7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
There's a thread in the tactics section entited: "Intermixing Units and Cover Saves in 5e". The first author proposes that intermixing two units provides both with a 4+ cover save.
You'll notice that the author himself uses the term intermixing to describe the relationship between the two unit and NOT intervening. In other words, to argue for the premise that both units receive a 4+ cover save the author and others actually change a key term from intervening (which does appear in the rules) to intermixing (which does not appear). The most simple solution to the question is to use the actual term in the rules, ie intervening, and ignore the term being pushed by advocates for making dense units in the open harder to hit. But some in the DakkaDakka community seem set on ignoring the RAW and instead want to add the term "intermixing" to the rules.
So, here's another solution.
Imagine you're the GW staffer with the absolute power to settle the question. What you say is the law and your decision is final. Even if you need to re-word the related text to better conform to how you think this should work, you have that power and are not bound by the specific current text. With that understanding, please answer this poll question.
Remember, the question is NOT what you think the current RAW means with respect to mutual 4+ saves. The question is what you think the rules SHOULD mean and whether or not as grand poobah rules writer you would allow such formations to confer mutual 4+ saves. That distinction is central to answering the question accurately. In either case, you should probably explain/clarify your answer in greater detail below.
7176
Post by: brado
Well for some realism, no they shouldn't. The justification for the "intervening save" comes from the inability of the firing unit to get the target in their sights through the intervening unit. If the units are mixed in with one another then the firing unit can just go to town.
7247
Post by: TommyStriker
I would say no for the simple reason it just doesn't make sense. If someone stopped a bullet meant for you with his body, logic dictates that he should suffer some adverse affects.
958
Post by: mikhaila
Imagine you're the GW staffer with the absolute power to settle the question.
For me, it's a reality. I own the stores, it's my call. I see this as a rules perversion that will cause endless arguements, and slow down the game. 98% of the people coming in want to play 40k, not some rules-lawyer version of the game and endless RAW arguements. Our house rule is that if the units are so intermixed that it's not obvious which one gets the cover save from the other, then neither one does. This puts the responibility on the controlling player to set up his models correctly, to gain the cover save.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
mikhaila wrote:Imagine you're the GW staffer with the absolute power to settle the question.
For me, it's a reality. I own the stores, it's my call. I see this as a rules perversion that will cause endless arguements, and slow down the game. 98% of the people coming in want to play 40k, not some rules-lawyer version of the game and endless RAW arguements. Our house rule is that if the units are so intermixed that it's not obvious which one gets the cover save from the other, then neither one does. This puts the responibility on the controlling player to set up his models correctly, to gain the cover save.
You mean they dont get to play by the real rules? Setting up correctly actually includes this ridiculous formation until FAQed. I also think this rule is crappy and would prefer to not have it in but it is there at the moment and removing rules for personal flavor actually seems like cheating to me.
5470
Post by: sebster
Kallbrand wrote:For me, it's a reality. I own the stores, it's my call. I see this as a rules perversion that will cause endless arguements, and slow down the game. 98% of the people coming in want to play 40k, not some rules-lawyer version of the game and endless RAW arguements. Our house rule is that if the units are so intermixed that it's not obvious which one gets the cover save from the other, then neither one does. This puts the responibility on the controlling player to set up his models correctly, to gain the cover save.
You mean they dont get to play by the real rules? Setting up correctly actually includes this ridiculous formation until FAQed. I also think this rule is crappy and would prefer to not have it in but it is there at the moment and removing rules for personal flavor actually seems like cheating to me.
Cheating? Just think about the word situation you're questioning, a guy telling players a house rule ahead of time, and what cheating really means.
Unless houserules have suddenly become cheating I think you really need to rephrase.
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
DaBoss wrote:MajerBlundor wrote:
Kallbrand,
1. Cite the specific RAW that states that two intermixed units in the open confer 4+ cover saves on one another.
2. Cite the common sense real-world example that would indicate that a massed target in the open is MORE difficult to hit
3. Cite the 40K 5E design notes / WD article about that would support the idea that the authors intended that two intermixed units confer a 4+ save on one another.
I can cite the specific rule that confers a 4+ save on a unit if another unit is intervening between it and a shooter, but can't find any reference to intermixed units. I can cite many historical examples of massed targets being easier to hit rather than harder to hit (eg it was easier to kill larger number of Chinese soldiers in human wave attacks during the Korean War, large number of Russian soldiers in human wave attacks in the ETO, and large number of Japanese soldiers in human wave attacks in the PTO). And in the most recent WD GW staff explicitly state the 5E will require gamers to be better sports, more intuitive, and less abstract/legalistic.
Slow down there, partner. The real world has nothing to do with table top gaming, so those kinds of examples are moot in this debate, so leave that stuff at the door. Second, you cannot expect the rules to anticipate every single possible formation combination out there. So, the fact that you cannot find the word "intermixed" does nothing to strengthen your point, because there are a lot of words they failed to include. What they did leave us with was a basic set of rules using easy to understand words which should illustrate the intent of the authors. In cases where this becomes unclear, its best to simply talk it over with the persons you are playing with so the game can run smoothly. As I have stated before, you really need to stop trying to forcibly convince others of your logic, because it simply won't happen.
If you really want my opinion and the logic behind it, its as follows.
PG 21 of the rulebook. "If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by other models, it receives a 4+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain"
PG 22 of the rulebook. "Sometimes, a unit will only be partially in cover";"If half or more of the models in the target unit are in cover (SEE ABOVE), then the entire unit is deemed to be in cover..."
PG 22 of the rulebook. "If a model fires...through the gaps between models in an intervening unit..."
It seems clear they are referring to LOS based upon models, not by units as a whole. Again, hidden from LOS "by other models". So, if a model is in the way, its intervening (its in between the firer and target).
So, using my illustration from earlier, the Orks in green do not get cover while the ones in red are LOS blocked by the Grots, but since 50% or more still are in cover, the entire unit gets the 4+.
1. They are hidden by the grots, both by obscuring the Orks and by the following...
2. The SM are shooting "through the gaps between models in an intervening unit" (meaning, in the way) While this doesn't apply to the front Sluggas, it does apply to all the rest.
3. 50% or more are fitting this criteria
Should be noted that the Orks, both the Sluggas and the Grots, would also grant the SM's a 4+ cover, citing the "Firing through units or area terrain" on pg 22 if they chose to fire with more than just the front row models in the units ( pg 16 allows for this). Not that they'd use it.
Posted in other thread that oddly enought this troll started
7560
Post by: Martndemus
Eh can i comment that the 2 middle orks can be clearly seen by a space marine?
Models from the same unit dont provide cover save.
So more then 50% of the unit is visible both units dont ge a cover save...
Bla bla bla
Edit: illustration
1963
Post by: Aduro
This is what, the FOURTH thread you've started on this topic?
6798
Post by: Battlekai
Voted no, 'cause it's just slowed for anyone to do this.
In the past when have you intermixed units? Why start doing it now to exploit the rules in your favour so you can win a couple more games then normal but in doing so decrease your already dwindling number of friends?
/Rant over lol
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
Martndemus wrote:Eh can i comment that the 2 middle orks can be clearly seen by a space marine?
Models from the same unit dont provide cover save.
So more then 50% of the unit is visible both units dont ge a cover save...
Bla bla bla
Edit: illustration
You are drawing line of sight through a unit of grots that are in unit cohesion
The op is WRONG and is just bitching about it.
And now that i think about it that bottom orc should be red too.
1862
Post by: Khorneflakes
Refuse to vote at all, since the 'intent'-question really is a no-brainer for me.
1. I do not know what GW intended, y should I guess?
2. Neither would it matter even if I knew... I'm paying 50€ for a product that that's called a rules set, I have a certain right to get a well written product. If GW once more failed at this, then it's not my job to make up for it.
3. WE ARE DAKKA (YMDC). Really, those intent questions don't belong here for the most part. Go to B&C or the like, there are plenty of fluff and intent - forums out there. Dakka YMDC is the one place where one can argue about the actual RAW, I refuse to actively undermine this effort by myself, so maybe you should, too?
411
Post by: whitedragon
MajerBlundor, you are very close to spamming on this topic. Let it go.
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
Khorneflakes wrote:Refuse to vote at all, since the 'intent'-question really is a no-brainer for me.
1. I do not know what GW intended, y should I guess?
2. Neither would it matter even if I knew... I'm paying 50€ for a product that that's called a rules set, I have a certain right to get a well written product. If GW once more failed at this, then it's not my job to make up for it.
3. WE ARE DAKKA (YMDC). Really, those intent questions don't belong here for the most part. Go to B&C or the like, there are plenty of fluff and intent - forums out there. Dakka YMDC is the one place where one can argue about the actual RAW, I refuse to actively undermine this effort by myself, so maybe you should, too?
This is not a question about "intent" in any way. It's PURELY about what YOU would rule if you had the absolute power. GW's original intent does enter into the poll in any way, so feel free to vote and then explain why you voted the way you did.
What's most telling so far is that it appears that those who voted "no" have been perfectly willing to state why they did so (generally because they feel that allowing intermixed units to confer mutual 4+ saves is silly). I don't see any "yes" votes being explained/defended.
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
Kallbrand wrote:
You mean they dont get to play by the real rules? Setting up correctly actually includes this ridiculous formation until FAQed.
Actually, the formation is contrary to the published rules. I know that a lot of glitchers jumped all over it when it was first discussed and I was even taken aback by it. My first response was, "What was GW thinking?!" And then I actually read the rules and it's clear it's not legal.
And since that point nobody has been able to defend the formation using the complete RAW. Defenders must leave out key rules and change/add words to the RAW to justify what is a patently illegal formation (leaving aside it's absurdity). So now we've come full circle and it appears that people are upset that what they thought was an airtight glitch is nothing more than cheating at this point, especially since the OP clearly defines the formation as "intermixing" rather than "intervening".
So a FAQ is not needed unless players insist on warping the rules and changing/adding words by using this formation and claiming a 4+ save.
Out of deference to Whitedragon I won't reply again on the issue, but as a heads up to those who insist on trying to use this formation and claim a 4+ cover save. Do try to be a good sport and cite ALL of the RAW and when doing so refrain from adding words or changing words.
