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.

So apparently there has been some discussion about intermixing Units and Cover saves in 5th edition....

This is NOT a discussion about the legality/sportsmanship of that, rather a rule to make the whole issue a moot point.

Proposed Rule: No unit may Move into coherency with another unit in the same force org.

Now, this is far from a comprehensive rule so don't go wordHammer on me (but feel free to fix it up a bit)
but the underlying intent is that you would be unable to Intermix units without violating this rule.
Obviously there are a few exceptions that need to be made( like units can Assault/Pile-in into coherency with another unit in the same force. if you're fighting in the same CC)

my questions are:

1. Would this rule actually solve the Intermixed Units and Saves issue but not allowing it to happen in the first place?
2. What "side effects" would result and would those be worth living with if is solves the underlying issue
3. Do most players WANT to be rid of the intermixed units and saves issue?

1. Yes
2. The side effects (if I understand what you're proposing correctly) are that large unit count forces like mine (IG) would have a heck of a time trying to deploy and maneuver if no two units could be within 2" of each other.
3. I think that would depend largely on what type of players someone frequently runs into. I'm lucky that my regular gaming group will probably never have an argument over this. If I was a hardcore tourney player then you bet I'd want to do away with this issue.

Personally, I think that once a unit intermixes with another then neither unit should benefit. That's probably not how it's written but I think it would to be the easiest way to solve the problem.

[edit] I've edited my post since I think the first time through I misread your 3rd question.

This proposed rule is waaaay too harsh IMHO. It would make playing a real pain as you tried to always keep your units more than 2" away from each other.

The answer to #3 is 'yes' I believe based on the poll that was taken in YMDC plus the fact that it is a benefit that can be gained by units without any real penalties. I don't think you'll see it used very often in actual games and I think a lot of players will heap scorn onto those players who do try to use it.


When trying to create a house rule to 'solve' this issue (assuming you perceive it to be a problem) what you run into is when exactly do units count as being "intermixed" and when do they count as being "intervening"?

Does one model from unit 'A' mixed in with unit 'B' suddenly make an intervening unit into an 'intermixed' one?

It's tough, and I certainly don't think the house rule can be implemented from the angle of forcing the player to keep his units apart, you have to stick with only allowing one of the units to gain the cover save.

I guess my house rule would be:


Two or more enemy units cannot simultaneously claim to be intervening units to each other for the purpose of providing a cover save.

If such a situation arises, whichever enemy unit has the majority of its models closer to the closest model in the firing unit is the one that is considered to be 'intervening' and can provide a cover save to the other enemy units intermixed with it.

If players cannot easily determine which enemy unit has the majority of its models closer before a target is declared then players must randomly determine which unit will count as 'intervening' before a target is selected for the firing unit.

Pfft. Keep It Simple, Stupid:

If players cannot easily determine which enemy unit has the majority of its models closer before a target is declared then *neither* unit may claim any saves whatsoever.

“A unit that gains a cover save from a friendly unit may not also confer a cover save on that same unit. If two units are intermixed to the point where it either could reasonably gain the save the owning player must tell his opponent which unit is to receive the save at the start of each turn.”

OR

“If your opponent tries to mix two units together in order to claim a cover save for both units tell him he’s attempting something that’s against the intent of the rule and quite silly. If he insists on doing it anyway tell him he’s a goomba and stop playing. It’s likely he’ll do something even sillier for the sake of winning in the next turn anyway.”

That is pure Gold sebster.

1. The fact that I have discovered yet another person who uses the word 'goomba'-EXALT

2.This pretty sums up my opinion on what seems like a very hot topic. Sums it up beautifully.

sebster wrote:“A unit that gains a cover save from a friendly unit may not also confer a cover save on that same unit. If two units are intermixed to the point where it either could reasonably gain the save the owning player must tell his opponent which unit is to receive the save at the start of each turn.”

The problem with this wording is that it doesn't specify at what point it applies. What if there are enemy units on either side of the two inter-mixed unit?

In other words, the way your rule is written it woud screw up this situation:


1111111111


AAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBB


2222222222



If unit 1 fires at unit B, unit B gets a cover save because of unit A.

Then if unit 2 fires at unit A your rule would prevent unit A from getting a cover save from unit B even though there is no intermixing going on.

yakface wrote:The problem with this wording is that it doesn't specify at what point it applies. What if there are enemy units on either side of the two inter-mixed unit?

In other words, the way your rule is written it woud screw up this situation:


1111111111


AAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBB


2222222222



If unit 1 fires at unit B, unit B gets a cover save because of unit A.

Then if unit 2 fires at unit A your rule would prevent unit A from getting a cover save from unit B even though there is no intermixing going on.

Fair point, I didn’t think of that. Ah well, just go with the goombah variant instead.

IMO, all that is needed is a single paragraph on the in-game definition of "Intervening":

Intervening - the farthest model of an "intervening" unit must be closer than the nearest model of the target unit for the target unit to receive the benefit of a cover save from the forward unit.

Under this definition, 2 small units of intermingled Orks die just as easily 1 large unit of Orks, and the onus is on the owning player to create an obviously "intervening" situation.

This is really no different than forcing players with ICs to make it clear when they have joined a unit, and which unit they have joined if more than one is possible.

(5th Edition specifically prohibits players from placing ICs in coherency with a unit they could join, but not joining said unit).

I would just write this rule.

"A unit that is in unit coherency with another friendly unit does not count as an intervening unit for the purposes of cover save for either unit. Likewise when shooting though a friendly unit that is in coherency with the shooting unit, the friendly unit does not count as an intervening friendly unit for the purposes of shooting an enemy unit."

I remeber a big thad about how to abuse this new rule.

basically what it came down to was making a fireing line, moving your front line out of the way, then running them back after the shootings done.

this is the whole reason I'm starting a witch hunter army, I want to be quicker then them so i can avoid this. heavy flamer and template weapons are going to be the new norm IMO. hell does anyone even remember the SOB? you never hear about them.