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

Several threads show a formation in which models from two units are intermixed or interlaced. The authors then go on to indicate that both units receive a 4+ cover save due to a rule that states when shooting through intervening units the target unit receives a 4+ cover save. Clearly from the RAW both units do NOT receive a 4+ cover save. In fact, according to the RAW, when firing at intermixed units NEITHER unit receives a 4+ cover save!

Just took a look at the text:

"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."

The key here is the term intervening unit. The RAW doesn't say intervening models. It says intervening unit.

Furthermore, intervening unit means just that, one unit in front of another. It does NOT, repeat NOT, say one unit intermixed or interlaced with another unit.

The two units shown in these other threads clearly show two units which are intermixed or interlaced. These diagrams clearly do not show one unit intervening between shooter and target.

Thus, the rule that states "If half or more of the models in the target unit are in cover, then the entire unit is deemed to be in cover and all of its models may take cover saves" never even enters into the discussion since, when describing the relationship between two units, the RAW use the term "intervening unit" and not "interlaced units" and not "intervening models". The ONLY way someone could claim that either or both units receive a 4+ cover save is by absolutely ignoring the definition of the word INTERVENING and ignoring the fact that the RAW do NOT use the term intermixed or interlaced which the authors could have used but clearly chose not to.

In fact, this actually makes more sense from a game design perspective. If you have a unit intervening between a shooter and target then yes, it sort of makes sense to give the target unit a save for being obscured by the intervening unit. But if the units are intermixed or interlaced then NEITHER unit receives a save since they're effectively offered themselves up as equal targets.

Trying to argue that BOTH units receive a 4+ cover save is not only counter-intuitive but is also contrary to the RAW.

"... the gaps between models in an intervening unit..."

So the RAW does say between models. I still think thew loop hole wont work or is just a naff idea. But don't think you argument is correct.

Apone wrote:"... the gaps between models in an intervening unit..."

So the RAW does say between models. I still think thew loop hole wont work or is just a naff idea. But don't think you argument is correct.

The RAW says "the gaps between models in an intervening unit". The RAW does NOT say "the gaps between models" full stop as you indicate above.

You must ignore the phrase "in an intervening unit" to say that two intermixed units both receive a 4+ save.

So what would happen is unless one unit is further in front of the other neither would get a cover save. If one unit was in front the one behind would get a save, but there's no point to the formation. Well I'm glad.

Apone wrote:So what would happen is unless one unit is further in front of the other neither would get a cover save. If one unit was in front the one behind would get a save, but there's no point to the formation. Well I'm glad.

Exactly. And that's much more in keeping with the spirit of GW's new approach as described in a recent WD when they talk about the new LOS rule. The intent of the 4+ save is that the intervening unit obscures the target further away.

Also, by using the term "intervening" rather than intermixed or intermingled the RAW also eliminate the potential for cheesey horseshoe or "encirclement" formations. Imagine a rubber-band strecthed to conform to the perimiter of a unit's models. If another unit violates that perimiter then, by definition of the RAW, the two units are now clearly intermingled or intermixed rather than merely intervening relative to a shooter.

So, if you take a unit and put in a giant horseshoe or circle and place another unit inside its perimiter, then you've crossed the line from having the "outer" unit intervene between an enemy shooter and the "inner" unit as the two units are now clearly intermingled. Not only is that closer to the RAW compared to these other diagrams we've been seeing, it's also closer to the spirit of GW's intent and certainly closer to common sense.

The only way these interlaced, horseshoe, and encirclement formations could confer a 4+ save on one or both units is if one selectively implements the RAW, ignores the definition of the word "intervening", ignores the implication of the phrase "intervening unit", ignores GW's new approach to make the rules less legalistic/abstract and more WYSIWYG, and completely ignore common sense!

Do the rules specify what they mean by "intervening"? Does one unit have to be more than 50% behind the other or 100%?
I don't have the rulebook yet, so I don't know.