Most importantly use "plain english" and common sense. Think of it this way. Take three piles of berries, blueberries, strawberries, and rasberries:
BBBBB > SSSSS > RRRRR
Clearly, the Strawberries are intervening between the Blueberries and the Rasberries. A small child could explain this. Now, to use the term of the OP, intermix two piles:
BSBSBSBSBS > RRRRR
The strawberries are no longer intervening between the blueberries and the rasberries as they are now intermixed with the strawberries. Common sense, plain english, and simple enough for anyone to understand. Ask anyone if the two situations are different and the answer is obvious: those are two different situations. In game terms only a cheater would try to claim intermixing ( OP word) and intervening mean the same thing (they don't, look them up) or would try to add the word intermixing to the RAW.
That second intermixed formation is clearly BS ad nauseum! 
4298
Post by: Spellbound
The problem comes in that the words aren't exclusionary. If I and a bunch of my friends stand in front of AND amongst all your friends, meaning you can't get to them, are we intervening? We certainly are. We happen to also be intermixed with them. So? We've satisfied condition A) - to be intervening. What happens after that is irrelevant.
However what this means is that you'll only ever get one unit benefiting from the cover. the ABABABAB line doesn't work as nobody's intervening - I can "get to" both of the units just fine, and neither is clearly intervening between me and the other.
BBBBBB
ABABABABABAB
ABAABAAA
This here is different. There's plenty of B that's just standing between us, intervening. It's also mixed, but who cares.
Now though, one might say that if B had enough models "in the back" mixed in with A that it would get a cover save too- wrong. A isn't intervening. A also isn't intervening if it was the ABABAB line, they're all the same distance from me without anything in the way.
So you can mix and be intervening, but not for both units.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
Yeah, if you type it enough times it migh become true. Why do you think you have pretty much no support for your idea?
There is nothing to make mixxed units not intervening. You can actually be both since its only 50% that needs to be intervening in this case. And there is nothing in your arguments changing this, except that you seem to think that one excludes the other. You also seem to think that everything in the unit has to be entervening, I guess that part about 50% eludes you. Its actually plain english and simple enough for most to understand.
1721
Post by: DaBoss
Martndemus wrote:Eh can i comment that the 2 middle orks can be clearly seen by a space marine? Models from the same unit dont provide cover save. So more then 50% of the unit is visible both units dont ge a cover save... Bla bla bla Edit: illustration
Red_Lives is correct in the interpretation of my diagram from the other thread. Since pg 22 states that since you are shooting through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the unit that is being targeted is counted in cover. According to Red's updated diagram, he marks in light blue where these gaps are designated and why they hide the orks in the last two rows. Even if this was not the case, which I strongly doubt, PG 21 also states in Intervening Models that enemy or friendly models from a different unit only have to hide any part of the target model's body to count it as hidden and in cover and with the 50% rules, the unit is still in cover. To MajerBlundor, this thread is the third in a series of nearly duplicate threads which seem only bent on the intention of trolling and I would seriously give thought on continuing this line of action because this forum does have rules about it and its only a matter of time before a MOD begins to take notice. How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate wrote:"That's Not How it Works in the Real World!"
Real world arguments are immediately irrelevant. This is a game of abstractions, and whether or not those abstractions make any sense, the rules depend on them to function. As an aside, these arguments are often flimsy at best anyway. These are games of Science Fiction and Magic. To make arguments that ray guns and mind bullets would work in a certain manner in the real world is silly.
The above quote is from the forum's own FAQ on debate regarding rule disputes. Please read it MajerBlundor.
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
DaBoss wrote:
To MajerBlundor, this thread is the third in a series of nearly duplicate threads which seem only bent on the intention of flaming and I would seriously give thought on continuing this line of action because this forum does have rules about it and its only a matter of time before a MOD begins to take notice.
Allow me to explain: my first two related threads were posted in different sections simply because I didn't see a specific cross-post function on the forum and there were related topics in those two areas. Trying to jury-rig a cross-post is not flaming as my posts have been detailed and responsive to posts by others. Others have engage in stereotypical internet trash talking using terms such as "Troll" and flaming while I've refrained from engaging in such a brawl. I encourage you and others to remain constructive instead of name calling, etc.
This third thread is not the same as the other two and, in fact, your reply is very much off-topic (please stay on topic and address the issue at hand instead of arguing points more appropriate for other threads). The point of the poll precisely in line with the section's header "You Make Da Call". It places respondants in the role of GW rule arbiter and allows them to make the call as to how the related rule(s) should work. You may not like the results but that's not the point. I would be interested in how you voted and, more importantly, why.
Best Regards,
MB
4298
Post by: Spellbound
Unless one unit has models clearly in front of the other, I'd say it's not an intervening unit.
Apparently the rulebook actually says that it's a unit, not the models, that intervene.
Once you're intervening, you're right - only 50% of the models must have LOS partially blocked. But you've got to be intervening first.
A more apt question would be how many of you intend to USE the tactic? I for one am not going to continue to argue it in my gaming circle, but true or not I don't plan on attempting to grid my units up like this. Are any of you? It just seems like too much of a hassle. Did any of you try to use the unassaultable grid in 4th?
1721
Post by: DaBoss
MajerBlundor wrote:DaBoss wrote:
To MajerBlundor, this thread is the third in a series of nearly duplicate threads which seem only bent on the intention of flaming and I would seriously give thought on continuing this line of action because this forum does have rules about it and its only a matter of time before a MOD begins to take notice.
Allow me to explain: my first two related threads were posted in different sections simply because I didn't see a specific cross-post function on the forum and there were related topics in those two areas. Trying to jury-rig a cross-post is not flaming as my posts have been detailed and responsive to posts by others. Others have engage in stereotypical internet trash talking using terms such as "Troll" and flaming while I've refrained from engaging in such a brawl. I encourage you and others to remain constructive instead of name calling, etc. This third thread is not the same as the other two and, in fact, your reply is very much off-topic (please stay on topic and address the issue at hand instead of arguing points more appropriate for other threads). The point of the poll precisely in line with the section's header "You Make Da Call". It places respondants in the role of GW rule arbiter and allows them to make the call as to how the related rule(s) should work. You may not like the results but that's not the point. I would be interested in how you voted and, more importantly, why. Best Regards, MB
MB, since you are not debating a current rule, as your original post in this thread has states, you are no longer debating anything. You specifically stated that you are not arguing current RAW, but are proposing the thoughts of others on what they would do in constructing their own rule on the subject. This is the wrong forum for that, and that is why I referred to it as trolling (originally posted flaming by mistake). Please take this kind of Poll to the 40K Proposed Rules forum. From the perspective of most involved, you are simply restarting the same argument in a different format in the hopes of only sparking further debate about something two duplicate forum posts were already set out to do. I would suggest petitioning a MOD to move this thread to the correct forum if your intentions are truly what you say they are.
6292
Post by: Valhallan42nd
mikhaila wrote:I see this as a rules perversion that will cause endless arguements, and slow down the game. 98% of the people coming in want to play 40k, not some rules-lawyer version of the game and endless RAW arguements. Our house rule is that if the units are so intermixed that it's not obvious which one gets the cover save from the other, then neither one does. This puts the responibility on the controlling player to set up his models correctly, to gain the cover save.
QFT. Some cheese-  mother- actually sat down and thought this out? This is the same arguement that people used to deny charges in 4th. "oh, you can't get with an inch of this model, since it's right next a model that you didn't charge."
You want to play ruleshammer? Fine, play it with someone else. Me, I'm playing Warhammer, where "intervening" means "between", not "right next to". How much clearer can you get?
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
DaBoss wrote:
MB, since you are not debating a current rule, as your original post in this thread has states, you are no longer debating anything. You specifically stated that you are not arguing current RAW, but are proposing the thoughts of others on what they would do in constructing their own rule on the subject. This is the wrong forum for that, and that is why I referred to it as trolling (originally posted flaming by mistake). Please take this kind of Poll to the 40K Proposed Rules forum. From the perspective of most involved, you are simply restarting the same argument in a different format in the hopes of only sparking further debate about something two duplicate forum posts were already set out to do. I would suggest petitioning a MOD to move this thread to the correct forum if your intentions are truly what you say they are.
It's the right section currently since the RAW precludes intermixed units from confering mutual 4+ saving rolls. As I write in the OP "Imagine you're the GW staffer with the absolute power to settle the question." The question being how should the rule be implemented regardless of the text since some are trying to modify or ignore the actual text. In other words, what do you believe the intended current rule should be. That's not the same thing as proposing a new rule. "rule as written" literally means "as written" or "the words used". That's different from the intent or objective of the rule which can remain constant regardless of the text used to describe or implement that objective. So, in this case, we're dealing with an existing rule (4+ saves for intervening units) and asking whether or not the objective of the rule expands to include intermixed units as well as intervening units. In other words, you make the call on an existing rule which provides for 4+ saving throws for intervening units. I probably should have used the phrase "expand understanding of the current rule to include intermixed units" in the poll question.
In fact, if one were to propse that intermixed units confer mutual 4+ saving throws, that would clearly be a new rule since the text doesn't include such a formation or tactic currently.
I have already asked the mods to consolidate or cross-link the other two threads.
MB
PS That previous post to Da Boss was supposed to be a PM. Sorry for the mis-click! Doh!
1721
Post by: DaBoss
The original discovery of this rule dispute. Fully discussed. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/212725.page The second thread to talk about the implementation of this tactic. Fully discussed. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/213879.page Your first (second) posts on the subject. Fully discussed. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/214182.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/214181.page Please understand MajorBlundor, I'm really not here to hound on you, but as you can see, this has been ultimately discussed, discussed again, beaten to death, burned, beaten some more. This is why I, and others, have said that this is simply trolling, whether you are intending to do so or not. I think its clear that no one person on any forum can truly say whether or not this is legal or not, but must remain up to the individuals playing, or until an FAQ can sort things out. Anyways, this is it for this subject, for me at least. PM me if you want, but this has been done to death.
