# Ork KFF - Lets put an end to the debate



## AngryCanadian (Feb 1, 2010)

I posted this not to discuss but to get all of Da Boyz to email GW

[email protected]

And politely ask them to update the Ork FAQ in regards to vehicles being obscured by the KFF

So everyone can get an official ruling if vehicles get a 4+ or 5+ save from the KFF.


I figure if every Ork player asks they will have no choice but to address the situation.
(Much the same as the Deff Rolla previous argument)


So please take 5 mins of you time and email them

For the benefit of WAAAGH!

Thanks in advance


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

I don't see the problem, if the vehicle is obscured it gets a 4+ cover save, unless it specifies otherwise in the rules for the KFF, which it doesn't.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Except it is very clear that KFF DOES specify a cover save in the rules, it a question of what it is supposed to do rather than what it actually does.


----------



## Unforgiven302 (Oct 20, 2008)

Please, not this again! :stop:

If a debate starts or people cannot come to an agreement over the 4+/5+ KFF obscurity than roll a dice, flip a coin, play rock/paper/scissors, go 3 rounds in an octagon, have a old fashioned pistol duel at high noon, compare penis size, race two emu's or find some other way of coming up with a temporary solution in a fair and civilized manner. Thank you. :biggrin:


----------



## OIIIIIIO (Dec 16, 2009)

Unforgiven302 said:


> Please, not this again! :stop:
> 
> If a debate starts or people cannot come to an agreement over the 4+/5+ KFF obscurity than roll a dice, flip a coin, play rock/paper/scissors, go 3 rounds in an octagon, have a old fashioned pistol duel at high noon, compare penis size, race two emu's or find some other way of coming up with a temporary solution in a fair and civilized manner. Thank you. :biggrin:


Can't compare penis size ... I auto-lose then.:stop: Half an inch more I'd be a man ... half an inch less I'd be a woman. :smoke:

As I understand it it confers obscured and therefore gets a 4+ coversave.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

CBA, I'd rather go by the rules, and play it as providing a 4+ Obscured roll.


----------



## AngryCanadian (Feb 1, 2010)

AngryCanadian said:


> I posted this not to discuss but to get all of Da Boyz to email GW
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> ...


Lets not debate this ourselves once again, it can all end if we collectively email GW

[email protected]

Support the WAAAGH!


----------



## gannam (May 2, 2009)

GW is putting out FAQ's much faster these days. I would have no problem with them updating it. 

I think it's a bit OP at the moment with 14FA battle wagons coming up the board with 4+ cover saves. 

a 5+ cover that space wolf vehicles get from tempest's wrath is more along the lines of what space wolves get and would seem more likely the intent. 

RAW, it is certainly a 4+ cover save, RAI, *counting the spacewolf ruling*, it would get the 5+ cover save.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

AngryCanadian said:


> Lets not debate this ourselves once again, it can all end if we collectively email GW
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> Support the WAAAGH!


email sent


----------



## Cruor99 (Mar 11, 2009)

I'm sorry but why is this even a debate? Is it perhaps not clear enough when it states the vehicle becomes obscured? 

The rule would've stated that vehicles and infantry gain a 5+ coversave, if both should get just a 5+ coversave, as per the Space Wolf and Blood Angels codex. This is not the case in the Ork codex, and it clearly states Obscured which by the rulebook confers a 4+ cover save. 

Was that so hard?


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Cruor99 said:


> I'm sorry but why is this even a debate? Is it perhaps not clear enough when it states the vehicle becomes obscured?
> 
> The rule would've stated that vehicles and infantry gain a 5+ coversave, if both should get just a 5+ coversave, as per the Space Wolf and Blood Angels codex. This is not the case in the Ork codex, and it clearly states Obscured which by the rulebook confers a 4+ cover save.
> 
> Was that so hard?


I was about to post this. Im also curious where any debate stems from? Not to re-spark an argument.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Majority agree that its 4+, as it counts as being obscured.
This conclusion has been accepted by 99% of the population and almost all events.

Arguing the ruling is about as pointless as an ashtray on a motorbike.

The only way that it will be accepted that it is 5+ is if GW release another terribad backwards FAQ to try and boost the sales of Mahreenz.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

KingOfCheese said:


> Majority agree that its 4+, as it counts as being obscured.
> This conclusion has been accepted by 99% of the population and almost all events.
> 
> Arguing the ruling is about as pointless as an ashtray on a motorbike.
> ...


