Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, not sure if anyone has brought this up or not, but I see this as being something that’s going to become a very popular 40k dance move, the tactical 2-step.

You take 2 squads; ideally you want one with heavy weapons (devastators, dark reapers, or the like). For diagram purposes, we will call them squad “H”. Then you take some other squad that consists of cheep ablative models (tac marines, guardians, or the like) again for diagram purposes we will call them squad “C”.

You start them off in a formation like the one depicted below. (Note “-“ is used to show space between models for formatting purposes)

C-C-C-C-C-C
-H-H-H-H-H-

This is assuming the enemy is positioned above the formation so that squad “C” is screening squad H from enemy fire.

Now during the players movement phase, he moves squad “C” back to be in line with squad “H” like so.

CHCHCHCHCHC

Since they are all in a line, squad “C” is no longer blocking the line of sight for squad “H” and squad “H” is free to fire their heavy weapons at the enemy. Finally, after squad “H” has fired, squad “C” uses it’s run move (1d6 inches) to move back out in front of squad “H”, resetting the formation to its original configuration and completing the tactical 2-step.

This little maneuver will allow an ablative squad to effectively make it nearly impossible for the enemy to shoot the squad behind it while at the same time allowing the squad behind to fire at the enemy. This will of course be more effective for armies that have access to both high power heavy weapon units and low cost ablative ones (IG, dark eldar, and eldar all come to mind) but it could still be very useful for more costly armies like marines.

Dirty.

I like it!

It gets much much worse when you use stealth suits or harliquins as the "C" squad. If the enemy wants to fire at them, they need to make spotting checks and they can't ignore them to shoot at the squad in the back. Hopefuly they will adjust the rules slightly to keep this from being such an issue.

This might not work for harlies with viel. the viel of tears rule specificly allows units to ignore them for target priority.

How viel works with the new 5th ed los rules I assume will be the subject of many arguments.

Personally, though my nids would benifit greatly from the new rule, I really really hope GW refines it more before publishing it. As it stands the angry arguments that will ensue over what is and is not obscured will ruin many a fun game.

Yep. Gonna be standard if the final rules are like the .pdf.

This really strains verisimilitude. What the hell was wrong with shooting through our own squads? I mean, that's what commos (or psychic ear-worms or whatever) are for . Hell, even yelling "duck!" would work.

stealers behind gaunts again. i remember that being a dominant army just as i was learning to play, before shoot the big ones came out in the 3rd ed nid codex.

It's nothing new. That's a very classic old move from the darkness of 40k past.

It does work very well. Hopefully the stupidity inherent in allowing such nonsense won't be making it's debut again.

But, according to the same PDF, if the firers can see just ONE of your 'H' squad members without it being partially obscured, then that model and any other model that can see this one unobscured model may fire at the entire 'H' unit. Every other model in that unit may be a casualty.

yes you could do that move, yes my first shots of the ensuing shooting phase will have to go on your ablative screen. However, I too can shrewdly select which units I plan to fire with first. If you plan to screen a heavy weapons pack unit with just a line of 10 guardsmen, then shame on any opponent who can't kill 3 or 4 of those guardsmen. Once a wide enough hole is punched in the screen door, then the bullet can slip past, and ricochet around, killing your prized possession.

I really recommend playing a test game or two using the new rulebook. these armchair ideas about what is gonna be dominant tactics aren't as game-breaking as many doom and gloomers would prophesize. I have played a test game. Screening is NOT that hard to defeat.

The two kinds of screens would be wimpy cheap lightly armed an armored troops like grots, conscripts, guardians, gaunts etc. They are cake to blow a hole through. Even if they deploy 2 deep, killing 8-9 of them from the corners of your firing, and saving the shots from firers that will be directly across from this new hole is a snap.

If you screen a dev squad with a unit of 10 terminators, then it would be difficult to break open the screen, but is a 400 point unit really a screen? or are we now in the realm of ridiculousness?