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
DaBoss wrote:
Please understand MajorBlundor, I'm really not here to hound on you
Would still like to see how you voted and why you voted the way you did. I think that would be far more constructive and useful for the other members.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Valhallan42nd wrote:
QFT. Some cheese- mother- actually sat down and thought this out?
I happen to be the "cheese- mother- " who came up with this, purely by accident while going over different ways to run multiple mobs of Orks. You can see exactly where I came up with it right here. I then made the subsequent YMDC threads explaining the formation.
What would you rather have happen?
#1) This come up randomly in a shop or tournament and then have the RAW present the person using the formation with the 4+ cover save.
OR
#2) Have this identified as a rules hole before the game comes out so Tournament Organizers and store owners like mikhaila can squash it before it starts.
You want to play ruleshammer? Fine, play it with someone else. Me, I'm playing Warhammer, where "intervening" means "between", not "right next to". How much clearer can you get?
Unfortunately the models in the formation are still "between" the firing unit and the majority of the models in the target unit. It's pretty much 100% clear that this does work per the RAW - but it's yet another one of many cases where RAW is slowed and the rules need to be amended either by GW FAQ or by House/Tournament Rules (see Goblin Slingshots, Miner Congalines, Teclis not being a High Elf Archmage, etc for other examples of RAW stupidity being overcome by house rules or a FAQ).
Hell, I brought this up at my local GW store and proposed a house rule to the Manager and the other veterans in the shop so if it comes up, generally someone there will not let it fly.
411
Post by: whitedragon
MajerBlundor wrote:Would still like to see how you voted and why you voted the way you did. I think that would be far more constructive and useful for the other members.
It makes no difference because the poll and the RAW are different things. What you vote in the poll based on what you feel the solution should be is not the same as what the rules actually say, which I notice is not a choice on your poll.
As competetive players that play in the tourney circuit (Sanctioned and Sponsored by GW), we are very interested in exactly what the rules allow and disallow. Whether or not you think it is "rules-lawyering" is irrelevant. If it is in the rulebook, it is something that we would like to discuss, and perhaps come to an agreement as a community. (Reference the Adepticon FAQ) In this regard, your arguments of "common sense" and "realism" and "intent" have no bearing, because they do not relate to what the rules state, and they muddy the discussion for those of us that are trying to discern what the rules are telling us.
MB, your assumptions on the rules and GW are false. There is no right or wrong way to play 40k, and regardless of how GW wants us to use "common sense", we all know (using common sense) that what is "common sense" for me, may not be "common sense" for you. In a competetive environment, would you really feel that you were taking the high road by demanding that someone that used this against you is a poor sport? They could equally call you a poor sport, (and be supported by the rules). That is why we discuss these things so vigorously, so that we can find all facets of a particular situation before we decide one which (if any) has more merit, or which to avoid all together.
The other thread clearly proves that your assumptions about this rule are wrong, MB, and you have only to concede the point and state that you feel it should be played the other way. We may even agree with you. But to continue to combine your feelings on how the rule should be played with your jugdement of what the rules say leads you to not only the wrong conclusion, but a very close minded way to approach the 40k hobby.
6292
Post by: Valhallan42nd
Voodoo Boyz wrote:
What would you rather have happen?
#1) This come up randomly in a shop or tournament and then have the RAW present the person using the formation with the 4+ cover save.
OR
#2) Have this identified as a rules hole before the game comes out so Tournament Organizers and store owners like mikhaila can squash it before it starts.
You want to play ruleshammer? Fine, play it with someone else. Me, I'm playing Warhammer, where "intervening" means "between", not "right next to". How much clearer can you get?
Unfortunately the models in the formation are still "between" the firing unit and the majority of the models in the target unit. It's pretty much 100% clear that this does work per the RAW - but it's yet another one of many cases where RAW is slowed and the rules need to be amended either by GW FAQ or by House/Tournament Rules (see Goblin Slingshots, Miner Congalines, Teclis not being a High Elf Archmage, etc for other examples of RAW stupidity being overcome by house rules or a FAQ).
Hell, I brought this up at my local GW store and proposed a house rule to the Manager and the other veterans in the shop so if it comes up, generally someone there will not let it fly.
Sorry, this made me blow a gasket when I read it. I put this idea right up there with using clipping errors to your advantage in FPS's. And you are right. It's better to have this cleared up and/or house ruled on prior to a tourney. Mea culpa.
1721
Post by: DaBoss
MajerBlundor wrote:
Would still like to see how you voted and why you voted the way you did. I think that would be far more constructive and useful for the other members.
Read my posts in the other thread and even in this one. I've broken down completely what my stand is on the subject and have cited rules which I have used to build my arguement. The members don't need my vote on a hypothetical question.
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
post moot...see next post!!!
MB
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
Just spoke with GW support and they've been taking calls on this. Technically, they're not supposed to make a ruling yet since the rules have not been officially released, but the word in support is that if you have two intermixed units the best the targets can hope for is one unit gets a 4+ save and the other does not relative to a given shooter.
So, essentially when you look at the two potential target units from the perspective of the shooters, the unit with the most models in the "front rank" of the checkerboard formation is the "blocking unit" and the other unit gets a 4+ save. But under no circumstances would both units get a mutual 4+ save!
The wait on the phone was very short so give 'em a call. I did it twice with two different agents and got the same answer. In fact, they too thought it was just plain silly to claim both get a save.
This may remain a matter for debate at DD but I think we know where any FAQ would land on the issue!
MB
1721
Post by: DaBoss
How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate wrote:
What isn't a rule?
Lots of things seem like rules, but really are not. Here's some of them:
* Rulezboyz do not create rules. GW doesn't pay someone to be a "Rulezboy", they pay someone to stock shelves, or take phone orders. In their spare time they answer the Rulesboyz e-mail account. They're not experts on the rules. They're often wrong. And if you ask them the same question three or four times, it's not unheard of to get three or four different answers. If your argument includes any reference to a Rulezboy, you've just refuted yourself. Redshirts (i.e. staff at GW stores) fall into this same category.
You apparently didn't read the guidelines titled How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate as I suggested. Not law, but still a good staple for any dispute. I for one have called the Rulezboyz on issues regards rule disputes early in my 40k "career" and I can tell you, they are of no actual help and should not be regarded as an authority. Best thing to do, as many have stated, quit trying to convert the unbelieving and wait for an FAQ.
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
DaBoss wrote:
You apparently didn't read the guidelines titled How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate as I suggested. Not law, but still a good staple for any dispute.
I for one have called the Rulezboyz on issues regards rule disputes early in my 40k "career" and I can tell you, they are of no actual help and should not be regarded as an authority. Best thing to do, as many have stated, quit trying to convert the unbelieving and wait for an FAQ.
Nope, I read 'em and I fully agree about the support staff not being "official". Makes sense.
But a key missing element in the forum rules is that to have an intelligent rules debate you shouldn't take a Chinese menu approach to the rules.
Advocates for the mutual 4+ save repeatedly cite text that applies to the relative position of individual models, apply those rules to entire units, and then ignore related text that applies to the relative positions of entire units (eg see posts above and in related threads).
I got tired of repeating myself when they repeatedly took this Chinese menu approach to rules debate and wanted to "take the pulse" of the support staff. Are they official? Nope! But based on the poll results, the support staff's reaction, my knowledge of GW's rule writers, and, dare I say, common sense I'm 99% certain that if GW feels the need to issue a FAQ on the question they'll say one of the units may claim a 4+ save relative to a given shooter but certainly not both. That seems in line with ALL of the rules as written, well within the spirit of GW's new approach, and consistent with (I'll be bold and say it again), common sense and fair play.
Anyone willing to wager the opposite and assert that if/when GW issues a FAQ they'll allow both units to claim a 4+ save when fired at by a given unit?
MB
411
Post by: whitedragon
DaBoss, I think the only reason why we are the ones still chiming in is that everyone else has put MB on ignore already.
Maybe we should take a hint. 
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I voted NO. Why? Because a lot of the Stelek argument is nonsense.
Suppose you have a unit of Orks partially encircled by Grots being fired at by SM:
SSSSSSSSSS
gOOOOOOOg
ggggggggggg
Is someone seriously arguing that having a couple grots on the ends of the Ork formation confers a 4+ save to the Orks which can clearly be seen by every single SM model?
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
JohnHwangDD wrote:I voted NO. Why? Because a lot of the Stelek argument is nonsense.
Suppose you have a unit of Orks partially encircled by Grots being fired at by SM:
SSSSSSSSSS
gOOOOOOOg
ggggggggggg
Is someone seriously arguing that having a couple grots on the ends of the Ork formation confers a 4+ save to the Orks which can clearly be seen by every single SM model?
The grots in your diagram are not in unit cohesion... use the picture with the lines and circles... it gives a cleared understanding.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
The Grots are definitely in cohesion - they clearly form a "U" shape.
Starting from the left-most Grot, cohesion goes down, over x9, up.
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
But the 2 grots at the end are not in cohesion with each other. You are not firing through the "gaps" and 1/2 of the orc models are not screened from shots. In your above example O wouldn't get saves because 50% wouldn't be obscured and you are not shooting through 2 models in unit coherency with each other. British people are bad at writing rules, i think we have all come to that understanding by now.
6292
Post by: Valhallan42nd
The arguement is that the coherency gap (the two inches between each squad member) is the important consideration for LoS purposes.
I still think this is a clear violation of the intent of intervention. I would seriously ping the sportmanship score of anyone who used this in a tourney, and in the tourney's that I run, it will be clearly stated that it is not allowed.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Well, does it say that the Grots on the ends need to be in cohesion with each other, or does it simply say "between the gaps" without specifying how large those gaps are allowed to be?
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
as i said British people are bad at writing rules.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Or perhaps it's that American people are bad at interpreting British rules? 
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
Or both O.o
4770
Post by: holden88
I don't understand where the confusion arrises here or why it's considered a cheezy tactic?
Look at the unit you want to shoot at. If 50% or more of the target unit is obscured, then they gain a cover save. Simple.
So I look and see two enemy units intermixed with one another. I look at squad A. At least 50% of them are obscured (what they are obscured by is irrelevant except for determining what kind of save they get). I look at squad B. 50% of them are obscured also. Either one would get a save.
