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.

Our tourney organizer declared that if he saw anyone attempting the sort of checkerboard formation that would generate the self-generated cover save, NO units involved in the formation would get a cover save at all.

Thus, nobody at our tourney tried to use it. How about yours?

Its part of the rules now. I don't have a problem with it. You get cover saves when the back rows shoot at you so its not such a big deal. I saw alot of it at the Alaskan Ard boyz qualifier.

Our tourney organizer declared that if he saw anyone attempting the sort of checkerboard formation that would generate the self-generated cover save, NO units involved in the formation would get a cover save at all.

That's pretty strange since its legal.

Thin end of the wedge.

People are going to start to say "screw playing their rules" bit by bit.

This is a sign that GW is in its death throes.

Well I made a few paragraphs to argue about this but there's no point.

I would much rather see this thread turn into whether people saw the intermixed cover saves or not (rather than argue if it's legal).

Meh, I don't think so this is the death throes.

GW may die, but it will be due to computer games, the internet, etc. etc.

The 5e rules are better overall, in my opinion. The cover rules, the LOS rules, I'm not really a fan of. I've complained here at length aboot them, so I don't need to rehash that. That said, I still think the rules are better overall.

wight_widow wrote:Thin end of the wedge.

People are going to start to say "screw playing their rules" bit by bit.

This is a sign that GW is in its death throes.

Ridiculous. Stock performance, retail store closures and internet sales drops, maybe. Rules issues, never. People have hated elements of the core rules from every edition. They (or other people) keep buying the pretty models.

I too hate some elements of the 5th rules, but house rule it, game it in tourneys, and move on.

Death throes. Hah.

Back to the self-generated cover saves: I saw (and used) a lot of tanks using each other for cover, even more than infantry. That was amusing.

How do tanks provide coversave to eachother?

If someone seriously tried to argue that two units could intermingle and thus mutually generate cover saves for each other, they would find a slightly more serious problem facing them.




Namely trying to get my boot off their face.


One unit is in cover, one is covering them. The controlling player is free to chose which is which but must then stick with the decision. Simple!

Simple, easy to adjudicate, a likely tournament organizer ruling, but the rules aren't that clear.

Yeah, all I really wondered was how much y'all saw it at the tourney. I know it's legal, but that's not what I'm inquiring about.

I agree with the tourney organizer. In a true checkerboard people from both units are EXPOSED on the front line. I think it is much better to declare which unit is 'in front' and which unit is 'in back' and go with it.

I don't particularly have a problem with it because I don't think the rulebook directly addresses checkerboard formations and it will be FAQed eventually.

I saw but it was quickly abandonned once his opponent made him move correctly and he realized how long each movement was gonna take. The amount of time would have resulted in a win for the other guy since he would probably barely get into combat in the 2.5 hours after spending 45 minutes just deploying his army and making sure they had the save.....it entertained me to no end. I don't have a problem with it as long as they move like the rulebook requires.

Why poeple even use the checkerboard-formation is beyond me.

This is much easier:

wight_widow wrote:Thin end of the wedge.

People are going to start to say "screw playing their rules" bit by bit.

This is a sign that GW is in its death throes.

OH NOES! HAUSE RULEZ! THE SKY IS FALLIN!

Thanks for the Monday morning laugh.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
One unit is in cover, one is covering them. The controlling player is free to chose which is which but must then stick with the decision. Simple!

This is what our organizer told us upfront before the first game, basically one of the units has to be in front of the other. Apparently that is what he had been told by GW.

Kymera wrote:

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
One unit is in cover, one is covering them. The controlling player is free to chose which is which but must then stick with the decision. Simple!

This is what our organizer told us upfront before the first game, basically one of the units has to be in front of the other. Apparently that is what he had been told by GW.

Your tournament organizer clearly doesn't understand how self-generating cover saves formations work. And using information told to them by individual GW employees is a horrible way to settle rules debates--each one will give you a different answer. They really should know better, or perhaps they were just lying and needed to cook up some way to justify their house rule.

