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.

- "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." (Firing through units or area terrain, p.22)

- "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." (Units partially in cover, p.22)


In this example, Ork Mobs #1 and #2 receive a 4+ cover save from the Space Marine squad, even though the Orks mobs are in the open. IN THE OPEN! Now imagine multiple 30 Ork mobs moving in the same formation -scary!



If my reading of the cover save rules is correct, then just about any unit in the open can now give itself a 4+ cover save so long as there is another unit to intermix itself with.

Of course this makes both units more vulnerable to blast templates but not all opponents field such weapons, and if they do, not that many. Moreover, if the target units have low armor saves, then the few extra casualties that they may take from blast templates will be more than made up for by the cover saves made against non-blast weapons (e.g. bolters, heavy bolters, auto-cannons, etc.) -the kinds of weapons that make up the vast majority of the shooting in 40K.

Large, inexpensive, fearless units like Ork Boyz and Gaunts are going to benefit from this rule the most.

So much for the new Shooting rules being more "cinematic." Unless of course by "cinematic," Jervis had in mind the 80's TV series 'The A-Team'. A ridiculous show in which hundreds of rounds were expended in every episode and nobody was ever hit.

I am sorry but hasnt this been discussed in several different threads allready?

koyote wrote:

If my reading of the cover save rules is correct, then just about any unit in the open can now give itself a 4+ cover save so long as there is another unit to intermix itself with.

Of course this makes both units more vulnerable to blast templates but not all opponents field such weapons, and if they do, not that many. Moreover, if the target units have low armor saves, then the few extra casualties that they may take from blast templates will be more than made up for by the cover saves made against non-blast weapons (e.g. bolters, heavy bolters, auto-cannons, etc.) -the kinds of weapons that make up the vast majority of the shooting in 40K.

Large, inexpensive, fearless units like Ork Boyz and Gaunts are going to benefit from this rule the most.

So much for the new Shooting rules being more "cinematic." Unless of course by "cinematic," Jervis had in mind the 80's TV series 'The A-Team'. A ridiculous show in which hundreds of rounds were expended in every episode and nobody was ever hit.

Yes, this has already been "discovered" and discussed, although I do really like your diagram picture and I will (with your permission) steal it for the next version of the INAT FAQ I put out.

One thing to remember about this 'tactic' is that models can't move through friendly models or gaps between friendly models that are too small for their base to fit through. That means moving such a formation requires an open piece of table (the larger the units the larger an area you need). Once you get into any tight situations with terrain or vehicles, it can be difficult to move intermingled units as you have to move all the models from one unit first before moving the models from the other unit.

Second, if the intermingled units have any sort of shooting themselves this formation will give cover saves to the enemy when they fire.

Third, there are weapons which will make opponent's pay for using such a formation: Hellhounds, those firebomb Whirlwind shells that ignore cover and Airbursting Fragmentation Projectors on Tau to name some of them.

Fourth, this clearly a loophole in the rules and I wouldn't be surprised to see tournaments (at least) rule against such a formation.


Finally, if there exists a loophole in the rules that the designers didn't see, does that mean the designers are wrong when they said they tried to make the game more cinematic?

yakface wrote:...although I do really like your diagram picture and I will (with your permission) steal it for the next version of the INAT FAQ I put out.

Yes, you may.

yakface wrote:Finally, if there exists a loophole in the rules that the designers didn't see, does that mean the designers are wrong when they said they tried to make the game more cinematic?

It seems like a pretty obvious loophole to me, so I am not going to give the game designers much credit for efforts. It is my opinon that GW's obsession with secrecy during the game design/testing process seems to be interfere with their ability to make a quality product. They have too few eyes looking at their publications prior to release.

I just cannot wait to punish people for using it with hellhounds or flamers. These guys are going to be packed on top of one another, and the end result is going to be hilarity. Also, considering how units have to move, I wonder how the formation can move diagonally?

Besides that, one piece of difficult terrain will end this. As will diving a sentinel or a throwaway squad into the first rank. It will only work on bowling ball land, so is really not much of a threat. It's potential is a lot like Lash of Submission, in that a lot of people freaked out over it, but it hasn't destroyed the game as was predicted.

Another thing to consider is that varied 'run' rolls can screw this formation over too.

By the RAW you should be rolling for your run moves one unit at a time, moving the unit and then rolling for the next unit, etc.

Say you roll a '6' for one of the intermixed units. If you move the unit its full 6 inches and then roll a '1' for the other unit, you stand a decent chance of running yourself out of more than half the models being intermixed anymore.


In reality, I just don't think we'll see too many people using this formation. In the previous edition of the game players were able to run intermixed units in an 'unassaultable' formation, yet I never encountered a single person who actually tried to use this tactic.