Note, it may be possible that squad A gets a save but squad B doesn't. Squad B might get a save while squad A doesn't. It depends on how the models happened to be are arranged at the time.
Not allowing them to gain saves from one another is like saying a unit can't get saves when they are in a woods. Because they are in among the tree's (intermixed) means that the tree's are not interveening, so no save. If you for some reason wanted to shoot at the tree's instead of the unit hiding there then the tree's would get a cover save if 50% or more of the tree's were obscured by the unit.
A unit should be able to hide in another unit just the same as it can hide in a woods.
I think people are hung up on the word intervening. People seem to be saying that only one squad can intervene another and not vice versa. Two squads can intervene each other equally. When you decide to shoot and it's time to determine LOS and check for any possible cover saves that's when you determine who is intervening who. If you select squad A, then it may be possible that squad B is intervening. If you select squad B then squad A might count as intervening. Intervening is not a fixed trait. It is an instantanous characteristic that is assigned to a unit at the moment of firing.
It's the logic for why you can't shoot into close combat. When two squads are locked in hand to hand combat they are imagined to be engaged in a swirling melee (ie:intermixed with one another). You can't pick out your guys from the enemy. Notice that on the enemys turn he can't shoot into the combat either. Both opposing units are equally interveening each other.
4770
Post by: holden88
JohnHwangDD wrote:I voted NO. Why? Because a lot of the Stelek argument is nonsense.
Suppose you have a unit of Orks partially encircled by Grots being fired at by SM:
SSSSSSSSSS
gOOOOOOOg
ggggggggggg
Is someone seriously arguing that having a couple grots on the ends of the Ork formation confers a 4+ save to the Orks which can clearly be seen by every single SM model?
No, nobody is saying that. 50% or more of the Orks are all the visible to the Space Marines, so no cover save. If the Marines decide to shoot at the Grots, then the Grots get a save because at least 50% of the Grots are obscured (by the Orks). I think everyone agrees with this?
What some people (including myself) are saying is this:
SSSSSSSSSS
gOgOgOgOgO
OgOgOgOgOg
Note that this is a perfectly legal formation. Each model is within 2" of another squadmate.
Now when the Marines shoot the Orks, at least 50% of them are obscured (by the Grots), so cover save granted. Agreed?
However, if the Marines choose to shoot the Grots instead, they are also at least 50% obscured (by the Orks), so cover save granted. Some people are saying no. Only one unit here can be granted a cover save.
My question to these people would be which unit is granted a cover save? The first unit shot at in the enemy shooting phase? Does the owning player decide which unit is screening which. When do they declare that desicion? Do we need a special marker to show which unit is screening which to be placed down in the movement phase? The rules don't cover any of this. I for one dont think the rules need to cover these situation because according to the RAW both units are granting cover saves to one another.
7690
Post by: utan
The rules for intervening units do not need FAQing. They clearly state that the cover save is granted in the same way as "if it was behind terrain" and not as if in area terrain.
It goes on to say that bodies aren't blocking the shots but that "the firer is distracted by the more immediate threat" (ie. closer to them).
In other words, it only applies to a unit behind another unit.
5044
Post by: Grahamulot
I dont think I've ever posted over here on Dakka Dakka, but this topic just made me scratch my head. If GW is taking alot of calls on this, then it definetly needs to be Faq'd. One thing I will say is that units being shot at by these unit's would absolutely get cover saves. I mean this is already extremely shaky as it is, but unlike alot of people I don't really give a damn either way. Does this means that Gaunts and stealer's can do the same thing, or that terminators can mix with marines? It interesting when talking about orc mobs but what happens when 5 man tactical squads are giving devastator squads cover, it can get a little over powered and power gamed, not just by horde players. 10 LC terminators in a 20 man crusader squad? Yikes. However I do see where the argument has validity. Ill try my best not to butcher a diagram or two.
OGOGOGOGOGOGOG
GOGOGOGOGOGOGO
GOGOGOGOGOGOGO
Roll to see what Squads gets cover and which squad doesn't( AFTER declaring target.) Just a house rule.( No effect against ord.)
GGGGGGGGGGGGG
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOG
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOG
GOGGGGGGGGGGGGOG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
A Gisnt Squad I know But when Taking Direct Fire I would Say that this way Both Units DEFINETLY get a cover save, as much as I hate to say it. As both Units are more than 50 percent obscured. THE GROT BOX
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
Those who assert that intermixed units confer mutual 4+ cover saves state that the reason is the shooters are confused. Seeing all those troops jumping around in front of them means that they can't target a specific unit and thus the intermixed units should get the save.
Based on that rationale put forth on several occassions now, in the diagram below does one Ork unit get the cover save or more than one Ork unit? Why? Please explain your conclusion.
99
Post by: insaniak
MajerBlundor wrote:Those who assert that intermixed units confer mutual 4+ cover saves state that the reason is the shooters are confused. Seeing all those troops jumping around in front of them means that they can't target a specific unit and thus the intermixed units should get the save.
Which is all well and good as a justification for a rule... but in an actual rules discussion is meaningless.
Real-world analogies don't prove or disprove gaming rules. The rules do that.
If the rule says that a model gets a cover save if another model is in the way, it makes no difference whatsoever what the real-world justification for that may be. The model gets the cover save.
Otherwise, we'd all be arguing over whether our models can move... since their legs are glued to large round discs covered in gravel, which in the real world would make movement tricky at best.
4770
Post by: holden88
MajerBlundor wrote:Those who assert that intermixed units confer mutual 4+ cover saves state that the reason is the shooters are confused. Seeing all those troops jumping around in front of them means that they can't target a specific unit and thus the intermixed units should get the save.
That's not the reason intermixed units confer mutual 4+ covers saves. The reason is that when targeting either unit, each unit is at least 50% obscured. If you are shooting at a target and that target is at least 50% obscured, then the target is granted a cover save. That's it.
What you are talking about is some sort of out of game logic as to why the rules are certain way. While it is interesting to postulate, rationalize or otherwise analyze the rules in this manner, it really has no bearing on what the actual game mechanics are. It's nice when real world logic dovetails with game rules to produce results that are intuative and sensible, however in the matter of the units confering a cover save to another unit, I don't believe this is the case.
MajerBlundor wrote:Based on that rationale put forth on several occassions now, in the diagram below does one Ork unit get the cover save or more than one Ork unit? Why? Please explain your conclusion.
I'm not sure I understand your question. What I assume you're saying is that there are two Ork units in the diagram above (that are intermixed)? Then I suppose your question is why would troops be confused when ordered to shoot at the Orks, because all Orks looks the same and so the two units simply appears to be one big unit. Therefore no hesitation or confusion should ensue when ordered to open fire on them?
I'm going to assume this the challenge your putting forth.
The answer is "because the rulebook says so". The Rulebook says that the out of game logic for cover saves has to do with the confusion and hesitation caused when the target unit is partially obscured. This is the reason they state in the book.
I agree with you (if I actually understand your point), this makes no sense when a unit is giving cover to another unit. As I have stated elsewhere I don't believe a soldier would hesitate to shoot at an enemy if another enemy got in the way. The fluff reasons given (by the book) don't make a heck of a lot of sense in certain circumstances.
This doesn't change the way the rules work however. We can't just decide to interperet the rules based on how logical (or illogical) we think the explanations for the rules are. What we can do is attempt to determine what the rules actually say and implement them in our games (or choose to alter the rules you don't like by means of house rules).
I'll state my position again. Two units granting each other cover saves is logical, realistic and one possible way to simulate what would actually happen in real life. What doesn't make sense is that the covering unit is immune to damage (for that shooting volley).
958
Post by: mikhaila
Wrote several replies, but erased them as they were less than polite.
I'll disagree with the statement that I'm somehow cheating by making a house rule to avoid arguements about a slippery part of rule manipulation.
Kallbrand wrote:mikhaila wrote:Imagine you're the GW staffer with the absolute power to settle the question.
For me, it's a reality. I own the stores, it's my call. I see this as a rules perversion that will cause endless arguements, and slow down the game. 98% of the people coming in want to play 40k, not some rules-lawyer version of the game and endless RAW arguements. Our house rule is that if the units are so intermixed that it's not obvious which one gets the cover save from the other, then neither one does. This puts the responibility on the controlling player to set up his models correctly, to gain the cover save.
You mean they dont get to play by the real rules? Setting up correctly actually includes this ridiculous formation until FAQed. I also think this rule is crappy and would prefer to not have it in but it is there at the moment and removing rules for personal flavor actually seems like cheating to me.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
See I just don't believe that RAW supports this idea, lets face it, a pretty poor sporting & illogical attempt to gain a cover save. Yes we can wordhammer this to death.
simple fact. If you play me and use this I shake you hand and put my models away. I play maybe 2 a month if I am lucky (work f/t and study f/t) and I am not wasting a gaming on some cheating asshat who is trying to gain an advantage their are not entitle to.
And OP, for god's sake, give it up. No-one is going to change their mind on this until it is faq.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
mikhaila wrote:Wrote several replies, but erased them as they were less than polite.
I'll disagree with the statement that I'm somehow cheating by making a house rule to avoid arguements about a slippery part of rule manipulation.
Kallbrand wrote:mikhaila wrote:Imagine you're the GW staffer with the absolute power to settle the question.
For me, it's a reality. I own the stores, it's my call. I see this as a rules perversion that will cause endless arguements, and slow down the game. 98% of the people coming in want to play 40k, not some rules-lawyer version of the game and endless RAW arguements. Our house rule is that if the units are so intermixed that it's not obvious which one gets the cover save from the other, then neither one does. This puts the responibility on the controlling player to set up his models correctly, to gain the cover save.
You mean they dont get to play by the real rules? Setting up correctly actually includes this ridiculous formation until FAQed. I also think this rule is crappy and would prefer to not have it in but it is there at the moment and removing rules for personal flavor actually seems like cheating to me.
Should have stuck with the rude version. Original comment of cheating was just dumb and thoughtless. setting up correctly DOES NOT include this ridiclous formation in HIS shop. Nothing wrong with changing a rule as long as everyone is aware of it. Who else remembers the reems of house rules for V3 - some had a life of their own and spread!
