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.

I agree with the interpretation of the OP

When are 2 units ever interlaced anyways? If a majority of the models from the firing unit can see a majority of the models in the target unit without looking through an intervening unit (so looking over the top or to the left and the right) then they get no save. If however, some part of the above conditions are not met (minority to majority, majority to minority, has to shoot between gaps in an intervening unity) then yes, the target unit gets a 4+ cover save.

brado wrote:When are 2 units ever interlaced anyways? If a majority of the models from the firing unit can see a majority of the models in the target unit without looking through an intervening unit (so looking over the top or to the left and the right) then they get no save. If however, some part of the above conditions are not met (minority to majority, majority to minority, has to shoot between gaps in an intervening unity) then yes, the target unit gets a 4+ cover save.

All of the related diagrams show the models of two units clearly interlaced/intermingled/intermixed with one another. The authors and commentators in those threads then claim that BOTH units receive a 4+ cover save.

Intervening unit means just that. The intervening unit is between the shooting unit and the target unit. A unit can't intervene between a shooter and a target if the unit is ALSO intermingled, intermixed, or interlaced with the target. Effectively they're occupying the same general area of ground at that point.

As a simple matter of english "intervening" means to be located between to things, in this case between two units. To be intermixed/interlaced/intermixed is not that same thing as intervening.

The only way one could say that two intermixed units confer 4+ saving throws on one another is to completely ignore the RAW (there's no interpretation here, the rules are clear) and to ignore plain 'ole common sense (in other words, to cheat and to be a bad sport.).

Ah, wordhammer.

You fail.

... you seriously posted this in two different forums? What, you couldn't decide and didn't have a quarter to toss up, so you picked both?

Personally think the OP is wrong in this scenario, but I promised I wouldn't get into anymore debates based on a single word.

For all those having a hard time imagining the scene.

Funny to see someone with english as native languange miss read so totally.

Stelek wrote:Ah, wordhammer.

You fail.

Nope. Simple common sense and even rudimentary knowledge of english will lead one to conclude that it's just plain silly to insist that two units mobbed together in the open are a more difficult target and that both the RAW and the spirit of the rules mean anything else.

Now, if one is completely disconnected from common sense, lacks a sense of fair play, and is ignorant of the meaning of the term "intervening unit", then I suppose one could claim a 4+ cover save for a huge mob of figures in the open. But odds are you'll get to do that once and only once for lack of opponents.

MajerBlundor wrote:

Stelek wrote:Ah, wordhammer.

You fail.

Nope. Simple common sense and even rudimentary knowledge of english will lead one to conclude that it's just plain silly to insist that two units mobbed together in the open are a more difficult target and that both the RAW and the spirit of the rules mean anything else.

Now, if one is completely disconnected from common sense, lacks a sense of fair play, and is ignorant of the meaning of the term "intervening unit", then I suppose one could claim a 4+ cover save for a huge mob of figures in the open. But odds are you'll get to do that once and only once for lack of opponents.

I don't know if saying that is exactly fair. Most people in the game do play based on fair play and don't just looked to screw the guy next to him. You have to understand that people are of different opinions and you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone of your "logic". Give your $.02 US and move on.

In this little gem of a debate, we were arguing the intent with the word "within". Yeah, ended with no one agreeing.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/206330.page

Kallbrand wrote:Funny to see someone with english as native languange miss read so totally.

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.

Now, if one is completely disconnected from common sense, lacks a sense of fair play, and is ignorant of the meaning of the term "intervening unit", then I suppose one could claim a 4+ cover save for a huge mob of figures in the open.

What makes you think that a game involving giant green space creatures with axes, 7' tall castrated men in near impervious body armor that spit acid, and, oh christ, pick any other facet of the game... what makes you think that "common sense", "fair play" or anything else determines exactly how the rules work? The rules could say "Space marines get an extra attack at the end of close combat as they spit acid into their enemie's faces." It would be silly from a fluff standpoint, as they would have to take off their helmets, but apparently all the Sgt's and characters have their helmets off anyway, which is also slowed.

Rules are written to make the game fun and reflect reality, or at least versimlitude. It should be abundantly obvious that 40k's rules writers are not 100% at doing either.
It should further be abundantly obvious that maybe they see "fair" and "common sense" differently than you do.

DaBoss wrote:

MajerBlundor wrote:

Stelek wrote:Ah, wordhammer.

You fail.

Nope. Simple common sense and even rudimentary knowledge of english will lead one to conclude that it's just plain silly to insist that two units mobbed together in the open are a more difficult target and that both the RAW and the spirit of the rules mean anything else.