Danny Internets wrote:
Your tournament organizer clearly doesn't understand how self-generating cover saves formations work. And using information told to them by individual GW employees is a horrible way to settle rules debates--each one will give you a different answer. They really should know better, or perhaps they were just lying and needed to cook up some way to justify their house rule.

I think the thing is that 'self-generating cover' formations were an unintended side effect of the current rules and something GW may be trying to FAQ away soon. Considering the official communication for 'ard boyz seemed pretty good as they FAQed the event, I suspect that if something like this was discussed then multiple people heard about it from an official capacity... or not. We don't know yet.

We will still see if self generating cover formations are an oversight or working as intended. But for the most part, the person who said 'move correctly makes it hard to do' is correct. Lots of people fudge movements and don't measure 6" for every figure, just the front row.

I think the thing is that 'self-generating cover' formations were an unintended side effect of the current rules and something GW may be trying to FAQ away soon.

"May" is the key word. They also may not be trying to FAQ them soon, or ever. They may also FAQ Necrons to have FNP or bolters to be S5, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Point is they may FAQ any number of things in the future, but until they do it's irrelevant.

Considering the official communication for 'ard boyz seemed pretty good as they FAQed the event, I suspect that if something like this was discussed then multiple people heard about it from an official capacity... or not. We don't know yet.

The only official communication for the 'Ard Boyz tournament came in the form of published errata on the website and mass emails sent to tournament organizers. Phone calls to GW resulted in conflicting rulings at every step. Trade reps have been reported as telling organizers that tanks in Armored Company lists were scoring and that the units were giving KPs by unit, not FOC selection, neither of which were correct.

Flamer templates or other ignores cover weaponry (which is becoming abundant) is an easy fix to the checkerboard pattern. I'm surprised that some people still think its a useful option.

3 x Sternguard armies will fix it

The only time I had someone use intermixed units to grant cover saves I simply put a heavy flamer template on them. It was really nice for me to have them all packed in like that. Both units fell back. Totally great for me.

The banana system is indeed better though. Banana positions are used in real life!

Miggidy Mack wrote:The banana system is indeed better though. Banana positions are used in real life!

Yeah, that's what my wife's patients keep telling her when she looks at them for their uh "gardening accidents"

Danny Internets wrote:

"May" is the key word. They also may not be trying to FAQ them soon, or ever. .

Doesn't matter if they FAQ it or not if official GW events begin ruling against those tactics. You play by the ruling of the event if it is correct or not.

I would first like to say that, the "majority models in cover" does not gel with the "cover save exceptions" rule that allows the gaps of units to count as in cover. The way I understand the rule. A unit would have to be in front. So would not have generated a majority save for itself by model obscurement, if that front unit attempted to cite the 'cover save exception' that I am shooting through the gaps of a unit, I would say that I was not. He might try to counter that the majority of his models are behind gaps in a second unit. But I would point out that the cover save exceptions section makes no mention of "majority" at all. Am i shooting through the gaps in a unit? No.

Ultimately, if a TO wants to rule it that way, he can, and will. And I bet GW doesn't want any two units to simultaneously receive free cover with no terrain interaction.

Ard boyz is different than the GT, but I will say that no one tried that mess at Vegas, primarily because I believe it is illegal. And possibly because of sports.

I don't believe that you will see it at the ard boyz, despite there being no sports score, because no one needs that save bad enough to try that move, if you built your army around a movable infinite save, and then you run into a TO that won't allow it, then an army built around it instantly falls apart. Some isolated incidents may occur however, and I agree with the sentiment that GW should get a 5th ed FAQ asap for that wiggly interpretation of cover save exceptions.

nkelsch wrote:Doesn't matter if they FAQ it or not if official GW events begin ruling against those tactics. You play by the ruling of the event if it is correct or not.

House rules at local stores hosting 'Ard Boyz preliminary rounds do not constitute rulings at official GW events.

