts as being obscured, but what I'm looking for is a paragraph towards the bottom.


Well it still is confusing, because doesn't the codex specify a 5+ cover save for all units? It does, and if that was the only sentence, I would agree. However, the very next sentence then goes on to specify something different for units that are vehicles. It says to treat them as obscured, which 99% of the time, means that the vehicle gets a 4+ save. Why specifically mention vehicles in the sentence if they the previous sentence already clarified what every unit in the game receives? Because the intended vehicles to receive a different save than that of normal units.

While I understand that some people play the 5+ way, I personally feel it is not the intended way to play the rule. Every tournament that I've played in, including Adepticon, has ruled it as a 4+. I've not heard of any major tournament (including Ard Boyz) play it any differently. So these are my thoughts. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows. I know I shall continue to play it as a 4+ though, as I've never come across anyone that actually plays it differently, or tell me that's not how the rule woks.

Not sure why this is even a question. Since the KFF rule says that vehicles count as being obscured that ends the discussion. Obscured targets get a 4+ cover save. Done.

Yup. Pg 62 in the BRB, second paragraph from the bottom addresses the issue of "obscured" from wargear. Says its a 4+.

OK lets start with the terms just so there is no questions and include a bit more to help...





Now lets break it down. KFF gives a 5+ save to all units. A unit as defined by the rules on page 3 as pretty much any troops, character, or vehicles. So strait up it is say vehicles count under that 5+ cover save. It says an Obscure save is a Cover save. Wargear confers a 4+ Obscure save unless specified in the codex. The codex specifies a 5+, so it overrules the base rules ALWAYS. The only way around this is if the codex said that all unit got a 5+ cover save, but vehicles get a 4+ obscure save. They did not.

Well the problem is you're only placing the vehicle under the word unit and not under the word "vehicle".

The Codex does not specify that the Obscure on the vehicles is anything besides a 4+, it calls the unit cover save a 5+...but that doesn't change the obscure.

Otherwise there is no purpose in the object giving vehicles obscure, it would already be covered by it's cover save rule.

Well, since we play with INAT rules at the barn... on page 67 on the 3.2 INAT, it says that vehicles get 4+.

Thank you...that makes everything easier.

Oh God, not this one again! Todd and I argued this one out (being brothers we had to argue). I took the following stances:

1) I read it as a 4+ cover save.
2) Since a "reasonable" argument can be made for either a 4+ or 5+ save, it would be up to house rules, a gentleman's agreement or a coin toss to resolve.

Just a personal note on the INAT rules (I accept them being accepted as house rules): the purpose of INAT rules was to "clarify" the rules that Games Workshop intentionally left vague. Games Workshop wants it to be fun and for there to be no rules lawyers--they would prefer house rules or a coin toss to decide disputes rather than an endless debate about how the rules and codices interact. Games Workshop left the rules as they are for several reasons:

To encourage sportsmanship instead of getting bogged down in the rules

They did not want to try and cover every possible permutation available, especially when you start running across different versions of the codices (such as Witchhunters being 3rd edition, while Space Marines are 5th edition, as best I can determine). Attempting to spell out every interaction between the rules would be endless.

They were frankly lazy. Some of the stuff they simply did not play or think through before they put them in the rules.

Games Workshop officially considers their own FAQ to be "house rules for Games Workshop", rather than updates or expansion of the rules.

Play well and die friendly!

I do plan on running things that way. I really was just curious to see if anyone else agreed with that interpretation of the rules. I've so rarely seen the argument go in that direction, and thus my curiosity.

@JohnRCS The main reason for my pushing the INAT as our group's FAQ, is to do away with the '4+ it' or 'just flip a coin' mentality. I don't see anyone agreeing that a rule that can change from week to week based on pure chance is a good thing. I like the INAT, because it answers probably 99% of the major rules questions that might come up during games. It's a well written document, and is steadily being used by more and more tournaments across the country. Why not adopt it and save ourselves the time of arguing rules issues when a simple document can give us the answer? I can't see a reason not too.

I do plan on running things that way. I really was just curious to see if anyone else agreed with that interpretation of the rules. I've so rarely seen the argument go in that direction, and thus my curiosity.

@JohnRCS The main reason for my pushing the INAT as our group's FAQ, is to do away with the '4+ it' or 'just flip a coin' mentality. I don't see anyone agreeing that a rule that can change from week to week based on pure chance is a good thing. I like the INAT, because it answers probably 99% of the major rules questions that might come up during games. It's a well written document, and is steadily being used by more and more tournaments across the country. Why not adopt it and save ourselves the time of arguing rules issues when a simple document can give us the answer? I can't see a reason not too.