Now, if one is completely disconnected from common sense, lacks a sense of fair play, and is ignorant of the meaning of the term "intervening unit", then I suppose one could claim a 4+ cover save for a huge mob of figures in the open. But odds are you'll get to do that once and only once for lack of opponents.

I don't know if saying that is exactly fair. Most people in the game do play based on fair play and don't just looked to screw the guy next to him. You have to understand that people are of different opinions and you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone of your "logic". Give your $.02 US and move on.

I understand what you're saying. I guess I was replying to the posts that fail to cite specific problems with my conclusion. If it's wrong, where is it wrong? The conventional wisdom that somehow by mixing up two units confers a 4+ save on both is seriously flawed from a common sense perspective and I was prepared that the authors really messed up. But then I actually read the rule and it's clear that those advocating for the counter-intuitive 4+ save for two massed/intermixed units are ignoring both the letter and the spirit of the rules and are doing so to the detriment of the community. In other words, it would really s*ck for the community if players twist the rules into an absurd and counter-intuitive situation.

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.

Hey Da Boss!

I don't agree with your conclusion because you're reading the rules selectively by leaving out the rule you originally cited. But let's ignore that for a moment and assume that everything you write below is 100% correct and that the other rule about "intervening unit" doesn't exist. Things get really complicated then.

For example, by ignoring the "intervening unit" rule and only implementing the rule you cite below ("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") then the entire game system has moved to a much greater level of detail! No longer are units firing at units but now you're adjudicating LOS between individual models only. That's a huge shift in detail and more importantly, you're going to have gamers getting down to eyeball potential LOS for every model in a shooting squad against every model in a target squad. Do you really believe that's what was intended? 40K is then no longer a unit vs unit game but is now a skirmish level figure vs figure game.

I don't think so and I believe that's why rules such as the "intervening unit" rule make sense. The game is conducting in general at one level above man-for-man skirmish even if terrain is now being down by model LOS. In other words, I would recommend thinking of a unit as a block of terrain that you can shoot through or around. If that amorphous terrain feature is intervening between two units by at least 50% then the target gets a 4+ save.

As for the real world having nothing to do with table top gaming, I would disagree with that. Yes, we have Orks and Guass Weapons in 40K. But in general there's also an internal logic to the game. Blast weapons use burst templates. Infantry such as IG move slower than speedy grav bikes. A guy armed only with a rifle isn't going to kill the heaviest tank 60" across the table.

BTW...love your diagram! Well done! In fact, from a common sense perspective, if you were to show that to anyone with a modicum of military history knowledge (eg the GW staff has extensive military history knowledge) they would say that's a pretty easy massed target. When told that instead of being an easier target the 40K rules make this a tougher target they would most certainly express surprise and dismiss the rules as just plain silly and counter-intuitive.

I suppose that's another way to look at this situation. To believe that the GW staff, with their immense knowledge of military history, intended such a formation to be a more difficult target is a bit of an insult to the GW staff. Their rules may not always be clear, but they're not stupid and this is not an issue of "fluff".

MB

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.

I do fully agree with this bit given how GW describes the shooting process. Two units shooting while mixed up might increase the chances of fratricide since they're not used to working together. This provides a reasonable incentive to maintain unit integrity which makes perfect sense.

MajerBlundor:

Please indicate why "intervening" must mean the WHOLE unit is intervening, and not just part of the unit (which is the case in the diagrams)

You keep arguing based on real-life and "that does not make sense". I completely agree that getting a cover save for interleaving your units is stupid. But you need to argue on a game-rule basis, not on a "this makes no sense" basis.

Your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that "intervening" must mean 100% between and not just partially between or part of the unit between. Why in the world does intervening have to mean the whole unit, instead of just part of it?

MajerBlundor wrote:
I don't think so and I believe that's why rules such as the "intervening unit" rule make sense. The game is conducting in general at one level above man-for-man skirmish even if terrain is now being down by model LOS. In other words, I would recommend thinking of a unit as a block of terrain that you can shoot through or around. If that amorphous terrain feature is intervening between two units by at least 50% then the target gets a 4+ save.

Units as a block of terrain? What is the basis of you saying this? As you requested, cite me some pages. If you begin to change the way you perceive the rules and intermix them with totally unrelated aspects, no wonder you seems to be a bit confused. Except for the words "intervening unit", every rule I have stated uses the words "models", which means that you are functioning based on LOS from models and not units as a whole. And, as lambadomy stated above, Intervening doesn't necessarily need to mean completely intervening, but simply in the way or in front of, in any respect. In this case, its stating the obvious fact that the models gaps which would provide the fire need to be in front of the models which are firing. While units function to unify models into distinct groups, every rule example I've cited uses the word "model".