In Privateer Press' Warmachine, there is a unit called the "revenant crew of the atrementous" They have a character in that unit that grants them an auto-passed 'will be back' roll if he lives at the end of the turn. In other words, unless he dies, any other model in the unit you just killed simply stands right back up. That game also uses true model to model line of sight. Meaning, if I put 3 ranks of 3 zombies in front of him, you wont be able to shoot him until you've killed the zombies. Guess what... that unit sucks. if you know what you are doing as a warmachine player, you carefully plan the order with which you shoot. Shooting with guns that are good at killing zombies first, and saving your multi-wound inflicting cannon or pistol shot for that inevitable time when you have a clean shot at the character.

sorry if that example was a bit obtuse and sorry for referencing a game you probably don't play. But just so that you understand. Screened models are FAR from invincible, and the tactic of screening adds depth both to the screening players game experience and to the firers game.

My prediction, people who have a difficult time formulating an intelligent firing order are going to cry out that screening is cheesy, and stubbornly refuse to see the new tactical implication of a 'firing order'. Adaptive smart skilled 40k players are gonna pop holes in screens and snipe right through them. Don't base any new armies on screening expensive heavy weapons...

Shep:

5th edition pdf p16: "Intervening models and units:
"All models, friends and enemies, block the line of sight of the firer. In addition, if a model is partially obscured by friendly or enemy models, it cannot be targeted and counts as not visible. This means that fireing models are not allowed to shoot though the gaps between the members of an intervening unit."

Since you can not shoot through the gaps between the members of an intervening unit, all I have to do inorder to keep my screening unit as an effective screen is to pull models out from the middle as casualties. There are no restrictions in the casualty removal section that state that unit must be kept in coherency. There is also a rule that states that if a model takes a wound, any identical model can be removed as a casualty. So if I have a squad where all the members are the same (a tac squad with no heavy/special weapons or sargent) I can pull the dead out from anywhere I want. So long as my screen remains looking like the following diagram, you still can't shoot the squad in the back since you can't fire though the gap between the members of the intervening unit.

C-------------C
-H-H-H-H-H-

Now I must concede that if you can get around the screen somehow so that you got a better angle on the back squad, then all you have to do is get a clear shot on one guy to wipe them all out. This isn't a 100% invincible solution, but it will make it extremely hard to deal with back field units.


Russell:

As for screening with harlequins and stealth suits; I really hope they put out a FAQ or some sort of clarification that keeps these units from screening because it’s just plane broken. However, as things stand, you can only ignore them for the purposes of target priority and there isn’t any such thing in 5th edition so that particular portion of the rules means nothing. If they want those units to be able to be ignored for line of sight purposes, they need another special rule (or a FAQ clarification or something) that specificaly states that. Right now there isn't any such thing.

the box on page 23 implies that you should try and maintain unit coherency, for what it is worth. I would probably ridicule you and definitely give you a 0 on sports if you tried that in a game :-)

same page...

"which models can fire"

All models in the firing unit that can see at least one model in the target unit, without any intervening models or units, may fire.

There is definitely some gray area as they do make mention of an "intervening unit". A term which is not substantiated later in the rules other than the totally vague mention of gaps between units. In all other cases, line of sight is determined to a model from the eye of the firing model. If a model is partially obscured by another MODEL then line of sight is blocked. If a model can be partially obscured by an imaginary 'gap' between two models that aren't even currently obscuring my LOS to the model I want to shoot at, then that should be more clearly specified. the 'gaps obscure LOS' rule is contradictory, and not a feasable rule to enforce.

This is how i resolve my 5th ed LOS

can one or more of my models see one or more of the models in the unit I want to shoot? (A firing unit can only select an enemy unit as a target if at least one model in the firing unit can see at least one model in the target unit.)

is the one model that i can claim to see obscured by an enemy or friendly model? (if a model is partially obscured by friendly or enemy models, it cannot be targeted and count as not visible) I added the bold part to indicate no mention of units or gaps.

The following sentence about gaps in a unit i think is more of a reference to the space between a models legs or some other method of spotting a model that is behind a screening model. Not between 6" of space of two models in a unit.