I suspect this situation will ultimately prove to be very similar.

I agree with yak. It's a very internet-y problem that will probably be a lot of trouble in real practice of model moving.

Guess that depends on how hardball your opponents play. The anti-assult crap was pretty common for a while, altho it was a bit easier to do.

good pic koyote. how about we just use this formation at the depolyment ,for the army like orks or tyranids if your enemy has the frist turn ,this formation will have some effects.

my thoughts exactly, in regards to a safety net in the 1st turn.

ED209 wrote:good pic koyote. how about we just use this formation at the depolyment ,for the army like orks or tyranids if your enemy has the frist turn ,this formation will have some effects.

Nah, because then when you do move you end up having all your troops intermingled and will likely end up giving up most your first turn’s movement trying to restore your units into workable formations.

It’ll be used by units that don’t intend on moving, who’ll stand still and shoot. They’ll be giving up a cover save to the enemy for firing through their own troops, but in some situations you won’t care about that (because the target is in cover anyway or because you’re firing heavy bolters at power armoured troops).

The idea is pretty limited in it’s possible applications.

This formation would be very easy to manuver out of after first turn. No reason why a player who knows what they are doing would get "tangled" or waste any distance.

I think Ed209 has the best use for this rules feature.

Democratus wrote:This formation would be very easy to manuver out of after first turn. No reason why a player who knows what they are doing would get "tangled" or waste any distance.

I think Ed209 has the best use for this rules feature.

Not really, no. The game is full of units that plonk themselves in the open areas of the board, and play an important role by either killing a pile of enemy troops or denying them large sections of the board. This is what devastators do for a living.

There’s always the option to out manoeuvre these units, but that was just as viable in fourth (actually more viable as you could block LOS easier), yet stand and shoot units were extremely popular. It comes down to your ability to position your stand and shoot units in effective areas and cover their blind spots with supporting units.

The option is only stronger now, as you can put two stand and shoot units together and give each a 4+ save.



I said earlier that ed209’s idea sounds wonderful until you move, which is kind of a core idea with assault troops. But you just repeated support for the idea without explaining how you manage to untangle the two units on the first turn, just saying a player would 'know what they're doing'. Exactly what is that?

If a player can't look at that formation and see how easy it is to move then they really need to brush up on their basic skills. Get some dimes and pennies and place them on a table and practice a bit. After a while the methods for legal and unhindered movement become clear.

None of the units are hindered in forward movement as none have models from another unit in front of them. Further, this same staggering can apply to latteral movement as well. This allows a great freedom of overall movement from both units allowing them to always get their full movement in whatever direction desired without any issues from being tangled by their partner unit.

This is a really bondeheaded rule. How can one justify giving a unit a 4+ save simply because it's interlaced with another unit? If anything it should be EASIER to hit such dense mobs rather than more difficult.

What's especially disppointing about the exploit/glitch described in the first post is that if you had that exact same number of models in a single unit, the unit would not receive a 4+ save. Simply because the models are organized into two different units they magically receive a 4+ cover save.

Any opinions on the point of this rule from a game design perspective? What was GW thinking?

If no models in the unit have models from the other unit in front of them, then an enemy unit directly facing them will be able to draw a direct line to each model in the unit, avoiding the cover save and defeating the whole purpose of mixing the two units together. Instead, the options are to deploy the unit with mixed units in the front or deploying them so that the lines of each of the units is in a diagonal - facing a point the enemy is unlikely or unable to deploy in.

Mixing troops within the unit makes it very hard to untangle. If you put the pennies away and try this with minis while ensuring coherency you realise how difficult this is.

If you form the two units in lines you need to ensure the lines are pointing towards a position the enemy will not or can not deploy in. While this is possible, it starts looking like a possible situational benefit, one of the limited possible applications I mentioned up above.

Democratus wrote:If a player can't look at that formation and see how easy it is to move then they really need to brush up on their basic skills. Get some dimes and pennies and place them on a table and practice a bit. After a while the methods for legal and unhindered movement become clear.

None of the units are hindered in forward movement as none have models from another unit in front of them. Further, this same staggering can apply to latteral movement as well. This allows a great freedom of overall movement from both units allowing them to always get their full movement in whatever direction desired without any issues from being tangled by their partner unit.

In the 3rd ed 40K GW had a rule that enemy minis blocked LOS. This mean people put heavy weapons teams behind line units. It worked alright in terms of giving heavy units a role (killing things) and line units a role (standing in the front getting shot protecting the valuable heavy units). But it also encouraged people to form these block and column formations, that looked really silly from the POV of real battlefield tactics. The idea in battle is to avoid having your LOS compromised by your own troops.