On a side note, if you are perceiving each unit as a block of terrain, then they would be area terrain. Last I checked, occupying area terrain gives a cover save. Even though I completely disagree with your logic about units being dealt with as terrain, your argument using it is still flawed.

MajerBlundor wrote:
I suppose that's another way to look at this situation. To believe that the GW staff, with their immense knowledge of military history, intended such a formation to be a more difficult target is a bit of an insult to the GW staff. Their rules may not always be clear, but they're not stupid and this is not an issue of "fluff".

First off, the GW staff deserves to be insulted in the worst way at times. 5th edition is about the only good thing they have put out in years, and even that's debatable. Not an issue of fluff? I entirely agree. SM are ultra genetically engineered super soldiers, but sure don't seem to be on the table. That's because fluff doesn't always equal balance and rules. I'm sure the GW staff were not studying Patton and Rommel when they were developing the rules, and any "real world thinking" fluff has no place on the table top. To stop the game and debate a rule based solely on the argument that it doesn't make sense in a "real world" perspective is to invite all kinds of trouble which will ultimately be countered, and very rightly so, by the rules. Rules are rules and you can't get passed them or argue your way through them no matter how little they make sense.

lambadomy wrote:MajerBlunder:

Please indicate why "intervening" must mean the WHOLE unit is intervening, and not just part of the unit (which is the case in the diagrams)

You keep arguing based on real-life and "that does not make sense". I completely agree that getting a cover save for interleaving your units is stupid. But you need to argue on a game-rule basis, not on a "this makes no sense" basis.

Your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that "intervening" must mean 100% between and not just partially between or part of the unit between. Why in the world does intervening have to mean the whole unit, instead of just part of it?

No, not 100%. The rules say at least 50%.

Example A (S = Shooter, I = Intervening Unit, T = Target Unit)

S S S S S S S S

I I I I I

T T T T T T T T

The issue is that the Intervening Unit (I) doesn't block LOS to the Target Unit (T) since the models are assumed to be in motion and you can see between them. But, because it does partially obscure T by at least 50% when you consider the boundries of the units involved, the target unit gets a 4+ cover save. Again, to Da Boss's comment, this is why the "intervening unit" rule must be considered in conjunction with the other LOS rules.


Example B

........S S S S S S S S

I I I I I

........T T T T T T T T

In example B something less than 50% of T is obscured when considering the boundry of I. Thus, T would not get the 4+ cover save. Again, I think the easiest thing to do is imagine a line that follows the perimiter/contour of each unit since the RAW clearly states intervening unit and not JUST intervening models. I would fully agree with Da Boss's conclusion if not for this qualifier which the authors deliberately included (in other words I don't think the "intervening unit" rule was included by accident!).

So, my conclusion is not just based on "common sense", but also on the COMPLETE rules as written, and the spirit of GW's new approach as described in the latest WD.

It's still a judgement call as to precisely when 50% of a target is obscured as we're dealing with miniautres and not a hex map or square grid. But outside of that one issue (which rules lawyers can resolve with a ruler) it's pretty clear this is what the RAW and GW means.

I think people are upset that a potential glitch is not what they thought it was. The erroneous glitch quich became conventional wisdom and it's hard to give up something so devastating! And I write that as a proud owner of a pure assault Nid army! Of all players I would massively benefit from a transportable 4+ cover save for my pure assault army. But it's just not how the rules are worded.

MB

You're making absolutely no sense. Don't start assuming people are upset because they're losing their uberpower in the light of your amazing analysis. I play tau.

You completely ignored my question. We all know that

S S S S S S S S S

I I I I I

T T T T T T T T T T

is not intervening. Too little of I is in between T and S. We understand the rules in this regard.

Why in the world is THIS case not considered intervening for both units?

T I T I T I T I T I

I T I T I T I T I T

T I T I T I T I T I


S S S S S S S S S

More than half of squad S is behind (part) of squad I. More than half of squad I is behind (part) of squad S. PART of each squad is INTERVENING, and more than half of each squad is, to make up a word for fun, "intervened".

Intervening does not mean "completely in between with no possible overlap and each guy has to be behind more than half of the intervening squad". It just doesn't. It just means, simply, "standing between".