It seems pretty simple to me. Vehicles that are Obscured Target for any reason get a 4+ cover save. If you want to reconcile that with the RAW wording, consider this. A unit can have access to multiple saves and pick the best one for the circumstances, such as a terminator in cover (2+ armor, 4+ cover, 5+ invulnerable). Technically, the KFF, by strict RAW, would grant a 5+ cover to ALL units, vehicles included, but an additional 4+ save to vehicles. The owning player could take the 5+ cover instead of the 4+, but why would he want to? This interpretation might matter if there was some weapon that ignores Obscured Target like an Imperial Guard Hydra Flak Tank ignores the cover save from a skimmer moving fast. Maybe the 5+ save from the KFF would work against a Strength D weapon that ignores the 4+ from an obscured target cover save???? I'm fuzzy on what Strength D ignores, but there might be an argument for that. Really, though, this is a relic of the fact that Ork Codex was written for 4th edition rules where Obscured Target didn't give a cover save like it does now. In 4th edition, an Obscured Target would downgrade a penetrating hit to a glancing on a 4+ if I remember right.

Last I checked STR D ignores everything but invulnerable saves. Even cover can't stop a D weapon as stated in the description of the round type (it just punches right through cover). I don't know why this is such a big deal. It says vehicles nearby are obscured targets separating them from the 5+ cover save category.

As for INAT. Yeah not a fan of some of the things in there, but I'll play nice and try to not bitch that much about it. I don't do tournaments outside of the barn and don't plan on it so that FAQ means very little to me.

ok i will be the dumb one. what is this INAT that everyone keeps referring to?

But that is not right. Vehicles can have different cover saves, just like troops. The big difference is that Vehicles not only have to be in the cover, but actually 50% of the vehicle must be hidden. A hedge would give you a 5+ obscure save, but a bunker would be a 3+. They state typically a wargear item gives a 4+ save unless stated otherwise by the codex. You just need to know that an Obscure save is a cover save and that a vehicle is a unit. Combine those two facts and you have a 5+ obscure save. It does not say vehicles get a default Obscure save. It does not say vehicles get a 4+ cover save. It is just informing you that this cover save includes vehicle... that is all.

Think of it like this. All units get a 5+ cover save... this include obscure saves for vehicles. Considering a 4+ cover save on a vehicle would likely be pretty expensive and having it cover all troops and vehicles, makes it unlikely that vehicles would get a 4+ cover save for only 50 points. Plus, why would this force field be more effective on vehicles than troops. You would think it would be harder to deflect something away from a vehicle than a troop model... not easier.

And the thing is I play Orks and am will to concede that the KFF is less powerful than most people think.

AS a sort of side note the INAT rules are not official... they are basically house rules for governing tournaments. You are one of the few clubs I have heard even mention them. And even with those rules the judge can use or ignore them based on the situation. It is interesting that they state the KFF case as "clarifications", which means... Rulings that clarify an issue that has no conclusive RAW answer. After reading through some other rules in the INAT guildlines, I have to disagree with some. They lack the whole 'common sense' part... especially if it is not something being abused. Thinks like Skimmers Tank Shocking troops in terrain do not have to make dangerous terrain tests... Personally I think since the vehicle must move in a strait line this includes up and down and basically has to move along the ground to ram and tank shock. This idea is back up by looking at the rules for assaulting with a jet bike. The 6" for the assault is on the ground and they have to deal with dangerous terrain tests even if just moving through difficult terrain as the assault (like a tank shock for skimmers) is forcing them close to the ground. They also say you can not ram buildings, especially since they handle buildings like vehicles. They also say both players have to agree for someone to shoot at an empty building... why?

INAT 3.2 guildlines... http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/inat/INATFAQv3.2.pdf

Basic rulebook p. 62


I see no way around applying this. The question I always had was why does it talk about a 5+ save for any unit, then go on to explain the vehicle obscure rule? The answer, they are invoking this rule in the basic rulebook, rather than reiterating something already covered in the rulebook.

As for INAT being used at the barn, I have no real problem with this. I agree that you cannot do coin tosses every time someone questions a rule. You must have house rules. Adopting the INAT rules as house rules is just a bit overkill, but I can deal with that. Frankly, given the experience level of the players at the barn (I consider it to be a very high level of experience), I will take a room consensus in a heart beat. I do not need anything as formal as INAT.

I really appreciated the exercise of running through this question. Thanks to all who have helped educate me.

Yes, it's counterintuitive, bordering on silly, for the KFF to be better at hiding large vehicles than small units, but its very clear from the rules that that's how it works. Quite a few RAW rules in 40k fail the common sense test, but it's a game not a mathematical model.

I agree with John that the players at The Barn are a very experienced bunch and that room consensus works fine for most rules questions.

Why are you people using common sense when it applies to Orks? Just wondering. Since this is a piece of wargear for a big mek I would think, using Ork logic, that the device would be better at keeping his machines alive so they can survive longer so they can kill too. Infantry would be a secondary consideration hence the 5+ and not 4+. I dunno, just a thought.

...touché

Well I must say this one stirs up some interesting comments...