I am familiar with the rule, and cover rules etc. I still don't see how there could be any debate. Mind filling me in, just in case I come across that 1%?


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> I am familiar with the rule, and cover rules etc. I still don't see how there could be any debate. Mind filling me in, just in case I come across that 1%?


It's question of RAW vs RAI and it's not quite as black and white as people make out. 



Ork Codex Pg 34 said:


> 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.


Now history is important here, Obscured was very important in 4th edition and was a state that vehicles had to be allowed cover and did something different.



BRB pg 62 said:


> If a special rule of piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability to be obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.


The rock solid, irrefutable argument that you get a 4+ cover save is the full stop between sentences in the KFF rules. If that had been a comma you would get a 5+ save. But it's a full stop so you get a 4+ cover save, despite it telling you what save you have in the rules.

There was also an article on how the Ork codex would play in 5th ed saying that you would get a 4+ cover save on your vehicles with KFF, but GW getting their own rules correct would be a novelty rather than the norm. 

There you go, it's a 4+ cover save and if you think otherwise you're probably a nonce*.

Ork players probably do not want a FAQ update because if you get one it will probably update this to a 5+ cover save.

*I can only assume this is true based on how uptight people get about this.


----------



## Toten (Dec 26, 2008)

What I cant understand is why people compare it to the *obvious* (SARCASM) relationship from SW.. urrh 2 different entities and 2 completely different rules.

Ork KFF: Any Vechile within 6" counts as OBSCURED.


BrB Obscured = 4+ Cover save.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Toten said:


> BrB Obscured = 4+ Cover save.


Unless a different save is specified in the rules, say a 5+ cover save which the KFF grants the vehicles as well as all units get that one also. Like I say, if it gets FAQ'd it's most likely to get FAQ'd to a 5+, but for now we're stuck with a 4+. Damm you full stop DAMM YOU.


----------



## Tossidin (Dec 10, 2008)

Aramoro said:


> Unless a different save is specified in the rules, *say a 5+ cover save which the KFF grants the vehicles as well as all units get that one also*. Like I say, if it gets FAQ'd it's most likely to get FAQ'd to a 5+, but for now we're stuck with a 4+. Damm you full stop DAMM YOU.


Err, as has been stated, vehicles are "*counted as obscured*", instead of getting the 5+ cover save. As Toten said, *Obscured = 4+ cover save*. 
How can it be any clearer than that? The rules are 100% solid. 

And, err, stuck with a 4+? Orks are one of the worst armies anyway, why complain about that 1 thing they can rely on to make an army work?


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Tossidin said:


> Err, as has been stated, vehicles are "*counted as obscured*", instead of getting the 5+ cover save. As Toten said, *Obscured = 4+ cover save*.
> How can it be any clearer than that? The rules are 100% solid.


Is KFF wargear that grants a cover save? Yes
Does KFF specify what cover save it provides? Yes

So being Obscured by the wargear will grant them that cover save right? No, wait what? 

It's as clear as mud, but thankfully the wisdom of the mob has spoken and people generally accept 4+ cover save. But never say it is clear or make sense, because it isn't and it doesn't.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

I thought you took best possible save.

Grants Vehicles obscured AND a a 5+ Cover Save - hence if something ignores the benefits of being Obsucred, you'd use the 5+ Cover.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Vaz said:


> I thought you took best possible save.
> 
> Grants Vehicles obscured AND a a 5+ Cover Save - hence if something ignores the benefits of being Obsucred, you'd use the 5+ Cover.


That is how it currently works, it take the best possbile save which is 4+

The confusion comes from 



> If a special rule of piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability to be obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.


This from the BRB. But KFF DOES specify the cover save you get. So it's clear that the save you get is 5+. The problem is people have disceted the rules with a microscope and no reguard for the English languge and determines because the Obscured statement is in a different sentance to the 5+ save part they must be entirely unrelated. Thus we have the common agreement to use a 4+ save for vehicles. 