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Red_Lives wrote:as i said British people are bad at writing rules.
Really, you don't think it is possible that Americans might just be slightly competitive and twist a few rules into knots to gain an advantage.
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
fullheadofhair wrote:Red_Lives wrote:as i said British people are bad at writing rules.
Really, you don't think it is possible that Americans might just be slightly competitive and twist a few rules into knots to gain an advantage.
The chances of this EVER coming up are about 1/100 games for this reason.
yakface wrote:
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.
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
And i really don't see why the OP has such a major issue with this. I really fail to see how shooting at an intermixed unit is that much different if 1 unit was 6" in front of the other. The rule is to represent the "chance" that your shot was stopped before it reached its intended target. I really fail to see how it makes a difference how close that other unit is or where it is. And its not really playing for an advantage either. For 1 reason... Blast weapons.
4892
Post by: akira5665
I think calling somebody a 'Cheater' for having 'House rules' in THEIR OWN STORE is a bit much.
Much as Mikhalia and I disagree on most things..I think your ruder response would have been an interesting read.
Anyhoo-how many threads has this dude infiltrated with this Chezzy-Bullgak question?
Sorry MajorBlunder- I have to say I wouldn't play against a dude who tried that on me.
My response would be(as soon as the rule was pulled)
"Wow dude, you win. I am just going to pack up now, and go over there on the couch and play some MTG, or some "Hello Ktty" RPG. Wanna GM?"
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Red_Lives wrote:And i really don't see why the OP has such a major issue with this. I really fail to see how shooting at an intermixed unit is that much different if 1 unit was 6" in front of the other. The rule is to represent the "chance" that your shot was stopped before it reached its intended target. I really fail to see how it makes a difference how close that other unit is or where it is. And its not really playing for an advantage either. For 1 reason... Blast weapons.
This is actually really easy to do and move, once it is set up just move each model forward six inches.
I don't understand why you don't see this is an advantage. 2 units in totally open ground with no terrain nearby getting a 4+ cover save where only one should. Of-course it is an advantage. Instead of, for example, 10 marines getting a 4+ you now have 20 getting it.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
akira5665 wrote:I think calling somebody a 'Cheater' for having 'House rules' in THEIR OWN STORE is a bit much.
Much as Mikhalia and I disagree on most things..I think your ruder response would have been an interesting read.
Anyhoo-how many threads has this dude infiltrated with this Chezzy-Bullgak question?
Sorry MajorBlunder- I have to say I wouldn't play against a dude who tried that on me.
My response would be(as soon as the rule was pulled)
"Wow dude, you win. I am just going to pack up now, and go over there on the couch and play some MTG, or some "Hello Ktty" RPG. Wanna GM?"
Hello Kitty rpg!!!!!
Wait until the LARPer's come across that idea. If you came across that in the park or street you would think you popped an acid tab.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
"Intent"?
"Common sense"?
"In the real world...."?
And now "Droolsboyz"?
You cannot use the poll as a argument for anything.
Did I vote that I would change the rule? Yes.
Does it change that it is legal right now? No.
MajerBlundor (major blunder?), give it up.
Of all the strange arguments put forth by you there is only one missing. You still haven't claimed to be a GW Games Designer or have an inside source on the Games Designer Staff.
60
Post by: yakface
Frankly I can't believe this issue is still being discussed. No matter what you think of the issue is it that hard to understand why the opposite side thinks differently from you?
Q: Why does intermixed units providing cover to each other seem ludicrous to some people when these same people are totally fine with an intervening unit providing a cover save to a unit beyond?
A: Because it fits with the idea presented in the rulebook for how the rule is supposed to work. If you have an intervening unit in between the firers and their target the 4+ cover save represents the fact that they are consciously trying to miss the unit in front and hit only the unit behind. If the firer's want to 'blindly spray' into the mass, they can by targeting the front enemy unit.
Two (or more) intermixed units both providing a cover save to each other 'breaks' this concept because the firers no longer have the ability to pick a front unit to "blindly spray" into because no matter which enemy unit they target it will receive a cover save from the other.
In other words, it stands to reason that if a unit is providing a cover save because it is 'intervening' there should always be an option to fire at this intervening unit to deny the opponent their cover save. In this way, the idea of two (or more) units in the open both providing each other with a cover save just doesn't 'make sense' to many people.
Q: Should this issue be FAQ'd by Games Workshop?
A: Whether you think the rules are crystal clear about allowing this maneuver or whether you think the RAW doesn't allow intermixed units to provide cover saves to each other is frankly immaterial to whether this issue should be FAQ'd by Games Workshop (in my personal opinion).
The fact is, this *is* an issue that will come up time and time again if it is not resolved one way or another, just like the 'unassaultable formation' in 4th edition. That alone makes it worthy for inclusion on any FAQ GW may release for 5th edition.
And much like that 'unassaultable formation' this is a tactic that appears to be legal by the RAW to many (although hotly disputed by others) and will likely not be used by all but a handful of players. In tournaments, the presence of sportsmanship scores are likely deterrent enough from this tactic ever being seen.
Finally, even if GW doesn't go ahead and make a FAQ ruling on this tactic, I can almost guarantee that any fan-made FAQs or tournament FAQs will do so. I know that this question will certainly make it into the next version of the INAT FAQ and that my personal vote will be against allowing it.
Yes, the tactic appears to be legal by the RAW, yes that position can be disputed, yes it deserves to be FAQ's because it a question that is bound to be asked frequently and no it will not destroy the game.
At least, that's my take. 
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
I always think of it like this. What is INTENDED by an "intervening" unit providing a cover save? What is this intended to represent? Its intended to represent that when a shooter attempts to shoot through another unit and hit the unit behind it there is a chance that that front unit is hit instead. And for purpose of "Speed of play" if a coversave is made in this manor we do not track it to see if it does indeed damage that front unit, it is merely "forgotten". So why i ask would this still not apply when a unit is "blindly" firing into intermixed squads? Hmmm......?
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
If the RAW allow this formation then which rules? We keep seeing that assertion but nobody has put forth a complete arguement that cites all of the relevant rules. Just asserting "It's allowed by the RAW" or taking a Chinese menu approach to rules implementation to justify the tactic doesn't make the tactic legal. Here's an extreme example: let's say you have a pure assault Nid army up against an IG gun line army. When it comes time for combat you decide that you'll only recognize the assault rules and won't implement the shooting rules. And then you insist that the RAW only allows assault! That's exactly what has happended here.
Lot's of assertions about the RAW allowing the tactic but not once has anyone cited ALL the relevant rules since the first OP. Once others noted the relevant clause that governs the relative position of complete units no advocate for the cheesy tactic has been willing to cite that clause (which goes to the heart of the matter) when defending his assertion. Since that first post it's as if defenders of the tactic have been struck with collective amnesia. They either simply declare "It's allowed by the RAW" or cite a bunch of other rules pertaining to individual models.
In that respect, like Yak I'm amazed it's even an issue. So, here's a last post on the matter which should really help clarify things, especially since no advocate for the cheesy tactic has been able to answer my first diagram or explained their "yes" vote.
Below are two diagrams, A and B. One diagram shows a Space Marine unit facing a single large Ork unit. The other diagram shows a Space Marine unit facing two Ork units intermixed so as to confer a mutual 4+ save based on the selective reading of the RAW (in other words, as defenders of the cheesy tactic would claim.) Based on the rationale used by the advocates for the cheesy tactic (the shooter is confused when trying to shoot a particular unit), please identify the diagram (A or B) which shows the Marines facing two different Ork units (ie the diagram in which the Marines' heads are spinning in such utter confusion as they try to shoot Orks from a specific unit that their accuracy goes down by a whopping 50%!) And please identify the diagram shows a marine unit facing a single large Ork unit and calmly plinking away since they're no longer confused by having two target units mixed together in front of them.
No, this is not a secret IQ test being conducted by a university and we promise not to giggle at your answers (assuming you have the courage to anwer). Based on the rationale offered up by the defenders of the tactic it should be really easy to ID the diagram that shows marines crying out in confusion, "Gawd it's hard to shoot these Orks!"
DIAGRAM A
DIAGRAM B
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
Red_Lives wrote: So why i ask would this still not apply when a unit is "blindly" firing into intermixed squads? Hmmm......?
Perfect candidate to answer the diagram question above! Why indeed! So, which diagram shows confused marines firing blindly into two units and so confused that their accuracy drops 50% and which diagram shows marines NOT confused and shooting accurately into a single large unit?
And more importantly, based on the diagrams above, why the huge difference in accuracy between the two situations?
(Again, I promise that this is isn't a secret university study.)
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
READ MY ABOVE POST!
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
How about there is a 50% chance you hit an orc from the unit you weren't targeting? Which is what the "Intervening" rule represents. And as i said before for purpose of speed of play shots which you made your cover save on are "forgotten"
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
Red_Lives wrote:READ MY ABOVE POST!
I did. Thus you're the perfect test subj...er candidate.
1. Which diagram shows marines firing wildly in confusion with a 50% reduction in accuracy and which diagram shows marines calmly firing away at full accuracy and how did you reach your conclulsion?
2. And, why the huge difference in accuracy between the two based on the diagrams above? (I'll spell it out for you...given that in both diagrams the marine unit is presented with a huge, amporphous mass 'o' orks, why the difference in accuracy?)
Please answer question 1 (should be easy since, based on your rationale, the marines would have done the same!). Only after answer question 1 proceed to question 2.
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
1. Its a game, Both and neither
2. It was a design decision by GW. They decided to not track damage after saves (of any sort) GW decided that non-template weapons cannot damage more than 1 unit. And in their minds where there is a chance an object or other model gets in the way it grants a save. And as i said 3 other times in the spirit of "speed of play" these saves are forgotten. I do not fully understand why they decided to do this but alas it was their decision.
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
Red_Lives wrote:1. Its a game, Both and neither
Bzzzz! Wrong. Which diagram shows two ork units and confused marines firing at 50% accuracy and which diagram shows one ork unit and marines firing at normal accuracy. Shouldn't be a problem for anyone who rationalizes the mutual 4+ tactic based on the premise that the shooter is firing wildly and confused by the presence of two intermixed (not intervening) units.
