Kustom Force Fields

[Iron Warrior]

Im sorry tom im not convinced. Conceal is used under the smoke launchers section...which in fact is how KFF worked in the last edition.
That would infer that they work in the same way since nothing really has changed in for the KFF.

Something that has been concealed has concealment. I will look into this further and ask around what other people think. If i recieve the same answer then I will be convinced. I dont however feel as if your ruling is unbiased since you have been battling me on my orks at every turn as far as rules go. If need be I will ask a roolzboy...or a developer, because I beilive that the way i will be using it is the correct way.

[Sanguinary]

I dredged up a couple old posts on Warseer. We should see how other people view it.

warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9693

warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23921&highlight=kustom

[Iron Warrior]

Yeah I saw thoses, which is the way I have been playing it for the most part. If indead GW ment obscurment instead of concealment I can totally understand...however i think the price should drop then if it ony work 1/2 the time (where it used to work ALL the time)

I dont agree with the statment that it is actually Concealment from the special mission rules, which infact Does not benefit vehicles, because only troops start on the table in those missions and vehicles never gain the ability to be "concealed". Also note that it would be a 1 use item only, if you take it word for word, which I can safely say it is not.

[Goldeagle]

My 2-cents:

Since the ork codex is yet to be updated ... treat it as providing hull down as stated in the codex. However, hull down is now a 50/50 kind of thing. However, I disagree that this is under priced. Moving trees in front of your battlewagon is pretty sweet, even if it only works half the time. The whole concealment comment does not appear to me to be a literal attempt to tie into the rule which Tommy has found.

[dragons3]

OK GUYS, CLOSE BUT NO CIGAR:
4TH EDITION PAGE 69, SMOKE LAUNCHERS.
THESE ARE USED TO TEMPORARILY HIDE THE VEHICLE BEHIND CONCEALING CLOUDS OF SMOKE ESPECIALLY IF IT IS MOVING OUT INTO THE OPEN.

"CONCEALING" PERTAINS TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SMOKE ON THE VEHICLE, NOTHING MORE.

PENETRATING HITS SCORED BY THE ENEMY IN THEIR NEXT SHOOTING PHASE COUNT AS GLANCING HITS INSTEAD. "NOTHING MORE"

"CONCEALMENT" IS A GAME SCENARIO THAT FALLS UNDER SPECIAL RULES AND ONLY PERTAINS TO THE MISSION, ALA PAGE 84.

"SO THE ONLY TIME THAT YOU WOULD EVER HAVE TO ROLL 2D6 x3 AGAINST SMOKE LAUNCHERS WOULD BE AT THE BEGINNING OF A GAME WHERE THE CONCEALMENT RULE WAS IN PLAY. AFTER EACH FIRST TURN IS COMPLETED FOR EACH PLAYER, IT'S DONE.

"YOU GUYS HAVE STRETCHED THIS BEYOND BELIEF."

THE END!

[Iron Warrior]

Well, it has Force in its name so I think all orks under it have "Force" weapons and because is Kustom they all have the Kustom job upgrade for free and "Field" well that just means that they have a field to protect them like a rosarius so they get a 4+ invulnerable save too on top of the fact that they have a 5+ cover save and any vehicle withing 6" of it has Hulled down/Concealment/Obscurament/Hidden/Smoke Launcher/Track Riggers!!

can we say this is getting stoooopid?

So far looking thorugh out the web on various web sites, GW, Warseer and others I have compiled a list of the most common answers for this:

-It works like Obscurment 4+ is a glance
-It confers Glancings only to the vehicles affected
-Taken word for word as per rules it does absolutley nothing.

[Catachan Colonel]

well we basically have three options

Mekboy Force Fields confer concealment to vehicles and cover to non-vehicles

this can be taken to mean

• when we say concealment we actually mean use the concealment rules, much like when we say deep strike we mean use the deep strike rules.
  
• We wrote this faq without looking up the term in the big ruleboook and we ment to write "Obscurement"
  
• We ment to write "Counts as a smoke launcher with all of the benifits and none of the hinderances because we wrote that smoke launchers conceal the vehicle behind some "smoke"
  

In the last edition basically speaking the KFF gave cover to infantry and cover to vehicles. (Cover for vehicles made it hull down)
My personal non nit picky opinion is that this is what they meant it to be.

By the letter of the rules concealment means concealment so use the concealment rules.
and even though it may suck or mot make sence, this falls under as Iron warrior put it

ironwarrior said:

I dont agree with useing "old" rules. A New Rule book (ie the BBB) was created. That is the rules that should be used as well as any current FAQ's made for the rule book. The Old rules have been over written!.

Counts as smoke launchers with all the benifits and none of the hinderances is the biggest streach here and in my opinion the most in doubt.

Use the actual rules for Consealment or the actual rules for Hull down/Obscurement either is fine by me, just tell me before the game starts.

[Sanguinary]

I am going to say it works like obscurement. Now nowhere in the rules does it say that, but I think it is 100% what the game designers meant. Another sweet, sweet example of GW wording screwing everything up.

[dragons3]

OK ALL, GW SHOULD PAY US TO RE-WRITE EVERYTHING, OR WE WRITE OUR OWN CODEX AND USE THEIR MODELS.

ONLY ONE PROBLEM, WE WOULD PROBABLY KILL EACH OTHER BEFORE THE FIRST TEST PILOT GAME WAS OVER.

IT'S FRIDAY NIGHT! GO HAVE A BEER!

IT'S THE ONLY EQUATION THAT WORKS.
;D ;D ;D

[Ranger Dude]

Oh my...Dragon makes sense in this senseless thread. Friday night is for kicking back and relaxing.

[colonelellios]

Seeing as though the FAQ and rulebook are both quite unclear about the issue and were both clearly written by poorly coordinated Studio members after a weekend away in amsterdam...

I would say it's only fair to use the codex wording as this provides the original intention for the rule. While the wording for the rule of "Hull Down" has changed to "Obscurement" I think it is safe to say that you just update the terminology of the original rule in the codex and voiala! The rule as it is meant to be in 4th edition...

[Iron Warrior]

Yeah I think that was the general consensus, however I can help but think that because GW has fugged up the wording in the FAQ and the old codex is no long of use that the fundemental use of the KFF has been left to interpretation by the masses.

Mind you I have no problem using it as obscurment, but the original concept of the KFF was to grant "Hulled down" to the vehicle so long as it was in range. However since the new edition wordings have changed and abilities given new names. Now ork players must play with the interprtations of the masses until our codex comes out and again rework the KFF (which I cant wait for!).

I remember GW's false notion of "The New rules were written so that the old codexs would work with the news rules set" I laugh at that statement. Lies...oh yeah, and the Tau really needed a rework...not! The more I have to compensate to validate the incompetence of GW the more I really dont want to play the game.

my thoughts...

one last thing....The game SUCKS! Its the concept that is cool.

[Catachan Colonel]

The Wargear book written after both the new rulebook and after the ork FAQ says obscurement.

A number of other wargear items have wording diffrences reflecting 4th edition changes and rules.

[colonelellios]

Well that settles it then. If it's in the Wargear rulebook as obscurement, that's proof enough for me.