No sense going crazy over it as the wording will more than likely get changed to be more clear. Hopefully it is posts like this one that the GW spies are looking for. They clearly released these rules for the free beta testing and fine tooth comb we are going to put this document under.

I also want to make sure that you know that I'm not going after you personally. You bringing up potential snags to a fair and swiftly flowing game of 5th ed are going to save us from these 'bugs' in the release version.

These posts do tend to get other, less rational people fired up about how they are going to quit the game because 5th ed is total crap.

Shep wrote:
All models in the firing unit that can see at least one model in the target unit, without any intervening models or units, may fire.

The models in that unit can't see the models in the unit behind the "screen", per rules already quoted here.

I'm curious why you chose to compare only the 2 absolutes as "screeners"- 10 Terminators and a large squad of guardsmen- rather than something that makes sense. Obviously both of those units are very poor screeners. 5 Plague Marines are 115 points though, and a very good screen.

Shep wrote:
The following sentence about gaps in a unit i think is more of a reference to the space between a models legs or some other method of spotting a model that is behind a screening model. Not between 6" of space of two models in a unit.

It seems to me that they intend that as long as the target model is obscured, you can't shoot it (not even between small gaps). But as soon as you can fully see that model (minimum 1" gap) you can shoot it...

So putting 6" of space, even if there was no mention of coherency, between two models in the same squad wouldn't net you the result of obscurement anyways...

I wanna throw something else out here for this discussion.

I was looking at imperial guard and space marine possible screening set ups. I saw some interesting things as far of effectiveness versus points.

looking at the most likely culprit of this new screening tactic, it would be the imperial guard heavy weapons squad loaded with lascannons. The squad comes in at 110 points, has 3 lascannons and 3 lasguns (or none in some peoples arguments). That unit would be worth 2kp or 3kp depending on if its from the HQ platoon or a Heavy support platoon. you would screen it with the cheapest, lowest KP unit available the naked infantry squad. Since you plan on running the infantry squad every turn you don't buy it any guns. Thats 60 points.

110 heavy weapons squad
60 infantry squad

3 lascannon shots
3 lasgun shots (the other 10 have to run)
16 wounds
3-4 KPs in total annihilation
1 scoring unit

Now if I just equip 2 infantry squads with las plas I get this

2 lascannons
2 plasma guns
16 lasguns
20 wounds
2 KPs in total annihilation
2 scoring units

this rig costs me 10 points LESS than the screening set up. I'd rather have #2. Even considering the potential for speical and heavy weapons to be assigned wounds. each unit only has 2 less ablative wounds before a special weapon needs to take an armor save.

Ok, i did a quick space marine one for curiosity.

5 man dev squad with 4x missile launchers is 125 points
10 man tac squad with no upgrades (they'll be the runners) 150 points

275 total points

4 missile launcher shots
1 bolter shot
15 wounds
3 KP
1 scoring unit

Ok, now 2 full tac squads with las plas

10 man tac with las plas 175
10 man tac squad with las plas 175

350 total points

2 lascannon shots
2 plasma gun shots
16 bolter shots
20 wounds
2 KP
2 scoring units

75 more points but I think everyone could agree that those points are well spent


I know this is just 2 armies. but it's got me thinking about just how viable screening is to these armies. For other armies, I'd love to hear some combinations of screeners/shooters, what their total points value is, and whether or not you could create effective shooting more efficiently by simply buying 2 solid units. Keep in mind Kill Points and also keep in mind that having more troops versus a proliferation of small high KP units that shoot better is also not very desirable if you are focusing on the game objectives.


Terminizzle mentioned plague marines as a screen. I'm trying to think of a unit that you have in the new chaos dex that is worth giving up 2 BS4 plasma shots at range. Keeping your plague marines back to screen havocs or obliterators and voluntarily forgoing their excellent mid range shooting seems a bit like you'd be hamstringing your own chances to win. giving up tactical movement and getting to objectives to secure them before the random game length triggers early.