Red_Lives wrote: 2. It was a design decision by GW. They decided to not track damage after saves (of any sort) GW decided that non-template weapons cannot damage more than 1 unit. And in their minds where there is a chance an object or other model gets in the way it grants a save. And as i said 3 other times in the spirit of "speed of play" these saves are forgotten. I do not fully understand why they decided to do this but alas it was their decision.
According to Da Boss (and forum rules?) author intent, phrases such as "And in their minds", and "spirit of play" are not to be considered in YMDC. You're explaining what you think GW intended which is not what I asked. I asked you to explain YOUR choice of which diagram above shows two ork units and a confused marine unit, which shows a single ork unit and a calm marine unit, and then explain why the huge difference in accuracy given that the two situations are physically identical.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
You have 2 identical and pretty no showing pictures, what do you expekt people to say? It can be any number of units arranged in about a miljon diffrent combinations.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
MajerBlundor, you are desperatly trying to make somebody fall into your "clever" trap. And nobody is biting.
Note that it is nothing more than that, a trap.
Your continued insistence of getting the answer you are looking for makes you look less than brilliant.
Stop comparing to real life, stop applying common sense and stop pretending you know what the Designers had in mind. Please just read the rules and what they say.
You are the only one here trying to read something into the rules that isn't there.
Just stop while you have a shred of dignity left.
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
Please explain what you mean by "trap". What trap?
There's no "trap" here if you honestly believe the tactic is legal and rational. So, instead of a personal attack, please stay on topic and answer the question yourself.
If the tactic is legal and rational that shouldn't be a problem for a brilliant guy like you. Have at it!
3552
Post by: mattyboy22
You're diagrams are irrelevant as this is a game, not real. It has nothing to do with what the marines are thinking and thier "cool under fire". It's a rule, it's there, it may or may not get FAQ'ed.
As Yak was saying, it's there to represent trying to hit the unit behind while not hitting the one in front. Sure, they could have put in a rule about resolving hits that are avoided by the cover save being allocated to the front unit, but what if there is more than one unit inbetween, it just gets too complicated.
THis is a game of units, you select and fire at a unit, not at the entire army and hope you hit something. The rules have to be written to reflect that, which is why they work the way they do.
Sure, IMHO it's a pretty lame tactic but it's legal and I won't begrudge my opponent for using it, I'll just adapt my tactics to beat it the best I can. Who knows? They could FAQ it right away, in a month, or not at all.
It's already been pointed out that just going off the root "inter" (between, among, in the midst of, within) this tactic is covered by the rules, so let's just drop it, shall we? You aren't going to convince anyone who deosn't already agree with you otherwise and although you may be attempting to be humorous, you are IMHO coming off as arrogant ("BZZ! Wrong!" for example). I personally won't be reading this thread anymore myself as it's becoming quite redundant.
7649
Post by: MajerBlundor
mattyboy22 wrote:You're diagrams are irrelevant as this is a game, not real. It has nothing to do with what the marines are thinking and thier "cool under fire". It's a rule, it's there, it may or may not get FAQ'ed.
As Yak was saying, it's there to represent trying to hit the unit behind while not hitting the one in front. Sure, they could have put in a rule about resolving hits that are avoided by the cover save being allocated to the front unit, but what if there is more than one unit inbetween, it just gets too complicated.
THis is a game of units, you select and fire at a unit, not at the entire army and hope you hit something. The rules have to be written to reflect that, which is why they work the way they do.
Sure, IMHO it's a pretty lame tactic but it's legal and I won't begrudge my opponent for using it, I'll just adapt my tactics to beat it the best I can. Who knows? They could FAQ it right away, in a month, or not at all.
It's already been pointed out that just going off the root "inter" (between, among, in the midst of, within) this tactic is covered by the rules, so let's just drop it, shall we? You aren't going to convince anyone who deosn't already agree with you otherwise and although you may be attempting to be humorous, you are IMHO coming off as arrogant ("BZZ! Wrong!" for example). I personally won't be reading this thread anymore myself as it's becoming quite redundant.
You're right, the game is about units. And the rules state "intervening units" when it comes to awarding 4+ cover saves. Not intermixed units. (And no, I'm not the only one who sees it this way)
And you can't just go off the root "inter" if you're playing by the RAW. Intevene and intermix are two different words with different definitions.
In fact, your post is a perfect illustration of the problem here. You call the tactic legal and then refuse to consider the actual words in the text (ie intervening unit) and declare that only the root "inter" matters, NOT the actual words in the text.
Read the review of 5E below. The author does a great job of describing how some in the 40K community have really given the hobby a black eye by trying to twist and ingore rules to gain every tiny advantage no matter how absurd. He uses language that I wouldn't but he's dead on right!
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37374
Here's the relevant quote edited for a family web site:
"Let’s face it, the reason 40k players have the reputation they do is not because of the community, but because of the over competitive who bend, break or shatter the conventions of fair play just to get a leg up for the free GW gives out for every sanctioned tournament. And if there’s a way to squeeze an extra ounce of advantage out of the game, these will take it. We’re all waiting for the first tourney pictures to surface of entire units modeled to be belly crawling across the field just to take full advantage of any low terrain."
Is gaining a competitive advantage so important that one is serisously willing to simply edit the RAW and drop not only whole terms (eg intervening unit) but now we have gamers willing to chop up words and only consider the freakin "root" to gain that advantage?!?! That's really through the looking glass!
MB
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
*throws in towel*
3552
Post by: mattyboy22
Intervene: to occur or be between two things
Between: in the space separating ; among
So if a unit is between the firing unit and the target, it can also be among either unit (so if a unit of orks was firing at the Marines, the marines could get the 4+ as well.
Didn't say you were the only one, just that you aren't going to convince anyone.
Anyway congrats, you are the first person on my ignore list. And you are being arrogant again, lighten up.
7560
Post by: Martndemus
I think this topic is well discussed and can be closed.
I dont really care what people do. Ill just equip my dakkafexes with BS instead of Devs.
Problem solved.
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
I vote close this topic and if MajerBlundor starts it again to suspend his posting privileges. (as he started 2 extra threads with the same topic)
5096
Post by: roadkill
Regardless of the current RAW, if you had the absolute power to settle the issue in ANY way you deemed appropriate, would two intermixed units in the open confer mutual 4+ saves?
I answer question. what do you guys think of these house rules?
In the interest of speed of play & beer & pretzel compatibility.
House rule 1) Pick up the dice that failed to penetrate the cover save. Roll them again to wound the other squad & that squad gets to make a cover save. This will cut down on the overall casualties inflicted (than with no cover) and is in keeping with the fact that less shots would be fired through hesitation, but also inflict more casualties because the ones that hit the cover get a chance to wound!
House rule 2) Get the controlling player to nominate which squad is the intervening squad & only one can intervene .
4892
Post by: akira5665
Yeah. And lock out that Akira idiot too-he really gets my Goat.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I change my vote.
*Both* units get cover saves.
But for every cover save that is claimed, the firing player gets to give the opponent a swat, stroke or slash with a GW whippy stick.
After the game, if such cover saves are claimed for more than one turn, the firing player may beat the opponent with a 2x4 (no more than 3' long) for a random duration determined by a neutral third party.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Yakface wrote:Yes, the tactic appears to be legal by the RAW, yes that position can be disputed, yes it deserves to be FAQ's because it a question that is bound to be asked frequently and no it will not destroy the game.
There's a couple of things wrong with this and I'd like to address them.
Firstly, the tactic is not legal. The rules do not allow it. The rules do not even appear to allow it, since they assume both the natural meta-rules of natural language and an open two dimensional space (the game board) wherein no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective. some peoples' inability (and/or unwillingness) to read the rules properly merely makes it seem that way to them.
That's alright, some people need claymore mines label "This end towards end" or "Warning: Coffee may be hot". Some people even think that there's something to Intelligent Design. And, as we are all unfortunately aware, there lurks amongst GW fans a species of highly advanced idiot that defies all reasonable attempts at idiot-proofing (and some people, often the same people, wonder why GW often holds external feedback in contempt...).
Secondly, it does not deserve an FAQ; it requires an FAQ. Only moral agents and subjects deserve things, and is simply a rule that is being misused by idiots, and exploited by those wishing to take advantage of idiots. Much like many products require special warning labels so that the responsibility for misuse is rightly apportioned to those that would misuse them, rather than the manufacturer, an FAQ is required so that GW is not (wrongly) blamed for the disability, moral or intellectual, of its end-users.
The absence of an FAQ will not break the game, And if it were instituted, the misuse of this rule would not longer serve as telltale clue that an idiot, and perhaps also a cheater, were among us.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
Well the thing is.... as soon as you argue the point, both units get a cover save...... at 5+.
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
Lordhat wrote:Well the thing is.... as soon as you argue the point, both units get a cover save...... at 5+.
sounds like a good house rule.
6885
Post by: Red_Lives
I think that some people are forgetting that if LOS is drawn BETWEEN a gap in between two models of a unit, the unit being shot at does get a cover save under 5th.
Due to the positioning of these models, both units would get a cover save in this case. Casualty removal would need to be careful to retain this advantage for long though and as already been stated blast and (especially with no cover save permitted) template weapons will have a field day on this.
5023
Post by: Democratus
Agreed. It's very clear that the gaps between models in a unit provide cover. Its also clearly stated that if a majority of models in a unit are behind cover then the whole unit gets cover.
Q.E.D.
This is a natural result of a bad rule created by GW. Units providing cover saves without taking any damage is simply poor rules creation. Get angry with GW, not your opponent, when something like this comes up. Maybe if there is enough pain and complaining then this will go away in 6th edition.
7698
Post by: Critta
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this side of things whilst getting all up-in arms about this but...
With the intermingled orc units, would they also (due to the same rules of firing through the unit they are mingled with) provide any opponent they shot at with the same 4+ cover save?
I agree this is a bit of a stupid rule, we'll see whether it gets FAQ'd, but I see everyone complaining that the orcs will be making cover saves, without taking into account that any squad such a formation shot at would also get an equivalent save.