I've been arguing this one with John today and it all boils down to the Ork book says All units (which includes vehicles in the definition of units) get a 5+ Cover Save. This also includes Obscure for Vehicles and directs you to the rule book. The rule back says Obscure is a Cover Save, plain and simple, and says Wargear usually get a 4+ unless the codex lists something different. Just so you know there is no Obscure Save. Obscure is just the rules defining when vehicles can make Cover Saves.

So you either take it...

1. If they meant something other than the 4+ Cover Save for Obscured Vehicles they would have listed it in the same line or after the line with Obscure or specify it as a 5+ cover save for Obscured Vehicles. (yes the rule is misleading, but it does not state this )

or

2. The codex does say all units (which include Troops, Characters, and Vehicles) get a 5+ Cover Save. It would only be a 4+ for Vehicles if it had said all TROOPS and Independent Characters get a 5+ Cover Save and Vehicles count as Obscured... but it does not. (Again it goes back and forth with the codex and rule bokk, but in the end... all units means all units, not all unit but Obscured Vehicles. )

And some say nothing has to make sense for Orks, but really Orks are squishy and die easy... that is why they bread so much. They rarely have tough armor, they have no good scouts with massive cover saves. They also only get invulnerable saves from cyborg bodies and that is only a 5+... Why would they even worry about keeping vehicles alive longer... they can fix them or salvage more. To have the troops get a 5+ and vehicles get a 4+ is just not Orky. I also think something that did give a 4+ obscure save over that radius along with a 5+ cover save would cost a bit more. Come on 5+ Invulnerable Save is 5 point per model (10 for characters) if even available. At 50 points it can protect a whole lot of Orks.

You know, that's a good point. The Rule Book states that wargear gives a 4+ cover save UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE CODEX. Since the codex says 5+ cover save for all units, I'm going to change my vote to 5+. I was thinking that Obscured is always a 4+, but after rereading the rules, it says vehicles can have different cover saves depending on what they're hiding in. A tank in tall grass (okay, really tall grass. maybe sugar cane or something) would get a 6+ while one hiding behind custom-built concrete fortification would get a 3+ as long as they can both make the 50% obscured restriction.

Look at the third sentence in the rules. Does this not specifically single out vehicles as a subset of 'all units'? If all units are meant to have a 5+ cover save including vehicles, then why does the very next sentence exclusively single out vehicles. IMO, because vehicles are granted a different value save.

To be honest, there probably isn't a point in discussing this anymore. Everyone seems to have their opinions, and I don't see anyone changing their minds on the matter. As stated earlier in the thread, we do like to use the INAT FAQ to handle any rules questions that may come up, and this questions is answered in that document.

In my mind, this is exactly why INAT is a good thing to have around.
It provides us with a neutral arbiter in cases such as this, where both sides of a debate have very good points on why they feel they are right.

To me, the value of INAT isnt that its always right (which I certainly dont think it is), but that it provides a place that we can use to provide consistent rulings on issues such as this.

Because vehicles have to be Obscured to use a Cover Save. But page 3 in the basic rules lists vehicles under units. If they had taken out that line you technically could have still used it on vehicles as it does say all units, but people would then argue that it would have to say it Obscures vehicles, so maybe they should have listed that first or re-stated that it is a 5+ after, but likely they did not see any problem with it as written. Even though I clearly see that it is a 5+, I can see why people argue it. It, like several other rules, are poorly written. I think if they redid the rules for either 40k or Fantasy that 99% of the rules should stay the same, but they add some better examples and clarify a bunch of the rules a lot better.

As for INAT... they are just fancy house rules. Yes you use them at the Barn, which is fine, but even in there they said it was a rule that could go either way, but chose to use a 4+ for vehicles... likely because most people argue for a 4+... mostly because they are Orks going into a tournament and want that extra save. I am an Ork player and would rather see it done as stated in the rules.

I posted this on another site originally, but it does discribe why GW had to write it the way they did... sort of...

They had to state the obscured part because cover saves are normally against wounds and vehicles do not take wounds. If they did not include the obscure part then you would have been arguing then that vehicles could not make cover saves because they do not take wounds. This is the only part under obscured that is important or relevant for KFF...

"If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it my take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on). If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table." I especially like the part I highlight. Gee it is saying if a troop got a cover save of 5+ for that hedge, so would that vehicle as long as it is 50% hidden... Exactly the same cover save... that does sound familiar.

"If a specific rule or piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability to being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex." This would have been relevant if not for that last line as it has already stated that all units (which includes vehicles) get a 5+ cover save. There is absolutely no need for Obscure to be stated first.... already stated is 100% fine here. It does not have to state the save AFTER the obscure is mentioned.

Normally wargear is like the Tua Disruption Pod. It simple give the vehicle Obscured, with no save listed. Plain and simple they get a 4+, but the KFF is a area field that effects both troops and vehicles, so they added a bit of confusion as troops take wounds and vehicles take glancing and penetrating hits. They had to list obscured too, but people are reading too much into the obscured part and the fact they listed it second. Stop that.

Dude, seriously, let it go. This was resolved with the INAT FAQ. In there it says 4+ and that's what the Barn is going to use.