Also, I'd love for this to somehow be the new magic shooty army trick. I just finished painting 160 guardsmen completely forgoing vehicles for heavy weapons platoons. With each sub unit in my platoons worth 2kp and each one from my HQ platoon worth 3, its pretty much a dead army. So I'm rooting for uber-screening. It just doesn't seem like its really gonna add up at the end of the day. large, resilient, hard hitting troops choices are likely to be superior in any way to a naked troop screen covering up a non-scoring, high KP shooter.

I'd love it if they'd just move running into the movement phase. Not only would it prevent the running, screening chorus line business, but it would make the game run so much faster.

Moving 100 orks/gaunts every turn is tedious enough without needing to move them twice.

"These posts do tend to get other, less rational people fired up about how they are going to quit the game because 5th ed is total crap."

Lol, screw quiting I will just continue using 4 ed rules.

Ratbarf wrote:
Lol, screw quiting I will just continue using 4 ed rules.

That`s the prove, something is going wrong.

Shep wrote:
Also, I'd love for this to somehow be the new magic shooty army trick. I just finished painting 160 guardsmen completely forgoing vehicles for heavy weapons platoons. With each sub unit in my platoons worth 2kp and each one from my HQ platoon worth 3, its pretty much a dead army. So I'm rooting for uber-screening. It just doesn't seem like its really gonna add up at the end of the day. large, resilient, hard hitting troops choices are likely to be superior in any way to a naked troop screen covering up a non-scoring, high KP shooter.

Cmon man, conscripts? Hello?
200 pt. wall of conscripts could screen an entire IG army, and probably get a 4+ cover save while doing it. Use some imagination here.

Kroot for tau (attach a command suit or Ethereal for LD10), 212 pts. Get some trees to give your gunline a 3+ save cover.

How about 20 plague marines in 4+ cover for an entire chaos gunline: 9 oblits, blastmaster noise marines, chosen with 4 plasma. Hey and 2 lashes.

20 Witchhunter zealots allied to any imperial force - 100pts

20 Guardians - 160 pts, rerollable cover saves if they are all the farseer has to worry about getting shot.

For orks, it probably just makes sense to make the first mob bare-bones at 180 points and have the mobs behind that one tricked out with the nob, klaw, etc...


I think with a little imagination, you can make the screening quite effective for the payout. Effective enough to probably negate the overall concept of an enemy gunline, and the metagame dissolves into something entirely different than what we've got now.

Moz wrote:Cmon man, conscripts? Hello?
200 pt. wall of conscripts could screen an entire IG army, and probably get a 4+ cover save while doing it. Use some imagination here.

Have you played with 50 conscripts stretched across a deployment zone? I have. Multiple times. Once it's charged, from any flank, by any unit, a pile in move of some kind will occur. Yanking the entire unit out of position and well out of a simple run adjustment. Until the combat is resolved, you've just sealed your LOS completely for multiple turns. It's not imagination thats needed here, its just a little less theory-hammer on your end, and a little more common sense.

Moz wrote:Kroot for tau (attach a command suit or Ethereal for LD10), 212 pts. Get some trees to give your gunline a 3+ save cover.

Tau are going to do quite well with screening even without these massive "unit gaps" rules that some here are proposing as legal. But their design is based on JSJ. Just 12 kroot will provide suits with enough of a screen to jump behind, WITHOUT the need for the kroot to run.

Moz wrote:How about 20 plague marines in 4+ cover for an entire chaos gunline: 9 oblits, blastmaster noise marines, chosen with 4 plasma. Hey and 2 lashes.

If you actually had enough of a 4+ cover save in your deployment area to cover the length of an entire gunline, then why the hell would you need a screening unit? Make those 20 plague marines 4 units of 5, with 2 plasma guns a piece. You just bought yourself 3 extra scoring units in a game where 66% of every mission is decided solely on objectives, and the other 33% penalize you for using high KP non-survivable units.

Moz wrote:20 Witchhunter zealots allied to any imperial force - 100pts

Failed leadership, bad saves, unless you are gonna give them another magic 4+ save. I'll take a combat squad or las plas infantry squad and play to the missions objectives.