Interestingly I think that rule in the rule book applies to 2 bits of wargear in the game, Disruption Pods and KFF. The bit about specifying in a Codex otherwise applies to just the KFF and it doesn't even apply to that correctly. Which makes you wonder why they printed it.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

By my reading you currently havea 4+ cover save... but if any FAQ ruling was to be made then it would be stupid if it wasn't FAQ'd to be a 5+ save instead.

Vehicles get the save of the cover that obscures them... so if you are obscured by a piece of 3+ cover (eg after a techmarine has improved it) then you get a 3+ cover save, by the same logic if the KFF provides 5+ cover and this cover obscurred the vehicle it should get a 5+ cover save (specifically NOT current RAW).

Anyway, we'll wait and see...


----------



## AngryCanadian (Feb 1, 2010)

Cmon now guys 

almost all of these same points were brought up last time and in another month or 2 when someone else comes across the problem

Email GW

[email protected]

They do have the answer


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

GW US said:

Greetings!
Thank you for writing in to us! Please have everyone refer to Page 62, specifically the 2nd paragraph AFTER the 3 bullets at the bottom of the left hand side. It specifically states: “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.” It can’t get any clearer than that. I hope that helps! WAAAAGH!
Thanks!
**********
Customer Service Specialist

Maybe others should send mail. If there are different answers sent, a meta-mail could be sent. Who knows. Takes a minute to send.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Codex overrides BBB

BBB says 4+
Dex says 5+

Seems pretty damn straight forward.

It gets a 5+ cover since that is what the dex says.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

djinn24 said:


> Codex overrides BBB
> 
> BBB says 4+ yes
> Dex says 5+ no... see below...
> ...


Well actually what the dex says is (pg. 34)... 



> A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+


If it ended right there I'd agree with you guys as "units" sounds like everything including vehicles, but the very next sentence says...



> Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.


So clearly vehicles in the ork dex are dealt with separately.


In the 4th ed rulebook "obscured" meant this (pg. 69 4th ed BBB)...



> If the target is obscured and a penetrating hit is scored, the vehicle's owner rolls a D6 -- on a roll of 4+, the penetrating hit is downgraded to a glancing hit.


So... the dex (written in 4th ed) wasn't at all saying vehicles to get a 5+ cover save. It was saying they get a 50% chance of downgrading a penetrating hit to a glancing one. Something *very* different from a cover save.



Bringing it then to 5th ed, we know...

(A)The wording in the ork dex was not changed by the 5th ed ork FAQ therefore GW still intended it to read that a KFF makes vehicles within 6" of it count as being obscured.


(B) The BBB defines obscured as a 4+ cover save, as well as even going one step further as lokis diligently found out. The answer's on pg. 62...



> 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.




There is no argument here. The GW e-mail response accurately answers this question.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Is there really any point to this argument?

The only purpose this thread serves is being a gold mine for trolls.

Its accepted by the majority of players and almost all tournaments that its a 4+ for vehicles.
Accept it and move on.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

KingOfCheese said:


> Is there really any point to this argument?
> 
> The only purpose this thread serves is being a gold mine for trolls.
> 
> ...


It's clearly supposed to be 5+, it's just that people shout the loudest for 4+ so that's what it is. That rule in the BRB only applies to KFF, it serves no other purpose. 

Consider someone who doesn't trawl the forums for answers, just sitting at home with the codex and rulebook. They're going to read the rules and think 5+, then come online and people shout them down inexplicably. The question was why is there any confusion, and that is why there is confusion.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> Consider someone who doesn't trawl the forums for answers, just sitting at home with the codex and rulebook. They're going to read the rules and think 5+, then come online and people shout them down inexplicably. The question was why is there any confusion, and that is why there is confusion.


Well that's not what I thought at all.


I never needed to come to forums or a FAQ to answer this question. When I bought my 4th ed codex (the second it went on sale :biggrin: ), I thought where vehicles and a KFF are concerned that... 



> Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets.


That is the exact, word for word quote, from the ork dex pg. 34. 


It tells you right there what vehicles get from a KFF. Obscured.



At that point any new player is going to look up in the BBB what it means for a vehicle to be obscured, see that obscured = a 4+ cover save, and see the bullet point clarification about wargear and even out in the open.



Aramoro, it can't mean 5+ (one, for the reason I just listed) but two because obscured didn't mean a cover save at all in 4th ed when the ork dex was written. It meant you had a 50% chance to downgrade a penetrating hit to a glancing hit.