There is no way to say that I is not standing between T and S. There is no way to say that T is not standing between I and S. Maybe you can say that not enough of I is "intervening" but there is no rule to cover that. How about this case:

I I I I I I
T T
I I

S

Is I not intervening between S and T because 75% of the squad is behind T? If so, WHY?

Squads do not have magic line borders and act like terrain pieces. The only rule that matters is the "intervening" part and the "more than 50%" part, both of which are obviously covered in each example.

lambadomy, you can't win. He wants a big troll fight, thus the double threads.

Squads with magic line borders...man I can see it now.

This debate was originally based upon the argument if interwoven or interlaced units, such as in my diagram, benefit from a cover save. Your two examples do not illustrate this at all. You are simply making a diagram of an already certain conclusion.

Stelek wrote:lambadomy, you can't win. He wants a big troll fight, thus the double threads.

Squads with magic line borders...man I can see it now.

My thoughts exactly. I'm out.

DaBoss wrote: Except for the words "intervening unit",

That's the point. The words are there, they're part of the rules. Saying "except for" is meaningless. Just because you may not agree with their effect doesn't mean you can throw them out.

re: the terrain analogy, it was just that, an analogy but one based on how GW has treated LOS and units for years (have played since Rogue Trader), GW's description of their new shooting concepts, and is in keeping with GW's new "common sense" approach to rules issues.

I think that at this point the discussion is sort of pointless. You can't just dump inconvenient words that actually appear in the rules and which have very specific meaning, GW's very explicit new approach to rules design/writing, and common sense.

But if a player insists on ignoring inconvenient words that actually appear in the rules and GW's VERY explicit explanation of its new rules writing approach all in an effort to derive an in-game advantage based on what everyone says is an absurd premise (that massed targets in the open are more difficult targets), then we're through the looking glass.

Personally, I can't imagine trying to derive such an unsporting and counter-intuitive advantage based on such an absurd premise and a selective reading of the rules, but there are players who would try that sort of thing. I really don't see it working though as I think most gamers tolerate such nonsense.

MB

The whole damn rule should be binned and replaced by:
Roll to hit as normal, then on a 4+ you hit the target unit and lower will hit the " intervening" unit.

Dude,

it does not matter what GW did for years

it does not matter what seems logical

It does not matter if it is counter-intuitive

it does not matter whether or not it is fair or sporting or super lame

it does not matter if you SAY we're dumping inconvenient words when we're obviously not and just BEGGING for you to find a way to define "intervening" to mean "completely between, not ever in any way just partially between"

You're basically talking about yourself when you say "The words are there, they're part of the rules" and "Just because you may not agree with their effect doesn't mean you can throw them out". You are throwing out the true meaning of intervening and assuming that interspersed cannot also be intervening, when it quite obviously can.

And yes, Stelek, I know he's a troll, I just can't help myself and arguing on the internet is preferable to work right now.

Martndemus wrote:The whole damn rule should be binned and replaced by:
Roll to hit as normal, then on a 4+ you hit the target unit and lower will hit the " intervening" unit.

And what if there are two units in the way of the target unit? See the complications that can arise? That's why it is the way it is.

lambadomy wrote:You're making absolutely no sense. Don't start assuming people are upset because they're losing their uberpower in the light of your amazing analysis. I play tau.

You completely ignored my question. We all know that

S S S S S S S S S

I I I I I

T T T T T T T T T T

is not intervening. Too little of I is in between T and S. We understand the rules in this regard.

Why in the world is THIS case not considered intervening for both units?

T I T I T I T I T I

I T I T I T I T I T

T I T I T I T I T I


S S S S S S S S S

Simple. By definition of the term "intervening unit", common sense, and the spirit of the rules (I) is no longer intervening between S and T since it's now interixed with T. It really is that simple.

A unit can't intervene between two other units if it's physically mixed up with one of the units, thereby occupying essentially the same area. If you doubt that, gather a large number of friends, some paintball guns, and test the premise.

I guess the most important question is this: what sort of gamer would want to try to twist the rules and ignore common sense to pull this tactic against a fellow gamer? Is that the sort of gamers GW had in mind when they implemented their new approach to rules writing?

In fact, in the new WD they made an explicit plea for gamers to be more reasonable in light of their looser approach. When I read that article my first thought was that it would fail and these threads seem to support that conclusion. Gamers will seek the slightest advantage, no matter how absurd and no matter how much rules twisting is required, both from a "letter of the rules" perspective and a "spirit of the rules" perspective.