In 4th ed GW tried to fix this by going to the target priority rule. Which was a reasonable concept, but in 40K it's pretty rare you see a unit fail a LD check. People didn't often bother to screen troops because it was so rare that the other side would fail the LD check.

This problem was rolled up with the true LOS idea, and so we got the solution that troops don't block LOS, but they do give a cover save. It's an improvement on 3rd ed because the disadvantage works both ways - friendly units standing in front give the other side a save as well. It's an improvement on 4th ed because the rule actually does something. It's got this exploit in it though, but I doubt it'll be as relevant as some people are saying. Remember that your own troops firing out will have their LOS covered, and manouvring two intermingled units will be difficult.

Never mind. The tactic described above is not legal after all.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/214181.page

sebster wrote:If no models in the unit have models from the other unit in front of them, then an enemy unit directly facing them will be able to draw a direct line to each model in the unit, avoiding the cover save and defeating the whole purpose of mixing the two units together.

It quotes in the OP that if your enemy has to draw line of sight between intervening models or terrain the unit being fired upon is in cover. Even if they are completely visible.

Apone wrote:

sebster wrote:If no models in the unit have models from the other unit in front of them, then an enemy unit directly facing them will be able to draw a direct line to each model in the unit, avoiding the cover save and defeating the whole purpose of mixing the two units together.

It quotes in the OP that if your enemy has to draw line of sight between intervening models or terrain the unit being fired upon is in cover. Even if they are completely visible.

No it doesn't. The OP and RAW uses the term intervening unit, not intervening models. Nor does it say intermixed or interleved or interlaced units.

koyote wrote:- "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." (Firing through units or area terrain, p.22)

- "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." (Units partially in cover, p.22)


If my reading of the cover save rules is correct, then just about any unit in the open can now give itself a 4+ cover save so long as there is another unit to intermix itself with.

Of course this makes both units more vulnerable to blast templates but not all opponents field such weapons, and if they do, not that many. Moreover, if the target units have low armor saves, then the few extra casualties that they may take from blast templates will be more than made up for by the cover saves made against non-blast weapons (e.g. bolters, heavy bolters, auto-cannons, etc.) -the kinds of weapons that make up the vast majority of the shooting in 40K.

Large, inexpensive, fearless units like Ork Boyz and Gaunts are going to benefit from this rule the most.

So much for the new Shooting rules being more "cinematic." Unless of course by "cinematic," Jervis had in mind the 80's TV series 'The A-Team'. A ridiculous show in which hundreds of rounds were expended in every episode and nobody was ever hit.

In Bold for you.

You're ignoring the phrase "in an intervening unit".

The RAW does not say "gaps between models" period, full stop, end of story. The RAW include the phrase "in an intervening unit". You need use the full rule, not just bits and pieces!

Apone wrote:It quotes in the OP that if your enemy has to draw line of sight between intervening models or terrain the unit being fired upon is in cover. Even if they are completely visible.

Well, yeah, getting your opponent to draw LOS through your models is kind of the idea of the thread. But now go back and read Democratus' argument. He suggests placing units so that that no model from the other unit is directly in front of them - at which point an enemy directly in front of them will have a view unhindered by the alternate unit - defeating the whole purpose.




Majer Blunder - fair point on the rule itself. I doubt it'll satisfy people that really want to gain the save from intermixing troops, but it'll give GW an out when they FAQ this.


Edited because I got everybody's name wrong. Sorry for the mess up.

This thread is awesome!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/214208.page

related poll in rules section.

@Majerblundor, you seem very emotionally attached to this topic. Why?

And the poll have zero relevance on the discussion of the rules validity.

Did I vote that I would change the rule? Yes.

Is the tactic of mutual coversave legal? Yes.

See? The poll have zero relevance.

Wow, yet another post on this topic! I actually signed up to Dakka because of these humorous posts on this subject.

Not all of the rules are being considered in this discussion, turn back a page in the rulebook (page 21). The 4+ cover save is granted as if behind terrain not as if within area terrain. It also explains that intervening enemy models do not stop the shots, but rather the firers are distracted by the more immediate threat (that is, the closer unit). With the interlaced model above, there is no closer unit.

It will definitely be hard to keep such a woven unit sorted out. In the unlikely case that I actually see this on the field, just try to extricate the tangled mess when I roll a fast tank shock into it and you have to move out of the way by the minimum distance possible!

MajerBlundor wrote:You're ignoring the phrase "in an intervening unit".

The RAW does not say "gaps between models" period, full stop, end of story. The RAW include the phrase "in an intervening unit". You need use the full rule, not just bits and pieces!

An interlaced unit is intervening.