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.

I think its funny how so many people are taking the "OMG I'd never play you again if you did that" when its clearly stated in the rules that its a perfectly legal move. All you have to do is kill the model at 1 end. Agreed its a bit of a d!ck move, but thems the rules.

I would be interested to see what people say about moving through the gap as Emperors Faithful questioned.

Well, the point is that if the 'gap' does indeed restrict movement, it pretty much destroys the viability of the method as a tactic. A horde player would want those two guants to screen much of his army as they advance, but if they block movement, that means the horde can't rush through them.

Emperors Faithful wrote:So if the 'gap' between the two models gives cover to units behind them, does this also restrict any units moving between the gap, as you cannot move through another unit?

There is no rule that prohibits you from moving through another unit, just other models.

^ This, and all other coments by insaniak, +1, how else would checkerboarding work if you couldn't move through units?

insaniak wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So if the 'gap' between the two models gives cover to units behind them, does this also restrict any units moving between the gap, as you cannot move through another unit?

There is no rule that prohibits you from moving through another unit, just other models.

Ah, fair enough.

There's nothing that prevents you from moving between the gaps of models. The only restriction about moving close to models is that you can't come within 1" of enemy models at any time (unless given permission, ex: assaulting) and no two models can occupy the same space. That's why some players do the "checkerboard" style with their units:

A-A-A-A-A
--B-B-B-B--B
A-A-A-A-A
--B-B-B-B--B

Imagine Tac Squad A and Tac Squad B. Since they are staggered, to shoot at B, you have to shoot through the gaps of A. Also, since half of A is covered by B, shooting at A grants a cover save.

The checkerboard stretches the rules a little far, IMO. The scenario listed with the gaunts is a 1 turn affair that likely won't happen very often, however, the checkerboard can be done by deployment and it can move up the field with no problem (unless impassable terrain gets in its way).

EDIT: Uber-ninja'd and I even made a cool diagram :(

Glad to see some people have enough sense not to let it be said two models that far enough apart is a gap.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Glad to see some people have enough sense not to let it be said two models that far enough apart is a gap.

G

As usual your "sense" is at odds with the rules and also the english language.

Black Blow Fly wrote:Glad to see some people have enough sense not to let it be said two models that far enough apart is a gap.

G

Because a gap is always a small number?

Look up the definition. A gap is not a gaping space more than a foot apart. I find it funny the OP is defending this now when his original stance was he didn't do it, just wanted to see hte Reaction. Well which is it ?

How about when comparing the distance between two planets, would you call a gap of 1 foot a gap?

Thats the problem with your view point....entirely subjective and no basis within the ruleset.

A gap is a gap, distance notwithstanding.

Suppose I made a piece of terrain 2' wide by 6" deep. I put 2 trees on either end and we agree that it is area terrain.

Any unit being fired at over the middle of the terrain would get a cover save because the shot is passing between 2 elements of the terrain, even if the target is in plain sight.

It's the same for gaps between models in a unit. It is not the distance that matters, it is the fact that you are firing between models in the unit.

The rules do not attempt to recreate or model real life battles or events, they are the rules of a game, and the rules say you get a cover save in this instance. You may decide to houserule it differently, and that's your perogative, but the rules are clear.

Black Blow Fly wrote:Well which is it ?

Because I was looking for RAW.
Claiming that the space is too big to be a gap is more asinine than saying the save is allowed by the rules.

Gap noun
an unfilled space or interval; a break in continuity

dkellyj wrote:Again, the definition of "gap." Sorry, 4 feet between 2 models is a bit more than a gap. In addition you have the issue that he is deliberately removing identical model types deliberately taking 'like-kind' models out of coherency (yes, it's his choice which ones to remove...but sportsmanship demands self control). In either event insist on your return cover save (since he is now shooting through his imaginary gap-o-rama), then next turn kill 1 of the 2 remaining models and the issue is gone.
Worse comes to worse, I kick your butt anyways, flip you off, then pass along what a cheese-d!#k you are. Pull that stunt on a second person (because i'll never play you again) and you'll be looking for a new shop to play in.

Play Tony Hawk games .... learn what a gap is.

A 6' gap, table length, could be considered a small gap.

Also the word "gaping" comes from gap. As in (THAT IS GAPING HOLE!)

... You know if you were to try this, almost cheating move, please also note there is no rule forcing you to deploy in coherency. You could there for deploy the gaunts in two piles ether side of the board and go to ground where they're shot. They would then of course have to try and remake coherency in the first turn they could move.

Since we're wandering off into the realm of the silly, I think we're done here.