MB

DaBoss wrote:

Martndemus wrote:The whole damn rule should be binned and replaced by:
Roll to hit as normal, then on a 4+ you hit the target unit and lower will hit the " intervening" unit.

And what if there are two units in the way of the target unit? See the complications that can arise? That's why it is the way it is.

Well 2 units intervening will be rare but yess it could be possible

Then just:
4+ target unit, Lower dice of between intervening units.

I disagree with the OP. I think it makes perfect sense for two units to give cover to each other.

example:
Take a big group of people and divide them in half. Give one group red hats and the other blue hats. Now have them intermix evenly. Now grab a rifle and stand about 1000m away from them. Okay now, open fire but only shoot the guys with the red hats. Hey, some of those guys in the blue hats are getting in the way making it harder for me to pick out the guys in red hats. I guess the red hat guys are getting a cover saves from the blue hat guys?

Now switch targets and only shoot the blue hat guys. Hey, same thing.

It's basic logic. If you ask me, saying that it is just as easy to selectivly shoot one group of targets when they are intermixed with another group of targets (as opposed to being in the open on their own) is crazy and flies in the face of logic.

Now if it was real life, you'd just open fire on the lot and you'd kill roughly an even number of redt and blue hat guys. It would probably be easier to score hits too since the target as a whole is bigger now (2x the size of a single group). However, in the game a unit can only shoot at a single enemy target.

Another way to think of the difference (between the game and real life) is that when you miss one squad you don't hit the other squad.

If I'm hiding in the rocks and you shoot at me, it's obvious I'll get a cover save. What that represents (among other things) is some of your shoots are going to hit the rocks and not me. Now we don't track the damage thats done to the rocks, because frankly - we don't care. The rocks are unlikely to be totallly destroyed anyway. However, when I'm hiding in or behind another group of men and you shoot at me, once again I get a cover save, but what happens to the shots that hit me but fail to wound me (because I made my cover saves)? Shouldn't they hit the other unit? Shouldn't some of the guys in the unit I'm hiding behind die instead? Logic says yes. GW says no.

I think this discrepancy is the crux of the matter. It's why hiding behind (or among) another units "feels" a bit off. However, it's perfectly gamable though and I don't think it's that big of a disconnect. I'm sure GW thought long and hard about having failed cover saves cause casualties in the intervening unit. In the end they decided not to go down that route. Time will tell if they made the right choice.

holden88 wrote:I disagree with the OP. I think it makes perfect sense for two units to give cover to each other.

example:
Take a big group of people and divide them in half. Give one group red hats and the other blue hats. Now have them intermix evenly. Now grab a rifle and stand about 1000m away from them. Okay now, open fire but only shoot the guys with the red hats. Hey, some of those guys in the blue hats are getting in the way making it harder for me to pick out the guys in red hats. I guess the red hat guys are getting a cover saves from the blue hat guys?

Now switch targets and only shoot the blue hat guys. Hey, same thing.

It's basic logic. If you ask me, saying that it is just as easy to selectivly shoot one group of targets when they are intermixed with another group of targets (as opposed to being in the open on their own) is crazy and flies in the face of logic.

Now if it was real life, you'd just open fire on the lot and you'd kill roughly an even number of redt and blue hat guys. It would probably be easier to score hits too since the target as a whole is bigger now (2x the size of a single group). However, in the game a unit can only shoot at a single enemy target.

Another way to think of the difference (between the game and real life) is that when you miss one squad you don't hit the other squad.

If I'm hiding in the rocks and you shoot at me, it's obvious I'll get a cover save. What that represents (among other things) is some of your shoots are going to hit the rocks and not me. Now we don't track the damage thats done to the rocks, because frankly - we don't care. The rocks are unlikely to be totallly destroyed anyway. However, when I'm hiding in or behind another group of men and you shoot at me, once again I get a cover save, but what happens to the shots that hit me but fail to wound me (because I made my cover saves)? Shouldn't they hit the other unit? Shouldn't some of the guys in the unit I'm hiding behind die instead? Logic says yes. GW says no.

I think this discrepancy is the crux of the matter. It's why hiding behind (or among) another units "feels" a bit off. However, it's perfectly gamable though and I don't think it's that big of a disconnect. I'm sure GW thought long and hard about having failed cover saves cause casualties in the intervening unit. In the end they decided not to go down that route. Time will tell if they made the right choice.

What if you roll a 5 and pass the cover save...
Where did the bullet, rocket, shuriken, laserbeam go? Into a big black hole?
No it did hit your other unit...But the massive rocket/bullet doesnt kill em anymore... How odd