A cover save isn't about downgrading the hit from a pen to a glance, but about "saving" from the hit all together. That's very different. If it wasn't talking about a 5+ cover save in 4th when it wasn't originally written, then it isn't talking about a 5+ cover save now in 5th. 

It's talking about being obscured which means different things in 4th and 5th.


As a side note. I've been a member of The-Waaagh (the main only ork forum on the net) since 2003, and its now defunct predecessor Da Orks before that, and Rob Orky's forum (the main ork forum before that), and we discussed at length all the cool new features of 5th ed when it came out, etc.

There's (currently) 9,966 ork players on that forum and back when the 5th ed came out not one of them thought what you're thinking. Everyone was very excited that our paper thin AV vehicles were going to get a significant boost in protection from the change to obscured's definition.



.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Well of course Ork players, on an Ork forum, about playing Orks, would definitely read the rules in a way which was not advantageous to Orks. Oh no wait a second they totally wouldn't.

I have explained at length why this rule is confusing. I have also noted why the common usage of the rule does seem on the face of it to be wrong (The wargear DOES specify the cover save). It definitely can mean 5+ because you know, that's what's written in your codex. If it wasn't confusing we would not be having this debate. 

Don't try to use the 'I've been playing this game so long I cannot be wrong' tact, it's not a valid tact to take in a rules debate.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

:sigh:

So much for ending the debate....LOL

Agree to disagree until a FAQ please gentlemen.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Aramoro said:


> Don't try to use the 'I've been playing this game so long I cannot be wrong' tact, it's not a valid tact to take in a rules debate.


I use the "I've been addicted to hookers and blow so wrong I can't be correct" tact. Then argue in favor of my opponent.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

DeathKlokk said:


> :sigh:
> 
> So much for ending the debate....LOL
> 
> Agree to disagree until a FAQ please gentlemen.


Will do.


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> That rule in the BRB only applies to KFF, it serves no other purpose.


Except for the Tau Disruption pod. That rule in the BRB applies directly to that. And the IG Camo net is applied to the first part, where it's cover save is improved. 

GW clearly agrees that the full stop indicates a 4+ save, from that email quote.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Maybe vehicles are just easier to protect in the KFF than infantry


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Creon said:


> Except for the Tau Disruption pod. That rule in the BRB applies directly to that. And the IG Camo net is applied to the first part, where it's cover save is improved.
> 
> GW clearly agrees that the full stop indicates a 4+ save, from that email quote.


I mentioned Disruption Pods earlier, KFF is the only wargear which uses the second clause of the rules, or could have anything to do with them. The Email is clear as mud, which just goes to show why there is confusion which is all i'm really saying. Camo nets have nothing to do with that rule at all, they just give you stealth. 

But I see this has moved from rules to general so i'll leave it there.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

I have never heard someone so dense as to argue for a 5+ cover save from the KFF...lol.

The rules CLEARLY state, 4+ the end.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Eleven said:


> I have never heard someone so dense as to argue for a 5+ cover save from the KFF...lol.
> 
> The rules CLEARLY state, 4+ the end.


Dense? Excuse me? 

KFF States the cover save you get, Pg 67 says you get 4+ unless the Codex specifies otherwise. Guess what the codex specifies otherwise, right there in the rule for KFF.

Problem?


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Aramoro said:


> Dense? Excuse me?
> 
> KFF States the cover save you get, Pg 67 says you get 4+ unless the Codex specifies otherwise. Guess what the codex specifies otherwise, right there in the rule for KFF.
> 
> Problem?


No, you are ignoring lines and creating a problem that doesn't exist. It says units get a 5+ save AND, vehicles count as obscured PERIOD. I'm not making this stuff up here, that's what it says. Vehicles are obscured that's it, no more.

I've been involved in lots of rules arguments before, but this one is insane and completely illogical.

How can you go against what is written in black and white in the codex?


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Eleven said:


> No, you are ignoring lines and creating a problem that doesn't exist. It says units get a 5+ save AND, vehicles count as obscured PERIOD. I'm not making this stuff up here, that's what it says. Vehicles are obscured that's it, not more.
> 
> I've been involved in lots of rules arguments before, but this one is insane and completely illogical.