Not that getting a 4+ cover save matters much to marines, but the same squad of orcs/grots approcaching an IG squad probably wouldn't find themselves hitting much.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
"On Noes! My Orks shooting is bad because my opponents get a cover save! Woe iz me! Woe iz me!"
Yeah, like an Ork player is going to care about shooting when all he's trying to do is get a couple huge mobs of Boyz into HtH.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Orks would care more about shooting now, seeing as they have one of the best shooting units in the game, point for point.
Their guns are AP6, so unless you've got a 5+ save or worse, you're really not gaining much from getting a 4+ Cover save from Ork shooting.
The problem with this formation is that while slowed, it's actually very useful if your opponent wanted to be a git and use it.
7690
Post by: utan
Generally, longtime ork players aren't part of a power-gamer culture and don't try to play metagame & rules-lawyering to get an advantage. If we were out to win at all costs we'd have selected a different race with less random efficacy. So I don't see orks using this tactic much. We'd just throw a unit of grots up front where they should be!
4770
Post by: holden88
Nurglitch wrote:Yakface wrote:Yes, the tactic appears to be legal by the RAW, yes that position can be disputed, yes it deserves to be FAQ's because it a question that is bound to be asked frequently and no it will not destroy the game.
There's a couple of things wrong with this and I'd like to address them.
Firstly, the tactic is not legal. The rules do not allow it. The rules do not even appear to allow it, since they assume both the natural meta-rules of natural language and an open two dimensional space (the game board) wherein no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective. some peoples' inability (and/or unwillingness) to read the rules properly merely makes it seem that way to them.
That's alright, some people need claymore mines label "This end towards end" or "Warning: Coffee may be hot". Some people even think that there's something to Intelligent Design. And, as we are all unfortunately aware, there lurks amongst GW fans a species of highly advanced idiot that defies all reasonable attempts at idiot-proofing (and some people, often the same people, wonder why GW often holds external feedback in contempt...).
Secondly, it does not deserve an FAQ; it requires an FAQ. Only moral agents and subjects deserve things, and is simply a rule that is being misused by idiots, and exploited by those wishing to take advantage of idiots. Much like many products require special warning labels so that the responsibility for misuse is rightly apportioned to those that would misuse them, rather than the manufacturer, an FAQ is required so that GW is not (wrongly) blamed for the disability, moral or intellectual, of its end-users.
The absence of an FAQ will not break the game, And if it were instituted, the misuse of this rule would not longer serve as telltale clue that an idiot, and perhaps also a cheater, were among us.
I think the rules allow mutual cover saves to be granted to intermixed units. I don't really appreciate your insinuation that I am either an idiot and/or a cheater. To me the rule is plain as day, however. I do see that the word intercede injects a healthy dose of confusion to the issue. I appreciate that others may read the rules and have a different interperetaion than mine. I don't automatically assume they are idiots or cheater.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Nurglitch wrote:
Firstly, the tactic is not legal. The rules do not allow it. The rules do not even appear to allow it, since they assume both the natural meta-rules of natural language and an open two dimensional space (the game board) wherein no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective. some peoples' inability (and/or unwillingness) to read the rules properly merely makes it seem that way to them.
Just saying something authoritatively does not make it inherently true. What makes this amazing assumption that "no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective"? The rules for cover are quite clear on the matter: If there is a question if one squad should get a cover save, you are supposed to look at the entire target squad from the point of view of the firing unit. If the majority of models are considered to be in cover (which includes being fired upon through the gaps between models in an intervening unit), then the whole squad is in cover. There is nothing in the rules that makes interspersed units exclusionary from being intervening units. This is true for singular objects, but not from the perspective of a group of objects identified as a whole (better known as units as they are defined in 40k). And while I normally wouldn't point this out, given how pedantic you are here I feel it's worth doing: the rules assume (and define behavior for) using models in three dimensional space, not two. Distances complicated by height are defined in the 5th ed rules, as well as moving vertically in relative to the gaming space using available movement. That's alright, some people need claymore mines label "This end towards end" or "Warning: Coffee may be hot". Some people even think that there's something to Intelligent Design. And, as we are all unfortunately aware, there lurks amongst GW fans a species of highly advanced idiot that defies all reasonable attempts at idiot-proofing (and some people, often the same people, wonder why GW often holds external feedback in contempt...).
Show me where in the rules that this formation is not legal and that the benefit does not extend to both squads. The majority of models in both units are being fired upon through gaps in models from an intervening unit. All criteria required for claiming a 4+ cover save in the game are met by both units at the same time as defined by the rules. Secondly, it does not deserve an FAQ; it requires an FAQ. Only moral agents and subjects deserve things, and is simply a rule that is being misused...
Are you always this pedantic or is it just when you're on the internet? Technically this requires an errata, not a FAQ. Seeing as how the rules are defined in the game support this as they are written, the rules would have to change in order for this to be illegal. The absence of an FAQ will not break the game, And if it were instituted, the misuse of this rule would not longer serve as telltale clue that an idiot, and perhaps also a cheater, were among us.
No, what you have is someone gaming the Rules as Written to gain an advantage in game that obviously is not the designers intention. You don't have a cheater, you have a poor sportsman. Much like the "Goblin Slingshot" in WHFB, this is 100% within the rules but is an obvious abuse of the system.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
[quote=Voodoo Boyz
Secondly, it does not deserve an FAQ; it requires an FAQ. Only moral agents and subjects deserve things, and is simply a rule that is being misused...
Are you always this pedantic or is it just when you're on the internet?
Technically this requires an errata, not a FAQ. Seeing as how the rules are defined in the game support this as they are written, the rules would have to change in order for this to be illegal.
Awesome out pedanticing of the Nurglethingy!!! (like my new word) However, a true pedant would not have used "technically", they would have said "actually" to make the statement a lot more definite. Please try and be a bit more careful for the future.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
fullheadofhair wrote:Voodoo Boyz wrote:
Secondly, it does not deserve an FAQ; it requires an FAQ. Only moral agents and subjects deserve things, and is simply a rule that is being misused...
Are you always this pedantic or is it just when you're on the internet?
Technically this requires an errata, not a FAQ. Seeing as how the rules are defined in the game support this as they are written, the rules would have to change in order for this to be illegal.
Awesome out pedanticing of the Nurglethingy!!! (like my new word) However, a true pedant would not have used "technically", they would have said "actually" to make the statement a lot more definite. Please try and be a bit more careful for the future.
I believe you are correct. However I shall not deign to leave my ivory tower to edit the post whilst ye still have an error using your PHBB code properly to quoteh my...errm...quote.
411
Post by: whitedragon
Methinks my eyes burneth!
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
holden88 wrote:I think the rules allow mutual cover saves to be granted to intermixed units. I don't really appreciate your insinuation that I am either an idiot and/or a cheater. To me the rule is plain as day, however. I do see that the word intercede injects a healthy dose of confusion to the issue. I appreciate that others may read the rules and have a different interperetaion than mine. I don't automatically assume they are idiots or cheater.
I'm not insinuating that you are an idiot. You are declaring it yourself by publicly admitting that you cannot read plain English properly, and cannot fathom your own inability to do so. The fact that interpretations differ simply means that one is correct and that the rest of not.
Voodoo Boyz wrote:Just saying something authoritatively does not make it inherently true. What makes this amazing assumption that "no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective"?
Quite correct, except that I was not claiming any authority. I was simply asserting what the rules say. If you want to know why it is that no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective, on a flat and open 2D plane, go learn some geometry.
Voodoo wrote:The rules for cover are quite clear on the matter: If there is a question if one squad should get a cover save, you are supposed to look at the entire target squad from the point of view of the firing unit. If the majority of models are considered to be in cover (which includes being fired upon through the gaps between models in an intervening unit), then the whole squad is in cover.
If you're going to say that the rules for cover are "quite clear" and then argue some contrary conclusion from that position, then you're going to have to give an exegesis of the rules and show the given value of "clear". That is if you want to avoid simply contradicting me, and you actually want to demonstrate the correctness of your position. Show your work, or STFU.
Voodoo Boyz wrote:There is nothing in the rules that makes interspersed units exclusionary from being intervening units. This is true for singular objects, but not from the perspective of a group of objects identified as a whole (better known as units as they are defined in 40k).
Yes, actually there is something in the rules that excludes interspersed units from conferring mutual cover saves: it's call the rules. Specifically it's the part of the rules discussing the position of the unit conferring the save to the unit receiving the save:
"If a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain (such as between two trees in a wood) or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visble to the firer."
VoodooBoyz wrote:And while I normally wouldn't point this out, given how pedantic you are here I feel it's worth doing: the rules assume (and define behavior for) using models in three dimensional space, not two. Distances complicated by height are defined in the 5th ed rules, as well as moving vertically in relative to the gaming space using available movement.
Your assumption of pedantry reveals your own ignorant stupidity, since my point is applicable to any n-dimensional open space, and two dimensions is the easiest way to visualize the set of relations described in the rules.
VoodooBoyz wrote:Are you always this pedantic or is it just when you're on the internet?
Are you always a jerk, or is it just when you're on the internet?
VoodooBoyz wrote:Technically this requires an errata, not a FAQ. Seeing as how the rules are defined in the game support this as they are written, the rules would have to change in order for this to be illegal.
Wrong, an errata would be required if the rules permitted something as stupid as two units providing mutual cover saves. They do not, and only idiots suppose that they do. Since FAQs are for idiots, and errata are only for fixing typos, an FAQ is what is required.
4770
Post by: holden88
Nurglitch, I see you have doggedly latched on to the most common defenition of Intervene: "To come between". However, that doesn't mean that this is the only possbile defenition of the word. Words can have many different meanings with subtle differences. Here are some alternate (yet perfectly legal and accurate) defenitions of Intervene found in various dictionaries.
1) (of things) to occur incidentally so as to modify or hinder
2) To occur as an extraneous or unplanned circumstance
3) To involve oneself in a situation so as to alter or hinder an action or development
4) get involved, so as to alter or hinder an action
5) to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification
Any of the above defenitions support the mutual cover save argument. Face it, english does not say only what you what you think it says. Unfortunately, your entire position is built on the false presumption that there is one and only one possible usage of the word intervene.