Moz wrote:20 Guardians - 160 pts, rerollable cover saves if they are all the farseer has to worry about getting shot.

In my number crunching, eldar does seem to be the army most likely to find a combo with screening troops, thanks to their resilient MC being able to screen any vehicle, and fortune being something thats available in limited quantities. I'm really not concerned with a stan dand shoot eldar army gaining some competitive advantages. But if you wanna call "sky is falling" on fortuned guardians standing in front of dark reapers, be my guest.

Moz wrote:For orks, it probably just makes sense to make the first mob bare-bones at 180 points and have the mobs behind that one tricked out with the nob, klaw, etc...

For assault based armies, screening works very well. Exactly as intended. We're not talking about screening being good. We are talking about run being used permanently by a unit in order to make a shooting unit "invincible" I've played a 5th edition game against tyranids. 3 units of uber genestealers screened by 20 man without number gaunts. The system works very well for an advancing assault army. The genestealers were affored much more survivability but were forced to deploy much further back in their deployment thanks to the 2 rows of gaunts in front of them. It was a fun game. Not something to get worried about as the new powerhouse however.

Moz wrote:I think with a little imagination, you can make the screening quite effective for the payout. Effective enough to probably negate the overall concept of an enemy gunline, and the metagame dissolves into something entirely different than what we've got now.

And I didn't see anything here that would verify that claim. Outside of some eldar specific stuff, which doesn't necessarily need a dedicated running unit. Every eldar opponent who uses a running guardian screen will have my eternal gratitude for not simply including a 6th unit of pathfinders, a much better unit. In games where two completely shooty armies line up against each other, terrain and heavy weapon type will do more to decide the outcome, and against an assaulty army. Running units that generally pack all of your small arms infantry kill in order to protect a "kill unit' from light to non-existent incoming fire, is an exercise in futility.

But there is no sense in me trying to save the people that want to jump ship based on a pdf. I'm just trying to be a rational voice.

I don't think you will be able to assault the screening troops. As Sparks pointed out in an earlier thread, GW makes specific mention that when two units are interspersed, side by side, they can not be assaulted. This was ruled against Sparks at the UK GT and he found it unbelievable. It is fully explained in the pdf, as I've been told.

You could have two units of anything, walking up interspersed, and they would not get assaulted. Combine this with being able to take casualties out of squad cohesion and you have some serious abuses here.

Two units of Necron Warriors. One 'X' and another 'Y'. Move them up like this and they can not be assaulted.

XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXY

Make it two units of Pathfinders in trees and you have a 2+ save firebase that can not be assaulted. I'm talking some sick stuff here.

If the rules allow the unassaultable formation everyone will most likely house rule/ignore it. That's the way it is now with 4th. The judge that Sparks encountered was an ignorant aberration.

Overall I’m on board with Shep. Screening was a major factor in 3rd ed, when you could see through your own troops but not the enemy’s. But it could still be countered (except, to some extent, for the infamous Necron Phalanx). Regardless of whether the PDF we’ve seen implies that you can break coherency and have two IG models 24” apart screening everything behind/between them, I strongly doubt that the final form of these rules will allow it. With that in mind, there are definitely going to be viable counters to screening.

Shep wrote:
And I didn't see anything here that would verify that claim. Outside of some eldar specific stuff, which doesn't necessarily need a dedicated running unit. Every eldar opponent who uses a running guardian screen will have my eternal gratitude for not simply including a 6th unit of pathfinders, a much better unit. In games where two completely shooty armies line up against each other, terrain and heavy weapon type will do more to decide the outcome, and against an assaulty army. Running units that generally pack all of your small arms infantry kill in order to protect a "kill unit' from light to non-existent incoming fire, is an exercise in futility.

But there is no sense in me trying to save the people that want to jump ship based on a pdf. I'm just trying to be a rational voice.

Your original claim is that weapons + screen is going to be worse off than just dogpiling troops based on an analysis of 10 naked tac marines screening one squad of devs and 10 naked guardsmen screening 3 lascannons. My point is that your original examples of course worked out poorly because you were using horrible setups. If you use more economical options (as I presented), and attempt to stretch it out to cover more than one screened unit - the value goes up!

