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.

This was something I recently thought of when posting in an Orks in V5 thread: Link

I haven't read the rules yet (will look at them tonight), but since some people here have access to the book I figure it's good to start discussing this now because the implications for this are potentially big if it's legal.

Now in 40kv5 it says that shooting at a unit through another unit gives the target a 4+ cover save. Correct?

Lets say you've got two units (Unit 1, and Unit 2) of Orks/Genestealers/Gaunts/Whatever

Lets then say you arranged them into the following formation:

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Given this, Unit 1 will always screen the majority of Unit 2, and Unit 2 will do the same to Unit 1.

Also given that you can remove casualties from models that are out of range of the guns being fired, this means the models in the front of the formation can be the last models to be removed if you have large enough units.

Does this mean that units in this formation generate cover for one another?

Granted it has problems, if you shoot out with either unit, you give your target a 4+ Cover save, so it's not a great idea to use Dev Squads or Sister Squads with this formation; but it works great for assault units - especially since the rules for not coming within 1" of enemy models except for assaults could use this formation to force multiple assaults?

I'd appreciate any comments on this, especially if people have access to the rulebook. I'll be looking it up later tonight and will check back later.

not positive if it would work under the rules but there are a few things that could present a problem.. namely blast/template weapons. in order to keep coherency, your models will have about a half inch in between each other, probably less, which will allow demolisher cannons to well demolish not one but 2 units at a time. flamer templates (ignoring cover saves) will eat this formation as well.

one other note, its my understanding that theres only a penalty for shooting through enemy units and not your own.

Templates are a problem for most units that would need this formation anyway, and at least this way you always get a 4+ cover save from the hits, as opposed to not.

Flamer templates are a problem, but generally you can see those threats coming.

how are you going to move these guys? some kind of everyone walks on an angle conga lines? If the spaces between are big enough to move each guy through you probably wont get a cover save from a lot of angles. For example, anyone could stand 45 degrees to the left or right of your unit and just see columns with no screening. Obviously the closer you get the less this helps them, but since they get to either a) setup after you or b) go first, they can mitigate this.

Unfortunately I don't see anything in the rule itself that doesn't make this work, so it's a good idea

I haven't seen the rules yet, so I can't speak for its' legality, but you idea made me thik of a similar idea I had previously.

Let's say;
Unit 1 = Shoota Boyz
Unit 2 = Grots

(Note, unit sizes might not be optimal... This is just for discussion purposes)


2222222
2111112
2111112
2111112

During movement, the grots move forward and "open up" a hole in the direction you want the Orks to shoot.
Even while keeping in coherency, you should be able to leave enough "holes" that the majority of the army can see through without hindrance.

22
222 2 2
211111
2111112
21111122

Orks move up.

During shooting, Orks shoot at the unit they want to hit
Grots "run" back into formation.

This gives the Boyz a cover save vs shooting if the Grots aren't targeted first.

Of course, a bad "run" roll puts this in jeapordy a bit.

The only REAL problem I see for this idea (and the one you mentioned) is a weapon with a template of some sort. Especially Large Blasts.

Eric

lambadomy wrote:how are you going to move these guys? some kind of everyone walks on an angle conga lines? If the spaces between are big enough to move each guy through you probably wont get a cover save from a lot of angles. For example, anyone could stand 45 degrees to the left or right of your unit and just see columns with no screening. Obviously the closer you get the less this helps them, but since they get to either a) setup after you or b) go first, they can mitigate this.

Unfortunately I don't see anything in the rule itself that doesn't make this work, so it's a good idea

Movement may be impacted, but you can protect from "angles" by staggering stuff in different ways.

I think that you could come up with an interesting way to pull the movement issue off, and variable fleet rolls can mess things up or slow the formation down to the lowest roll, but it does seem to work.

Anything on the issue of forcing multi-assaults?

MagickalMemories wrote:I haven't seen the rules yet, so I can't speak for its' legality, but you idea made me thik of a similar idea I had previously.