I'd say a unit is intervening if you can't draw a line to a model in the target unit that doesn't cross over or between a model from the intervening unit, OR to a model in the target unit that isn't partially obscured by a model in the intervening unit.

That way the horseshoe unit still works as an intervening unit until the... shall we say "line" no longer appears in front of your target unit.


x x x x
x x x x
x b b b x
x b b b x

so in this example, the x unit could be intervening up until they've removed all the front x's and the models in that second "row". Then b would be just as much a clear target as x, and no longer receives a cover save.

Sigh. More wordhammer.

http://www.english-for-students.com/inter.html

Your epic failure is almost complete.

Argue more wordhammer, see where it gets you.

Stelek wrote:Sigh. More wordhammer.

http://www.english-for-students.com/inter.html

Your epic failure is almost complete.

Argue more wordhammer, see where it gets you.

As your link above shows, the word intervene means "between". The term "intervening unit" means one unit is between two other units.

It does not mean two units are intermixed/intermingled/interlaced all of which means the two units are sharing a common space.

Equally imporant, I'll have to apply the LogicHammer to you. Massed targets are easier targets.

It's absolutely absurd to believe that because two units of 12 models each are mixed together they're a harder target by a factor of 50% than a single unit of 24 models occupying precisely the same positions.

Instead of pithy (and terribly weak) internet drivel like "X-hammer" you might consider explaing your position that two intermixed units each of 12 models are a harder target than the same models in organized into a single unit and occupying precisely the same positions.

Also explain why you think that the authors intended this absurd conclusion and, if they didn't intend this situation, explain why you think this position makes for a better game.

Spellbound wrote:I'd say a unit is intervening if you can't draw a line to a model in the target unit that doesn't cross over or between a model from the intervening unit, OR to a model in the target unit that isn't partially obscured by a model in the intervening unit.

That way the horseshoe unit still works as an intervening unit until the... shall we say "line" no longer appears in front of your target unit.


x x x x
x x x x
x b b b x
x b b b x

so in this example, the x unit could be intervening up until they've removed all the front x's and the models in that second "row". Then b would be just as much a clear target as x, and no longer receives a cover save.

Good and constructive example! Stricitly speaking if fired at from "above" the top line of Xs, those two lines of X models would be between (intervening) the shooter and unit b. But the X and b units are sharing a common space because models from unit b are between models from unit x. From a common sense perspective the two units are presenting one big massed target. But once the four rear Xs flanking the b unit move forward unit b would no longer be occupying ground encompassed by models from unit x. At that point I think one would clearly conclude that the two units are now seperate.

I think a good guage is whether or not two units are violating the inegrity of one another. Think of a unit of soldiers used to fighting together and moving together. Then another unit moves up and starts operating all mixed up with the first unit. Not good! That's why units typically have boundries and "tie-into" one another on their flanks.

It's absolutely absurd to believe that because two units of 12 models each are mixed together they're a harder target by a factor of 50% than a single unit of 24 models occupying precisely the same positions.

It is absolutely absurd, you are correct. However, the rules are written otherwise. Just how it goes. Write your own rules like HBMC.

Isnt there such a rule that friendly units should stay 2" apart?

Martndemus wrote:Isnt there such a rule that friendly units should stay 2" apart?

no. friendly models can be base to base if you want.

Yes, your entire argument from beginning to end is indeed weak pithy internet drivel.

Thanks for noticing.

Now stop trolling already.

It is absolutely absurd, you are correct. However, the rules are written otherwise.

Where are they written otherwise? Nobody has been able to cite a rule in which two intermixed units confer a 4+ save on one another.

An intervening unit confers a 4+ save on the unit it's obscuring. That's all that's written.

But there's nada, nothing, zip, zero about two intermixed units counter-intuitively confering 4+ saves on one another. Doesn't exist and so far, nobody has been able to cite it. They assert this is the case, but they can't cite a specific rule.

MajerBlundor wrote:

It is absolutely absurd, you are correct. However, the rules are written otherwise.