I'm standing by the initial assessment that gunlines + screening in 5th ed with the two-step are going to turn shooting matches into 'who can plink away 4-7 point models faster' contests. Meanwhile an assault armies get stronger and probably welcome the addition of a screen to consolidate through.

Sky isn't falling, ships aren't being jumped. Game is changing though - nobody gets to argue that point.

Heheh I sure hope so. Unassaultable should be done via tactics that make sense, not this tomfoolery.

I think we are probably a lot closer to agreeing than we think. In the interpretation of the rules I have been using in 5th edition test games, unit B is not screened by unit X.

________SSSSSSS



X_____________________XX
AAAAA___BBBBB____CCCCC


Nor is unit A screened from the shooters


_______SSSSSS


XX_____________XXX
___AAAAAAAAAAAA


If in fact, you guys have created your own definition of "an intervening unit" and the two above examples are false... then yes, the game could seriously fall apart.

If you go with the more moderate interpretation proposed by myself and col. ellios, then this isn't the case. If a new version of the rules came out, and substantiated the claim that infinitely wide gaps or even gaps exceeding the tolerances of coherency create a field of obscurement for anything behind it, then I'm going to cross the line, join up with the other end of this argument, and dust off my Cygnar.

And apologies for any excessive cross-posting on my part. Everyone who is posting concerns about a new frustrating and non-intuitive game interaction, are doing so to help make 5th ed better. Specifically the stuff that Phoenix has spotted with stealth suits and harlies not losing their ability to obscure targets is a SERIOUS red flag and will need an immediate FAQ, or it will break tourneys for a few months.

First off...

Shep wrote:I also want to make sure that you know that I'm not going after you personally. You bringing up potential snags to a fair and swiftly flowing game of 5th ed are going to save us from these 'bugs' in the release version.

These posts do tend to get other, less rational people fired up about how they are going to quit the game because 5th ed is total crap.

No worries, it’s good to have a foil here arguing the other side against me. It means that I have a position that warrants defending and encourages me to dig up evidence to support my claims. In other words it forces me to analyze the rules to make sure they really say what I think they say. I've been proven wrong before and I'm certain I'll be proven wrong again some day. But on this one, I think I'm standing on solid ground.

I'm also championing all these threads about silly/broken/odd stuff in 5th edition in hopes that someone with the power to make a change might see them or hear about them and do something. I really hope the leak doesn't end up being the final product (and my semi reliable sources tell me it isn't going to be but changes will be minor). Regardless, I think that changing ones army or quitting the game all together is a silly thing to do before the real rules are even published. Besides, if you don't like 5th edition, you can always keep playing 4th, or 3rd, or 2nd or rogue trader...whatever you like.

Now back to defending the standpoint of screening.

Shep wrote:All models in the firing unit that can see at least one model in the target unit, without any intervening models or units, may fire.

Yes, it doesn't say anything about gaps. However, the previously quoted rules from page 16 clearly state that you can't draw line of sight between members of the same unit(ie, though gaps). I can't see any room for any kind of ambiguity on that in there. It is quite simply what the rules say. The rules also state that you need to draw a line of sight from the shooter to the target in order to fire. So, since you can't draw line of sight between the members of the screening unit, you will not be able to fire on the unit being screened. In this case, it's the unit that is intervening.

Now, lets look into the validity of removing casualties from the middle of the squad and just leaving the two guys on the end alive (and very out of coherency). This was something you couldn't do in 4th edition because the rules specified that you had to remove models so that the unit stayed in coherency. In 5th, there is no such rule. Once the shooter has rolled to wound, wounds are allocated one by one to individual models with each model being required to have one before any can have two. Do note that even models out of line of sight can be assigned wounds so if one guy in the squad can be killed, they all can. Now, each model must make any saves that they are entitled to and if they fail, they are removed. This is done on a model by model basis which could end up causing big holes to show up in your squads as guys are randomly removed by failing saves rather than the 4th edition method of the controlling player choosing which models are removed. There is an exception to this however, p23: We're Just Numbers!, says the following:

“After taking all saves and establishing which models should be removed, the controlling player may remove another model in the unit in place of any of the models killed, as long as the two models are exactly the same in gaming terms. For ‘exactly the same’ we mean models with the same profile, rules and wargear. This simulates the troopers stepping in to replace their fallen comrades and, more importantly, speeds up the game and allows the player to try to keep the unit in coherency.”

