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.

First off, this is not a thread about the intermixed unit cover save thing. Yes, this has an impact on how that would work but it is not an attempt to discuss that pariah in yet another thread. Infact I personally am going to refrain from discussing how this impacts that other topic.

However looking at that issue got me thinking about how that particular cover exception should be played.

The main issue as I see it is this sentence (emphasis mine)

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 visible to the firer.

Perhaps I am reading too much into the use of the word through, but it seems to me that the shot may have to clear the gap in order for a cover save to be granted.

eg

F F F F F F F

A B A B A B A
If the models in target units A and B are side by side, then the B models could not claim a cover save simply from being in the gaps of A. The shot has to go through the gap itself and even if A was sligtly ahead of B it wouldn't be enough for most shots. I think some people have been assuming as long as the shot goes into the gap then a save would be granted. Others I think probably already noticed this.

As a reference:

through
(1)—used as a function word to indicate movement into at one side or point and out at another and especially the opposite side of <drove a nail through the board>
(2): by way of <left through the door>
(3)—used as a function word to indicate passage from one end or boundary to another
(4): without stopping for : past <drove through a red light> b—used as a function word to indicate passage into and out of a treatment, handling, or process <the matter has already passed through her hands>

Thoughts?

In your example above, neither unit would gain a cover save. Both units are fully visible to the firers and there is no obstruction going on. I don't beleive that there is any shooting through gaps happening here.

I don't think that anyone was advocating granting a cover save in your example above. The intermixed units granting mutal saves is a completely different formation (and has been discussed at length elsewhere).

Yeah like I said most people see it that way, but I've seen a few diagrams and posts that made it seem like they thought otherwise. This is just a clarification.

ABABABABABABAB
ABABABABABABAB
ABABABABABABAB

Is the formation under debate

Actually, that formation isn't so interesting anymore.

*This* formation is interesting:

gggggg
gOOO
OOOOO
ggggg
ggggg

Clearly the 8 Orks get cover saves, because they are *all* hiding behind Grots.

The question is whether the Grots get cover saves.

With all of the forward Grots totally exposed, you'd expect that the Grots wouldn't get saves at all.

But the way people argue, you never know...

Are more than half of the Grotz "in cover" then all the Grotz are "in cover".

Unless the normal rules for cover doesn't apply to the coversave provided by intervening units. I don't know the exact wording well enough to make that determination.

Something to consider here though is that models do block line of sight. Also, models that are completely out of LOS are not counted when determining if a unit is more than 50% in cover. So in the ork example, the grots at the back of the unit will not count when counting to see if half the unit is in cover. So the models up front could be shot at and they would not receive a cover save. In addition, the models from the rear and out of sight could be pulled as casualties in the new system, even though they are out of LOS.

This isn't true. From the BRB, under the heading 'Units partially in cover':

Models that are completely out of sight are considered ot be in cover for this purpose.

Given that those Orks might as well be a Land Raider or brick wall, if people are claiming they can shoot through them at the little Grots, this whole "true LOS / shooting through units" thing is taking a turn towards the silly.