Where are they written otherwise? Nobody has been able to cite a rule in which two intermixed units confer a 4+ save on one another.

An intervening unit confers a 4+ save on the unit it's obscuring. That's all that's written.

But there's nada, nothing, zip, zero about two intermixed units counter-intuitively confering 4+ saves on one another. Doesn't exist and so far, nobody has been able to cite it. They assert this is the case, but they can't cite a specific rule.

The problem is that you have premised your whole argument around a false premise: that an "intermixed" unit cannot be an "intervening" unit.

Take a very simple case:
I'maTargetUnit

ABABAB
ABABAB

For both units A and B, in order for the second row to fire, they MUST fire between models of the other unit. Take the case of the one bolded A. In order to fire at a target in front of him, he fires between the two italicized Bs.

So, going back to the rule:
If a model fires -- Check
through the gaps between models -- Well, there's a gap (between the two italicized Bs)
in an intervening unit -- That unit B is between the indicated model A and it's target.

MajerBlundor wrote:Furthermore, intervening unit means just that, one unit in front of another. It does NOT, repeat NOT, say one unit intermixed or interlaced with another unit.

You've established a false dichotomy (that intervening cannot be [the undefined term] interlaceing), and are using a strawman argument against those who disagree (that they assert that cover applies for intermixed units). Somehow, you've decided that in order for a unit to be intervening, every model in the unit must be between the firing unit and its target. This position is unsupported.

I was wondering when someone was going to point out this one out. Kudos, MajerBlundor.

But to "quote for truth" [pointless insult removed]:

"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."

The 'key' here is the application of the predicate "intervening" to the object term "unit". The rules do not say "through the gaps between intervening models". The rules say "through the gaps between models in an intervening unit".

Therefore, in order to gain a cover save, the unit causing the cover saves must be between the attacker and the unit taking the cover saves.


[--Edited by yakface]

The RAW says "the gaps between models in an intervening unit". The RAW does NOT say "the gaps between models" full stop as you indicate above.

You must ignore the phrase "in an intervening unit" to say that two intermixed units both receive a 4+ save.

I'm not convinced the whole unit must be between the target and the firer before a unit can be classed as interveing but for the sake of argument lets say that is the case.

While the gaps of the intermixed units would not provide cover, the basic rules for cover do state that intervening 'models' provide cover via obscurement, not units. Intermixed units could easily provide cover just based on this alone, since it only require half or more of the models to be obscured. The gap exception just makes it much easier to do in all situations.

Okay, let's take two configurations of units A[ttacker], T[arget], and P[ossible cover].

Configuration 1: Intervening

AAAAAA

PPP_PPP

TTTTTTT

Configuraton 2: Not Intervening

AAAAAA

PTPTPTPT
TPTPTPTP

Unit P is not intervening in Configuration 2 because P is not between A and T.

Sometimes I wonder about the need to fail at reading the rules and then triumphantly parade the twisted interpretation around as an example of GW's ineptitude. Their rules are badly written enough without deliberate misinformation being spread around.

Sounds like you are trying to argue that the whole unit must be between the target and shooter. Wich there actually is nothing to support, even with very crappy translations of intervening. Part of units will always be intervening in the case discussed.

Like this then:

AAAAA

TTTTTTT
TPPPPPT
TPPPPP
TT

Then you claim unit T isnt intervining anything because its not fully in between?

Nope, you could have a situation like:

AAAAAAAA

PPPPPPPPP
PTPTPTPTP
TTTTTTTT

So long as there are models in P between A and T, then P intervenes between them. The following, for example, would not be a case of P between A and T.

AAAAAAAA


PPPPTPPPP
PPPPTTPTT
TTTTTTTTT

Hmm, to my eyes it looks like there is alot of Ps between A and T there. The rule also states that at only 50% must be, so I dont see how you think you can ignore that part of the rule.

Sigh. You so fail at 40k.