Let's say;
Unit 1 = Shoota Boyz
Unit 2 = Grots

(Note, unit sizes might not be optimal... This is just for discussion purposes)


2222222
2111112
2111112
2111112

During movement, the grots move forward and "open up" a hole in the direction you want the Orks to shoot.
Even while keeping in coherency, you should be able to leave enough "holes" that the majority of the army can see through without hindrance.

22
222 2 2
211111
2111112
21111122

Orks move up.

During shooting, Orks shoot at the unit they want to hit
Grots "run" back into formation.

This gives the Boyz a cover save vs shooting if the Grots aren't targeted first.

Of course, a bad "run" roll puts this in jeapordy a bit.

The only REAL problem I see for this idea (and the one you mentioned) is a weapon with a template of some sort. Especially Large Blasts.

Eric

Yeah you can do all sorts of moving screen tricks, but the idea here is that both units get the cover save, and both units are good on their own, so you're not blowing points on sub-optimal screen units.

There are "issues" with the formation, but that's more of a tactics discussion than a rules one, which I'll gladly talk about in the parent thread. Still I don't think it's much of an issue because even if you get what 8-10 models in a template, that's still only 4-5 models dead, and that's split between two squads.

Basically I want to know if this is legal or not in 5th and I don't get to the Game shop till like 4-4:30 tonight.

And if this is Legal, I'm calling dibs on naming it the Voodoo Formation!

The grot screen above would still give the enemy shot at a cover save, as the enemy models would be "bracketed" by models in an intervening unit.

Basically, lkie this:

M M M M

GGG GG
OOOO

M = marine, G= gretchin with a 2" hole for the 0=orks to shoot through. Marines still get cover save from being "bracketed" between models from an intervening unit.

I'm not sure how this rule would affect an interspersed formation like you are describing in the original post. I doubt it would come up much, as that type of formation would take some time to set up, move, keep straight, and would probably be an argument starter with your opponent.

In any case, there's probably easier ways to get cover that don't require a lot of rules investigation. Personally, I would *love* to see my opponent field assault troops like this, as it would be 2 for 1 time when the Basilisk lays down the hammer.

I opened the v5 Rulebook and actually landed right on the page for cover saves.

According to the new book, this is 100% legal, but from my reading of it, any and all shooting by either unit will confer a 4+ cover save on your target as well.

It will be difficult to move two intermingled units like that as models are not allowed to move through friendly models or between gaps too small for their base to fit.

In fact, in is entirely possible to set your units up intermingled to the point where you wouldn't be allowed to really move either of your intermingled units at all!


As for close combat, the rules now allow you to come within 1" fo enemy models while charging, full stop. That means intermingled enemy units no longer stop charges.

Not that someone ever tried to use that on me, I'm glad to hear GW officially closed that loophole.

Good to know they didn't make it so you could force multi-assaults with this, but still.

You reduce your overall movement, this is true. If you wanted to end up in the exact same formation moving directly forward, using zig zag movements, you'd end up advancing 4.24" instead of 6", however that's an inefficient way of doing it, but you can work the math for what it'd be exactly to see just how far it would be. I think it wouldn't be so terrible, and you can advance 6" diagonally to pull it off.

This requires a completely open formation, so yes, bottlenecks in terrain would screw you up pretty well when using this, so you'd have to break formation to get through.

Also, things like "run" and variable movement rates would screw this up as well, but it's still a really funny oddity in the rules that is 100% legal.

Still, it's pretty useful for shooty units, especially long-range anti-tank units, like say Lootas, to self-generate a cover-save for eachother while firing away at large targets like Vehicles or MC's.

Just for fun here are some thoughts:

IG Army with the Cameleone doctrine.

Two Conscript Platoons, to screen the entire army of IG, giving each Cameleone Guardsmen a 3+ Cover save out in the open.

Not only that, but the two Conscript Platoons in this formation would give each other 4+ Cover saves, making it harder to "shoot the screen" to get them to go away.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Just for fun here are some thoughts:

IG Army with the Cameleone doctrine.

Two Conscript Platoons, to screen the entire army of IG, giving each Cameleone Guardsmen a 3+ Cover save out in the open.