4892
Post by: akira5665
Crikey- I have never seen Nurglitch respond like that before!
: thumbsup :
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Ooops .. something got Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit's nickers in a twist. We have a couple of idiots a nice "STFU".
BTW, Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit, as we are all pedants, you have made the grave error of generalization. Some questions in an FAQ are for idiots who cannot read, some questions are for where rule designers have managed A+B equals C but B+A doesn't equal C.
So, not all FAQ's are for idiots - unless you count yourself as an idiot seeing as (if memory serves correctly) your position has been opposite to a couple of FAQ questions.
P1 Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit says FAQ's are for idiots
P2 Many people agree with Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit
P3 Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit has to read an FAQ to be current with rules as they can be different to his reading of the rules
C1 Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit calls himself an idiot.
C2 People who agree with Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit think he is an idiot
C3 If you agree with Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit who is an idiot therefore you are an idiot
C4 Everyone who agrees with Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit is an idiot.
ooooh my first P/C analysis. How did I do?
***Edited the P/C analysis coz it was wrong.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
FullheadofFail wrote:***Edited the P/C analysis coz it was wrong.
Fail.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Nurglitch wrote:FullheadofFail wrote:***Edited the P/C analysis coz it was wrong.
Fail.
I am sorry, but wouldn't it be a FAIL if I hadn't tried to adjust it? I have heard there are such things as logic classes that explain this type of thing and teach you to explain it in a way that is incredibly long winded, verbose and superior to all others. That type of class would really help on a board like YMDC, so you might want to consider it. I am happy to remain the intellectually challanged, short n' fat bald englishman that I am.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
If you want to know why it is that no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective, on a flat and open 2D plane, go learn some geometry.
If you want to quote me and respond like this, then at least quote properly. For individual objects, or a single model, then this is true by basic geometry. Unfortunately for you, we're not talking about individual objects. We're talking about UNITS, which are collections of models formed into a group with at most 2" of space between each individual model that makes up the unit. Because we're talking about units, not individual models, and more specifically how the rules define units to get cover saves, the entire premise for your argument falls apart as I'm about to show. If you're going to say that the rules for cover are "quite clear" and then argue some contrary conclusion from that position, then you're going to have to give an exegesis of the rules and show the given value of "clear". That is if you want to avoid simply contradicting me, and you actually want to demonstrate the correctness of your position. Show your work, or STFU.
I have already shown it, you just chose to ignore quoting it or responding to it in any fashion: "The majority of models in both units are being fired upon through gaps in models from an intervening unit. All criteria required for claiming a 4+ cover save in the game are met by both units at the same time as defined by the rules." Yes, actually there is something in the rules that excludes interspersed units from conferring mutual cover saves: it's call the rules. Specifically it's the part of the rules discussing the position of the unit conferring the save to the unit receiving the save:
"If a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain (such as between two trees in a wood) or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visble to the firer."
That's the first half of the rules on how units get cover saves, but you're ignoring the other half of the rule that defines how units that have the majority of their models in cover (which is what the above rules-quote defines), then the unit gets to take the cover save. Lets break it down. Target Unit A and B are in the interspersed formation, they are being shot at by Firing Unit X. XXXXXXXXXXX A A A A A A B B B B B B A A A A A A B B B B B B A A A A A A B B B B B B From the point of view of Unit X, to fire on Unit A it will have to shoot through the gaps of models in Unit B. The majority of the models in Unit A are actually being shot at through the gaps of models in Unit B. In order for this to be the case, there are models in Unit B which are in front of models in Unit A. These models in Unit B are in between the majority of models in Unit A and Firing Unit X. Being in between two things is one of the definitions of intervening. Reference. As such this completely satisfies the rules in order for the target unit to claim the cover save. The onus is on you to somehow show that despite the fact that Unit B has models that come in between Firing Unit X and Target Unit A that it is somehow not an "intervening unit". If you can't do that, then I'd suggest you follow your own advice and "STFU". There are no restrictions in the rules on what an intervening unit is, or that somehow the majority of models in a unit must intervene with another unit to claim a cover save. As such we must use the definition of intervening which in this application means "to occur or be between two things." Again, the key here is that you are completely ignoring the fact that we are talking about Units, not singular objects on a 2D plane. Your assumption of pedantry reveals your own ignorant stupidity, since my point is applicable to any n-dimensional open space, and two dimensions is the easiest way to visualize the set of relations described in the rules.
Your entire post was pedantic and insulting, but the specific part about you being pedantic is quoted here: "Secondly, it does not deserve an FAQ; it requires an FAQ. Only moral agents and subjects deserve things, and is simply a rule that is being misused..." Are you always a jerk, or is it just when you're on the internet?
I'm merely responding in kind. You're the one who comes into the thread with a post which says multiple times that anyone who does not interpret the rules as you do to be an idiot, and at the same time childishly try to make some kind of correction about the proper use of the word "deserve" in reference to a FAQ. If you're going to act this way then I'm going to call you on it, and at the same time show exactly how wrong you are with your little rant per the Rules As Written. Wrong, an errata would be required if the rules permitted something as stupid as two units providing mutual cover saves. They do not, and only idiots suppose that they do. Since FAQs are for idiots, and errata are only for fixing typos, an FAQ is what is required.
Actually only an idiot would try to argue that a defined group of objects that has a subset of those objects "occur or be between two things" is somehow not intervening. Considering this is your entire basis to refute the fact that interspersed units can provide mutual cover saves per the rules in 5th Edition, I'd definitely reconsider who you call an idiot.
1231
Post by: Cadian16th
Voodoo Boyz wrote:If you want to know why it is that no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective, on a flat and open 2D plane, go learn some geometry.
If you want to quote me and respond like this, then at least quote properly.
For individual objects, or a single model, then this is true by basic geometry.
Unfortunately for you, we're not talking about individual objects. We're talking about UNITS, which are collections of models formed into a group with at most 2" of space between each individual model that makes up the unit.
Because we're talking about units, not individual models, and more specifically how the rules define units to get cover saves, the entire premise for your argument falls apart as I'm about to show.
If you're going to say that the rules for cover are "quite clear" and then argue some contrary conclusion from that position, then you're going to have to give an exegesis of the rules and show the given value of "clear". That is if you want to avoid simply contradicting me, and you actually want to demonstrate the correctness of your position. Show your work, or STFU.
I have already shown it, you just chose to ignore quoting it or responding to it in any fashion:
"The majority of models in both units are being fired upon through gaps in models from an intervening unit. All criteria required for claiming a 4+ cover save in the game are met by both units at the same time as defined by the rules."
Yes, actually there is something in the rules that excludes interspersed units from conferring mutual cover saves: it's call the rules. Specifically it's the part of the rules discussing the position of the unit conferring the save to the unit receiving the save:
"If a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain (such as between two trees in a wood) or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visble to the firer."
That's the first half of the rules on how units get cover saves, but you're ignoring the other half of the rule that defines how units that have the majority of their models in cover (which is what the above rules-quote defines), then the unit gets to take the cover save.
Lets break it down.
Target Unit A and B are in the interspersed formation, they are being shot at by Firing Unit X.
XXXXXXXXXXX
A A A A A A
B B B B B B
A A A A A A
B B B B B B
A A A A A A
B B B B B B
From the point of view of Unit X, to fire on Unit A it will have to shoot through the gaps of models in Unit B.
The majority of the models in Unit A are actually being shot at through the gaps of models in Unit B.
In order for this to be the case, there are models in Unit B which are in front of models in Unit A.
These models in Unit B are in between the majority of models in Unit A and Firing Unit X.
Being in between two things is one of the definitions of intervening. Reference.
As such this completely satisfies the rules in order for the target unit to claim the cover save. The onus is on you to somehow show that despite the fact that Unit B has models that come in between Firing Unit X and Target Unit A that it is somehow not an "intervening unit". If you can't do that, then I'd suggest you follow your own advice and "STFU".
There are no restrictions in the rules on what an intervening unit is, or that somehow the majority of models in a unit must intervene with another unit to claim a cover save. As such we must use the definition of intervening which in this application means "to occur or be between two things."
Again, the key here is that you are completely ignoring the fact that we are talking about Units, not singular objects on a 2D plane.
Your assumption of pedantry reveals your own ignorant stupidity, since my point is applicable to any n-dimensional open space, and two dimensions is the easiest way to visualize the set of relations described in the rules.
Your entire post was pedantic and insulting, but the specific part about you being pedantic is quoted here:
"Secondly, it does not deserve an FAQ; it requires an FAQ. Only moral agents and subjects deserve things, and is simply a rule that is being misused..."
Are you always a jerk, or is it just when you're on the internet?
I'm merely responding in kind. You're the one who comes into the thread with a post which says multiple times that anyone who does not interpret the rules as you do to be an idiot, and at the same time childishly try to make some kind of correction about the proper use of the word "deserve" in reference to a FAQ. If you're going to act this way then I'm going to call you on it, and at the same time show exactly how wrong you are with your little rant per the Rules As Written.
Wrong, an errata would be required if the rules permitted something as stupid as two units providing mutual cover saves. They do not, and only idiots suppose that they do. Since FAQs are for idiots, and errata are only for fixing typos, an FAQ is what is required.
Actually only an idiot would try to argue that a defined group of objects that has a subset of those objects "occur or be between two things" is somehow not intervening.
Considering this is your entire basis to refute the fact that interspersed units can provide mutual cover saves per the rules in 5th Edition, I'd definitely reconsider who you call an idiot.
/thread
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
holden88 wrote:Nurglitch, I see you have doggedly latched on to the most common defenition of Intervene: "To come between"
Given that the rulebook is notionally written for common folk, using the most common definition is probably the most accurate definition.
Now unless you can clearly demonstrate that GW had some other, uncommon definition in mind, as stated by the BBB author himself, such a line of argument is going to be fruitless.
If we have to get to the point at which we need to interpret every word in the GW rulebook based on uncommon interpretations, the rulebook might as well not exist, because nobody is going to agree on anything.
So let's assume the common definition unless clearly indicated otherwise.
|
|