So this would (assuming you have a “naked” squad doing the screening) allow you to remove which ever models you choose as casualties. The “We’re Just Numbers!” rule states that it allows you to try to keep the unit in coherency, but does not state that it’s a requirement. Further more, the coherency rules state that coherency can be broken due to casualties (although you must restore it in the next movement phase you are able to move in).

That is my evidence which supports the claim that the tactical 2-step is a valid maneuver and will work in game. I await your rebuttal.

The only real rebuttal will be the 5th edition rules when published.

I think it's incredibly stupid to put this trash back in, but if they really want to I won't mind. I have lots of experience running screens effectively.

I'll bite, its slow here at work

My rebuttal comes in the form of the rules having some serious ambiguity.

I make the point that although the term "intervening unit" is mentioned, it is not defined. there is a detailed and clear description of what an "intervening MODEL" is. So we can get past that. Then they say..

"This means that firing models are not allowed to shoot through the gaps between the members of an intervening unit." This is really your silver bullet for the argument. But this sentence comes in a paragraph that does nothing but explain what an obscuring model is. I think this sentence means 'Even if you can see some part of a model between the gap in a screening models legs or shoulders, you can't claim LOS. You can't shoot at a model, unless you can see ALL of IT.' Thats my paraphrased interpretation of that sentence.

Then they drop this gem to convolute it further

"In case of enemies, their aim is distracted by the more immediate threat of the intervening enemy, which is both closer and obstructing their sight."

Back to the reference of LOS being obsctructed.

using my earlier example


_______SSSSS

XX_______________XXXX
AAAA___BBBBB___CCCCC

The shooters' LOS to B is not obstructed. Not one model is obscured by a model in X, which would make it tough to make a case for X being a unit containing intervening models.

How about this?


______________________________________________SSSSSS

TERRAIN_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________YYYYYYYYYYYYY
XX________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________XXX


__________________________________________________________AAAAAA


Can I shoot A? If no, now you are being obtuse. here is where we have to apply the rule of rational thinking.


Like Stelek just said, We'll get it all worked out. this will get clarified, and i think we all know which way its going to go.


plus i dont want to argue with you too much, I live in west LA and we probably know each other haha

For the record, I would like to see there rules cleared up and possibly eliminated all together. I have mixed feelings about the whole screening thing to begin with. However at least unlike 3rd edition, it's fair (well, baring the 2-step). If you can't see me, I can't see you. The implications on this are varied, but it means that if you manage to do something like pin the screening unit, the main shooting squad can't see past them to shoot anymore.

Shep wrote:
"This means that firing models are not allowed to shoot through the gaps between the members of an intervening unit." This is really your silver bullet for the argument. But this sentence comes in a paragraph that does nothing but explain what an obscuring model is. I think this sentence means 'Even if you can see some part of a model between the gap in a screening models legs or shoulders, you can't claim LOS. You can't shoot at a model, unless you can see ALL of IT.' Thats my paraphrased interpretation of that sentence.

While that is the crux of the argument, that doesn’t make it invalid. That sentence comes in right at the beginning of the section entitled “Intervening models and units” in the shooting section right after “Check line of sight and choose a target” so it hardly seems irrelevant to the topic at hand. It’s not like it pulled it out of the assault section or some other obscure section of the rules. As a matter of fact, that section's purpose is to define intervening models and units.