Not only that, but the two Conscript Platoons in this formation would give each other 4+ Cover saves, making it harder to "shoot the screen" to get them to go away.

The only problem about this kind of speculation is that we don't know for sure how the codex conversion FAQs for 5th edition will rule on stuff like this. They may say that Cameleone doesn't affect screening cover saves, for example.

But yeah, assuming they don't make any major changes like that, Cameleone will be an utterly fantastic doctrine in v5.

This is something I mentioned quite a ways back.

It is legal.

It is easy to do and move the models, despite the statements to the contrary.

You create two horseshoe patterns, and interlock them.

Over half of each squads needs to be away from the enemy and behind the top bar of the horseshoe.

I ran my DE warrior army like this a few times, then I was asked to stop. lol

The real problem with this setup is the lack of friends/wargaming opponents it might generate...

Stelek wrote:
You create two horseshoe patterns, and interlock them.

Over half of each squads needs to be away from the enemy and behind the top bar of the horseshoe.

I ran my DE warrior army like this a few times, then I was asked to stop. lol

I think that these kinds of maneuvers will be a big part of 5th, but some of the tactics above won't work, given that you have to move one unit at a time.

I think I get what you are saying here about the horseshoes Stelek, but.... PIX!

The real problem with this whole idea is the incomplete cover rule. If you screen a unit with another and the enemy can still shoot the ones in back then any 'failed' saves made ought to cause hits on the in beteween unit.

If this works out this way, troops bunching up to become MORE resilient to massed fire will make me CRAZY.

It's about as stupid as tanks that can't move and fire... OH WAIT! thye have that stupidity already too. So the game could become immobile tank pill boxes AND infantry that group hug to get saves, that is so bad and counter intuitive that 40k players are going to get laughed at.

But hey whatever...

BY TWOS!
Quickly Men! Form SQUARE! Every other man is from braco squad. This will stop half of their incoming fire!

ROFL.

That's just stupid.

Alpharius wrote:The real problem with this setup is the lack of friends/wargaming opponents it might generate...

This is kind of why I'm posting it.

By the rules, at least my first readings of the new book in this section, this is 100% legal and is VERY useful for assault based armies like Nids and some Ork variants.

So either this gets brought up and FAQ'ed quickly, with the one line caveat that makes this illegal; or if GW lets it languish, it depends on how many people actually start using the formation. If it's deemed legal at say US GT's or UK GT's, where FAQ support for a specific event is much faster than a general FAQ release - then it may actually become as much a part of the game as LOS Sniping/Kill Zone Sniping were in V4, or maybe a better example is pulling models in B2B to avoid a sweeping advance, or to deny a powerfist it's attacks, etc.

Also, I think that movement issues can be resolved fairly well, especially if you use max coherency. In fact you could change the formation up a bit, now that I've seen the actual rules and they specify that: "the cover save is still provided if you shoot through the gaps between models in a unit" meaning that you don't actually have to block LOS, just have to have it pass through a unit. It also stops the whole "I'm shooting you from a 45 degree angle and don't have obstructed LOS" kind of stuff.

So I now present The Voodoo Formation v2

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
In this setup, coherency is maintained and movement is not impaired.

I would imagine this would be FAQed pretty quickly, or at least become a "gentleman's agreement" and I strongly doubt it'd be considered valid in a tournament by any half competent judge.

sourclams wrote:I would imagine this would be FAQed pretty quickly, or at least become a "gentleman's agreement" and I strongly doubt it'd be considered valid in a tournament by any half competent judge.

The rules allow it, so why would it be faq'd or banned at tournaments?

If you don't like the RAW, play a different game...don't change the one you've been given.

Your most powerful vote is with your wallet.

sourclams wrote:I would imagine this would be FAQed pretty quickly, or at least become a "gentleman's agreement" and I strongly doubt it'd be considered valid in a tournament by any half competent judge.

GW has had a stupid habit lately of backing up RAW in their books in FAQ's lately, which is the only thing I fear for this thing becoming an accepted part of the game.