Furthermore, the local hosts really shouldn't be changing the rules of the game if they are billing the tournament as Warhammer 40k, or at the very least they should be going out of their way to inform each and every participant of the new rules that they've concocted when they sign up. Not because self-generating cover saves should be allowed, but because where do you draw the line? Maybe the store thinks Obliterators are too powerful and that GW is going to probably change them in a FAQ soon, so they have a house rule that changes their available weapons, or their save, or their ballistic skill, etc. Slippery slope.

I'm very happy with the way the store where I played ran the tournament (Cedar Grove, NJ), but if they told me I couldn't use tactics that are clearly permitted by the rules I would have been pissed (and I don't even use self-generating cover saves).

I saw a guard army doing the mutual cover-save formation. They all had cameleoline armor too, so they rocked a 3+ save vs. shooting, going to ground if it got heavy.

Danny Internets wrote:House rules at local stores hosting 'Ard Boyz preliminary rounds do not constitute rulings at official GW events.

Furthermore, the local hosts really shouldn't be changing the rules of the game if they are billing the tournament as Warhammer 40k, or at the very least they should be going out of their way to inform each and every participant of the new rules that they've concocted when they sign up. Not because self-generating cover saves should be allowed, but because where do you draw the line? Maybe the store thinks Obliterators are too powerful and that GW is going to probably change them in a FAQ soon, so they have a house rule that changes their available weapons, or their save, or their ballistic skill, etc. Slippery slope.

I'm very happy with the way the store where I played ran the tournament (Cedar Grove, NJ), but if they told me I couldn't use tactics that are clearly permitted by the rules I would have been pissed (and I don't even use self-generating cover saves).

They are not making up house rules, those organizers were enforcing rules they feel they were explicitly told to enforce by GW reps, IE: official GW event rules. Stop comparing rule ambiguity to clear rules like changing the strength of a bolter or removing squad options. There is a huge difference between a tourney organizer using a ruling he got directly from GW and a house rule. And since I have heard MULTIPLE people express having tourney organizers say "GW TOLD US NO CHECKERBOARD" it makes me think it is less of a house rule and something that was actually disseminated. I know of 2 places personally that ruled that way and have heard of 3 others online from talking to people.

Lots of people are often 'very happy' when an ambiguous rule has the ruling by a local event go his way. And until there is a diagram in the rulebook or WD clearly showing the banana or checkerboard formation as a valid and functional tactic, your opinion that it is 'clearly permitted' is your opinion. There is nothing clear about it.

So how do you move legally in the banana system? you get that save until you move since you have to move one unit at a time and can't move through another unit you'll never get that part of the banana out in front again since, again, you can't move throught the other unit after it stops.

It reallys is pretty good for guard and i think you'll see people use it a few times till they get screwed on soft scores or until they try and move against someone who actually makes them move by the rules instead of being lenient.

Me, i'm generally pretty lenient about moving but if somebody tried this i'd be the biggest stickler for moving you'd ever seen...hehe

They are not making up house rules, those organizers were enforcing rules they feel they were explicitly told to enforce by GW reps, IE: official GW event rules.

Perhaps you missed the part about GW reps giving out completely contradictory information. Ever heard of the GW Rulez Boys? Same nonsense, which is why people laugh at those who bring their "rulings" into discussions.

Lots of people are often 'very happy' when an ambiguous rule has the ruling by a local event go his way.

And lots of people aren't, in particular those who wish to use the rules of 40k as they are written, not as per the whims of the local tournament organizer.

And until there is a diagram in the rulebook or WD clearly showing the banana or checkerboard formation as a valid and functional tactic, your opinion that it is 'clearly permitted' is your opinion. There is nothing clear about it.

This is inane. The rulebook doesn't show vehicles in "choo-choo train" formation so is that now illegal too? My codex doesn't have my specific army list printed so perhaps it is in violation of the spirit of the rules, you know, since it's not "clearly" permitted. By your logic nothing is clear unless each and every possible example (of which there are an infinite number) is printed in black and white.