The rules are exclusionary.

If it isn't written, you can't say the rules do something.

All I have to do is block los to HALF of my unit with ANYTHING, and I win a 4+ cover save.

You can underline, italicize, and bold all you want--you can't introduce new rules by internet postings.

You're like Gav, only worse--your words really don't have any meaning at all.

Janthkin wrote:

You've established a false dichotomy (that intervening cannot be [the undefined term] interlaceing), and are using a strawman argument against those who disagree (that they assert that cover applies for intermixed units). Somehow, you've decided that in order for a unit to be intervening, every model in the unit must be between the firing unit and its target. This position is unsupported.

I never stated that every model in the unit must be between the firing unit and it target. On the contrary, as long as 50% or more of the intervening unit is between the shooter and target the "covered target" unit gets the 4+ save. The rules even say so!

And I never stated that intervening can't be interlacing/intermingling, etc. But interlacing/intermingling is an additional and very obvious physical situation beyond merely intervening between two points. In fact, it's so freakin obvious that those who advocate for this absurd position have gone to great lengths to diagram this specific physical situation of having two different units tightly interspersed to exploit a perceived (and erroneous) rules glitch.

In other words, if intervening and interlacing were the same thing, then why the need to diagram the two physically different situations? It's because in their hearts they know it's absurd and not neccessarily the same thing. Their gut tells them there's something wrong with it and they're right as to anyone looking at the two following diagrams you're looking at too very different situations:


EXAMPLE A

AAAAAAAAAAA

BBBBBBBBBBB


EXAMPLE B

ABABABAB
ABABABAB

A small child or anyone who has never played a 40K game in their life would conclude that in example A you have two seperate units which could potentially block one another from various lines of sight while in example B the two units are clearly "mixed" and in a very different physical state.

You really have to twist common sense and ignore the dictionary to conclude that the above two situations are precisely the same which is what you're arguing.

I'm starting to think that it's just not worth the argument anymore, and that I will counter cheesy implications of the ruleset with massed AoE weapons and Doomsiren flamer templates, both of which will annihilate those units on a large scale, while also making it easier to hit unless I scatter REALLY badly.

I'll also counter it by shooting weapons that don't require cover saves if need be. Cheesy formation? Here's 50 bolter shots with 15 heavy bolter rounds at the target unit - don't you feel silly. Perhaps I'll just enjoy my own cover saves that your units are giving me by shooting through each other, or let you decide which models to remove as casualties while I shoot at them, weakening the integrity of the formation drastically with every model pulled until you either have to take models from the front [losing significant assault range due to spacing, if you're coming at me] or lose your cover save as the unit drops below 50% obscured.

How about I assault it with some throw-away unit, causing them all to mass in together in a big jumble, making you take a long time to re-establish the formation and possibly lose ground in doing so.

On the contrary, as long as 50% or more of the intervening unit is between the shooter and target the "covered target" unit gets the 4+ save. The rules even say so!

It never says this in the book. It says 50% or more of the unit has to be in cover from the POV of the firer (and be in cover in relation to 50% or more of the firing unit).

There is no rule as to how much of the intervening unit has to be between the firer and target. You could have one model being in cover from being in between an intervening unit and the other half being in cover via other means and still gain a cover save.

Which is the point that Janthkin is making, your logic is based on a false premise that is not supported by the rules and would actually make it hard to ever get a cover save from interveing units.

In other words, if intervening and interlacing were the same thing

Here is the false dilemna in your argument. No one is saying intervening = interlacing. But look at your diagram.

ABABABAB
ABABABAB

If the models are lined up exactly in rows, then yes I think one could argue that the models in the front row would not count as in cover mearly by being next too models from another unit. A's would have to be a bit in front inorder to count as intervening IMHO or vice versa. However can you seriously argue that B is not an intervening unit in realation to the As in the back row or vice versa? Cause the back row would count as in cover, either from obscurement or from LOS going between two models inan interving unit. Since half or more are in cover then both units get a cover save.