Nope if the rule did say 'units get a 5+ save AND, vehicles count as obscured ' 

Then they would definitely get the 5+ cover save as it's specified otherwise in the Codex. The whole 4+ cover save revolves around the fact it's split into two sentences, and the reading that the second sentence has nothing at all to do with the first one. If you read it as one rule, and all the sentences are related, then read page 67 it's easy to think you'll be getting a 5+ save.

It's not illogical to think that, it's just a different interpretation, and a perfectly valid one at that.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Aramoro said:


> Nope if the rule did say 'units get a 5+ save AND, vehicles count as obscured '
> 
> Then they would definitely get the 5+ cover save as it's specified otherwise in the Codex. The whole 4+ cover save revolves around the fact it's split into two sentences, and the reading that the second sentence has nothing at all to do with the first one. If you read it as one rule, and all the sentences are related, then read page 67 it's easy to think you'll be getting a 5+ save.
> 
> It's not illogical to think that, it's just a different interpretation, and a perfectly valid one at that.


ok, i'm reading it right now and it says exactly this: "The kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles are treated as obscured."

So the infantry and the vehicles get a save of 5+, but then the vehicles also count as obscured so they have a 4+ also. What's the problem again?


Let's say you were in a fortification and also had a 5" thick piece of terrain between you and the attacker. That would give you a 4+ save and a 3+ save. Which one would you take? Same thing here.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Another thing to consider at this point is that RAI will want to favor orks at this point as they are a less than competitive army. Like when GWS ruled that the battlewagon crushes landraiders and titans underneath it's deffrolla.

Why would GWS nerf the orks at this point in the game? Especially nerf them in a confusing way that makes new player have to go online to a FAQ to understand the rules which were otherwise clear.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Eleven said:


> ok, i'm reading it right now and it says exactly this: "The kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles are treated as obscured."
> 
> So the infantry and the vehicles get a save of 5+, but then the vehicles also count as obscured so they have a 4+ also. What's the problem again?


The problem occurs when you read the BRB, page 67 and it says 'Unless specified otherwise in the Codex'. Now the KFF has already given your vehicle a 5+ cover save so the Cover save IS specified in the codex. It's really easy to read it like that. 

What people do is consider the sentences to be totally unrelated but it's tricky as we don't know what that rule on Page 67 means. The only piece of wargear it could possibly pertain to is KFF, but now we're saying it doesn't


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Aramoro said:


> The problem occurs when you read the BRB, page 67 and it says 'Unless specified otherwise in the Codex'. Now the KFF has already given your vehicle a 5+ cover save so the Cover save IS specified in the codex. It's really easy to read it like that.
> 
> What people do is consider the sentences to be totally unrelated but it's tricky as we don't know what that rule on Page 67 means. The only piece of wargear it could possibly pertain to is KFF, but now we're saying it doesn't


Ah, ok. So now I understand what you are on about. Well, I gave it a fair thought and sat down for a minute and thought about it and arrived at the conclusion that the ruling of 5+ is not an otherwise specified situation since they are different sentences and don't have any indications that one is a modification of the other. Even if they were in the same sentence as you had said earlier, I would not say that the 5+ is a modification of the rules unless the codex read that the forcefield counts as 5+ cover for the purposes of the obscured vehicle.

That said, I now understand why you were confused, but I still don't agree with your point.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Well that ended rather nicely


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

The author of the codex, Phil Kelly, has said in WD345 that vehicles get a 4+ cover save, so that should end it.


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Unforgiven302 said:


> Please, not this again! :stop:
> 
> If a debate starts or people cannot come to an agreement over the 4+/5+ KFF obscurity than roll a dice, flip a coin, play rock/paper/scissors, go 3 rounds in an octagon, have a old fashioned pistol duel at high noon, compare penis size, race two emu's or find some other way of coming up with a temporary solution in a fair and civilized manner. Thank you. :biggrin:


I suggest this


----------



## Ascendant (Dec 11, 2008)

I did send an email, as we were implored to do, and got this email back. 



US Customer Service said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Thank you for writing in to us! Please have everyone refer to Page 62, specifically the 2nd paragraph AFTER the 3 bullets at the bottom of the left hand side. It specifically states: “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.” It can’t get any clearer than that. I hope that helps! WAAAAGH!
> 
> ...


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

I said that ENDED rather nicely!


----------