I think the problem with it right now is that it does not take any kind of skewed reading of the Rules as Written; there's almost no room for interpretation, this thing just "works".

I suggest it does, the version on eformation offers direct los to both units in the front row, 1 and 2, so how could one claim cover for them at all?

The second example appears as though 2 would get saves but 1 would not.

Or do you think the back ranks being interspresed gains you anything with direct LOS up front?

I dont think it would (Like I have a rulebook even LOL).?

Stelek wrote:

sourclams wrote:I would imagine this would be FAQed pretty quickly, or at least become a "gentleman's agreement" and I strongly doubt it'd be considered valid in a tournament by any half competent judge.

The rules allow it, so why would it be faq'd or banned at tournaments?

For the simple reason that this "tactic" is so obvious and so potent that any general, regardless of army, would be absolutely stupid not to use it. It's relatively easy for a design company to ignore cries of cheese on specific lists or units, but when every table looks like interlocking 'u's or 'e's at every tournament, there is more incentive to change because the overall "coolness" of the game is decreased.

It'd be faq'd or banned for the same reason that I can't mount grots on trashcan lids or mod ork trukks that are two feet long.

Nice sig, funny:

I play vanilla Guard because I hate myself.

Augustus wrote:I suggest it does, the version on eformation offers direct los to both units in the front row, 1 and 2, so how could one claim cover for them at all?

The second example appears as though 2 would get saves but 1 would not.

Or do you think the back ranks being interspresed gains you anything with direct LOS up front?

I dont think it would (Like I have a rulebook even LOL).?

Try this setup:

x x x x w
x w w w w
x x x x w
w w w x w
w x x x x
w w w w x
x x x x x

Interlocking 'E's, or call it the congaline formation if you like, offers full protection from front, rear, sides, or angles. All you have to do is take wounds from the furthest back models and your core formation remains intact.

Augustus wrote:The real problem with this whole idea is the incomplete cover rule. If you screen a unit with another and the enemy can still shoot the ones in back then any 'failed' saves made ought to cause hits on the in between unit.

Really? I disagree.

Next time you are in a crowd of people, think about what it would take to shoot a weapon at a particular person in the crowd behind a set of others. If you are trying not to shoot the front people, most shots that miss are going to miss HIGH. Shooting the closest people in the crowd would clearly be easier, and amount to more hits from the same number of shots. Since the BS in 40K does not work this way, cover saves are an excellent method of simulating this effect.

Stelek wrote:The rules allow it, so why would it be faq'd..

I'm sorry, what do you think FAQs are for? Something unrelated to the game rules?

Next time you are in a crowd of people, think about what it would take to shoot a weapon at a particular person in the crowd behind a set of others. If you are trying not to shoot the front people, most shots that miss are going to miss HIGH. Shooting the closest people in the crowd would clearly be easier, and amount to more hits from the same number of shots. Since the BS in 40K does not work this way, cover saves are an excellent method of simulating this effect.

The Voodoo formation is not a situation where you're shooting at a squad hiding completely behind another, it's like trying to hit any male in an evenly mixed crowd. I would dare to claim that if I considered the entire crowd hostile, I'd be hard-pressed to miss it at all. This isn't a situation where every man is a sniper trying to hit the ammo carrier for the heavy bolter in 3rd squad. If I see an IG-style huiman wave assault coming at me, I would very rarely care which particular trooper I hit. I fire into the huge mass of bodies and hit with every bullet instead. Even if I'm aiming at guardsman Jones in 3rd quad, my "misses" are hitting the people in front, not the sky.


That said, I haven't seen the 5th rulebook yet, so I'll trust the people who have. I's strange and I don't know how much I'll enjoy playing with those rules, but that's another matter entirely.

Ok I am going to bite. How can this work when you compare it to the fact that if you have clear LOS to only one model in the squad you can still potentially shoot every model to death - the whole unit has to be in cover. The common example is that if you have 9 marines behind a building and one in the open it is possible to kill all 10. In every example I am seeing you can draw LOS directly to one model - why would you get a cover save. It seems to go against the rules.