Regardless, on to figuring out what exactly it means. Since we seem to agree that an “intervening unit” is a unit between the shooter and its intended target, we can move past that one. I would assume that it is equally obvious that “members” would refer to the individual models that make up the unit. If that is in contention, please let me know. So from there it doesn’t seem like that much of a jump in logic to then define the “gaps between the members of an intervening unit” as the space (coherency lines if you will) that lies in between the members of the intervening unit. For there to be a gap between members, there must be both space between said members and there must be multiple members for there to be space between. This whole portion is talking about unit members and their interaction not individual models.

The portion of the rules that would prevent you from firing between say the legs of an eldar dreadnaught would be the one that states:

“In addition, if a model is partially obscured by friendly or enemy models, it cannot be targeted and counts as not visible”

Some part of that model is going to partially obscure the enemy on the other side and thus not allow you to choose it as a target. You’re line of sight through said model would have to be 100% clear and baring some very imaginative conversions, that’s not going to be possible.

Then they drop this gem to convolute it further

"In case of enemies, their aim is distracted by the more immediate threat of the intervening enemy, which is both closer and obstructing their sight."

Back to the reference of LOS being obsctructed.

using my earlier example


_______SSSSS

XX_______________XXXX
AAAA___BBBBB___CCCCC

The shooters' LOS to B is not obstructed. Not one model is obscured by a model in X, which would make it tough to make a case for X being a unit containing intervening models.

That quote is obviously there as a rationalization for the game mechanic. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the shooting rules, it just explains why they are how they are. You may notice, it doesn’t tell you how to treat anything or do anything, it just says why.

As for the diagram, while its true that there are no models between “S” and “B”, there is a unit between them, “X” and that huge space that “S” wants to shoot though is a gap between the members of an intervening unit. Shooting though such a gap is explicitly prohibited.

How about this?


______________________________________SSSSSS

TERRAIN_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________YYYYYYYYYYYYY
XX________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________XXX


__________________________________________________AAAAAA


Can I shoot A? If no, now you are being obtuse. here is where we have to apply the rule of rational thinking.

Will I will agree that it’s silly that “S” can not shoot at “A” because “X” is screening them, that doesn’t mean the rules don’t allow for it. Now an important point of note is that “Y” is not preventing “S” from shooting at “X” since it doesn’t have any members in the terrain. If a member of “Y” was in the terrain, then “Y” would be the only squad that “S” could shoot due to the screening rules. Silly, yes, but that’s what it says.

Like Stelek just said, We'll get it all worked out. this will get clarified, and i think we all know which way its going to go.

I certainly hope so.

plus i dont want to argue with you too much, I live in west LA and we probably know each other haha

Quite possibly, but I don’t think there are any bad feelings going on here (at least there are none on my end). A good natured debate supported by logical assertions and the presenting of evidence can be fun and it will give us a better understanding of the rules…even if they are ones that might get changed. As for the LA thing, there is a decent chance we’ve run into each other. Where do you usually play?

Where screening will come in handy for Tau is with gun drone squadrons. You dont even need to run, just use jump pack moves. An excellent way of preserving expensive XV8 teams if you cannot find terrain feature near your firing position to duck behind.

Honestly, any such screen wouldn't really work all that well, and I agree. In addition to other factors, they've used a slot that could be scoring to perform the exact task of not doing so. While less important than total annihilation, I can honestly pump out enough firepower to hose that front unit anyway, leaving room to kill the back line.

But honestly if players want to try to convince me that the Space Marine combat doctrine included a football line of scrimmage [sp?] as a valid combat tactic ["get out of the way of the guns! Now stand there and die! Aright men, good job!"] then I'll repeat what I've said before will be my reaction should they attempt to tell me that the 8" gap in the unit blocks line of sight, regardless of what the rules say:

Slap them, pack up my models, and go home.

And why is the xyxyxy unit of necron warriors or whatever unassaultable? The rules clearly state that you can assault more than one unit, you can't come within 1" of any unit you aren't assaulting. If you're assaulting both of them, then there's no problem! So how is that unassaultable?

Do you mean the first MODEL can't approach within of 1" of an enemy unit HE's not assaulting? Because I'm pretty sure it's actually units that assault units, the model to model is just how they're moved.