However the moment you pull models from the back or front, this house of cards crumbles (and why you'd need atleast 2 rows, if not more to get this to work). That is why it is usually adviocated for orks and such and not other smaller units.

In other words, if intervening and interlacing were the same thing, then why the need to diagram the two physically different situations? It's because in their hearts they know it's absurd and not neccessarily the same thing. Their gut tells them there's something wrong with it and they're right as to anyone looking at the two following diagrams you're looking at too very different situations:

This is not a rules argument.

And I never stated that intervening can't be interlacing/intermingling, etc. But interlacing/intermingling is an additional and very obvious physical situation beyond merely intervening between two points.

This is a concession. Just because I have a square, doesn't mean I don't still have a rectangle.

People diagram the scenario because it is a quasi-absurdity that was immediately apparent to multiple people on reading the LoS rules, and yet GW seemed to miss it. It is, in fact, the EXACT SAME formation that came up in 4th ed as an "unassaultable" formation, owing to the wording of resolving charging multiple units.

MajerBlundor wrote:

Stelek wrote:Sigh. More wordhammer.

http://www.english-for-students.com/inter.html

Your epic failure is almost complete.

Argue more wordhammer, see where it gets you.

As your link above shows, the word intervene means "between". The term "intervening unit" means one unit is between two other units.

It does not mean two units are intermixed/intermingled/interlaced all of which means the two units are sharing a common space.

Equally imporant, I'll have to apply the LogicHammer to you. Massed targets are easier targets.

It's absolutely absurd to believe that because two units of 12 models each are mixed together they're a harder target by a factor of 50% than a single unit of 24 models occupying precisely the same positions.

Instead of pithy (and terribly weak) internet drivel like "X-hammer" you might consider explaing your position that two intermixed units each of 12 models are a harder target than the same models in organized into a single unit and occupying precisely the same positions.

Also explain why you think that the authors intended this absurd conclusion and, if they didn't intend this situation, explain why you think this position makes for a better game.

There are a couple problems with your argument on this issue.
I honestly doubt I'll convince you, so this is aimed at those who don't know any better and took you at your word.

First off, intervene's definition, as referenced by Stelek, does NOT say that intervene means "between."

19. Intervene : INTER vene (int er vene’) v.

Come between; interfere

That is the full text, pasted from the link Stelek provided.

If you intermingle 2 units, do members of one unit come between the firing unit and more than half of its' target? Most certainly.
Would that, then, interfere with their accuracy? Absolutely.

The problem we have here is that, per your own post, you're talking Theoryhammer.
Theoryhammer doesn't always work. Heck, it doesn't even USUALLY work.
You're applying "real world" logistics to a game with rules that, in many cases, defy those logistics.

For example, you talk about how massed targets are easier targets. Not in 40K, unless you're using a blast or template weapon.
In real life, both of the intermingled units would be cut to shreds by the incoming fire.
In the game, as only one can be targeted, only 1 can be cut to shreds, making the other - for this purpose- untouchable. If they're untouchable, then they definitely interfere with the shooting unit's accuracy.

You're trying to play 40K according to the rules of real-world facts... We're playing by the rules in the books.

Now, personally, I don't care for the rule as written. I think that, if a unit is giving a cover save to another unit, the "shielding" unit should have to make an appropriate save (armor, Invul., or cover) vs. every shot that the target unit saved (with a cover save)
Of coure, that is just my OPINION.

MajerBlundor wrote:Their gut tells them there's something wrong with it and they're right as to anyone looking at the two following diagrams you're looking at too very different situations:

It doesn't matter what my gut tells me is or isn't right. What matters are the rules and the RAW support the very situation yo are arguing against.
The fact of the matter is that I don't like the rule at ALL. I would prefer not to even game with it because I think it causes more headache than it's worth (therefore, being WRONG)... but that doesn't make me argue against it.



Eric

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).

Have fun hammering each other.

Bye.