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.

A few days ago my friends and I came across a situation we hadn't encountered before, and while it must have happened many times, we couldn't find a clear and concise answer to the situation.

His eldar (a unit of fire dragons) was wanting to shoot at my Bloodcrushers of Khorne and the question determined wether or not I had shot at getting a cover save due to me having a unit of 2 bloodletters standing inbetween my first Bloodcrusher and the remaining ones (in a long line), as the rules are written now in 5th, we were not sure.

This is (approximately) how it was; (F = Fire Dragons, C = Bloodcrushers, B = Bloodletters)

--FFF----
--FF-----

---C---
--BB--
---C---
---C---

If we drew exact line of sight, the 'crushers 2 and 3 were indeed blocked by the 2 bloodletters. But by the same token, the bloodletters were covered by the 1st crusher, meaning they'd also get a cover save.

This felt wrong, as now we'd somehow managed to use 2 units to give them BOTH a cover save against anything fire from that direction. Is this as it should be and it happens so seldom that it's no big deal, or are there are rules interpretations covering (no pun intended) this?

We went with no cover for the crushers, even tho they were covered, just because we felt strongly against this and was wanting to make sure nobody took this theory and turning it into practice, for example, making a chess-formation of two small equally manned squads.

XYXY
YXYX

Any thoughts or are we simply just missing something?

// troligt

Both units would get a cover save. As more then 50% of both units is obscured by the other unit.

Brave Rifles

If the crushers are one unit then it would appear they are not in unit coherency in your diagram.

All the models would need to be within 2" of each other, base-to-base.

If they are indeed one unit then there may be only a cover save for the crushers if they fall-back to behind the bloodletters, who would then not get a cover save.

If the crushers ARE seperate units, then the front model would not in fact get a cover save, and all behind, as dictated by true LoS.

This is a good question. I was thinking of doing just that with any horde army.


Take this example with orks

G = Grot
B = Boyz
L = Loota


GBGBGBGBG
BGBGBGBGB

LLLLLLLL



placing them like this with no spaces between them and then placing a valuable unit behind them. Under the rules the whole unit now gets +4 cover save and the unit behind them can't be shot at at all. So what it breaks down to is 2pt to give any boy a +4 cover save, and create a wall that can not be shot through... Thats good math in my book. Who cares if they are hit with a template seeing as the whole unit is worth peanuts.

The Bloodletters get a cover save of 4+ and the Bloodcrushers get a cover save of 5+ because it's not obvious whether the unit is in cover or not.

Then, as a player, you laugh, because the Bloodcrushers get no benefit to cover over their Invulnerable saving throw.

Where you are shooting at units that benefit from having such a 5+ indeterminate cover save, such as the Boyz and Grots in Clthomps' plan, you shoot the Grotz first, preferably with a weapon that ignores cover. If you just a heavy flamethrower, or a Whirlwind, it is likely that the Ork player will never try it again.

Once the Grotz are dead. Or enough are dead so that they do not obscure 50%+ of the Boyz, you demolish the Boyz who no longer get their 5+ cover save. Once you have wiped out the Lootas' screening units, or simply neutralized their screening ability, then you get to work on shooting the Lootas.

Of course, you can always just shoot the Lootas with weapons that ignore cover.

The morale of the story is that this is possible, but it gives little benefit and what little benefit it gives can be removed by the clever application of tactics.

In this case, the tactics involved order of shooting, and manoeuvering to bring Ignore Cover weapons into play against such a vulnerable formation.

This indeterminate cover save you speak of is nowhere in the rules, The closest thing I can find sates that to simplify things you and your opponent can agree to lower the cover save to 5+ (p22). But none the less it still seems like cheating to be able to field a two units that "cover" each other.


As for templates it would be the ork players own fault if he gets into flamer range without spreading out his units. A smart player knows what he is up against and would deploy acordingly.

Clthomps:

I wasn't quoting the rule, I was paraphrasing. You understand what paraphrasing is, right? That's when you re-state a piece of text in your own words, instead of repeating it verbatim. If I were to quote something, I would indicate its status as quotation by using quotation marks, or the quote function. For example:

"As this process might prove to be rather time-consuming, for a faster (albeit less precise) solution, the players may agree to treat these units as in cover, but with a cover save of one less than normal (for example a 5+ save if partially in cover behind a building or another unit, which normally would offer a 4+ save). See the diagrams opposite for examples of units partially in cover (Unit Partially In Cover, p.22, Rulebook)."

Or:

Units Partially In Cover, p.23, Rulebook wrote:In this case, the players agree to give the Ork unit a cover save of 5+

As discussed in previous threads (somewhere on dakka) these mutual cover saves do seem to be allowed by RAW.
Trying to engineer them deliberately is a bit of a cheesy exploit. But, it does take a lot of time (especially if your moving your models by the book - i.e. moving one whole unit before the other, measuring for each model and not passing over any friendly models).

People may try it, but with the large amount of template weapons about now, and the easy availablity of 'real' cover saves from terrain, I think they'll find it's not worth the hassle. YMMV though.

trollgt, yes it is legal, both get a 4+ save if they are in cover.

Nurglitch, even allowing for paraphrasing, the rule as you represent it does not exist.

The 5+ is an option if both players agree that they would rather go with the 5+ instead of taking the time to determine if a cover save is allowed. It has nothing to do with partial, or unknown, or non obvious situations.

The Boys and Grots, for example, get the 4+ save. If both sides agreed, and didn't want to count if the ones in cover were 50% or more, they could agree to go with the 5+. But since it is an easy thing to do, I don't know why they would do that.

Cithomps: If they can't shoot your lootas, your lootas can't shoot either. That, and it is almost impossible for the BGs to move.

Then there's the rule where separate units cannot be within an inch of each other by bases so unless your other crushers are a separate unit, they look to be out of cohesion. Page 11, 'Models in the Way' section.

They cannot move within an inch of ENEMY units, but friendly units are perfectly ok, which means that it is quite possible for both the 'Crushers and the 'Letters to be in coherency.

I thought all units had to stay far enough apart so everyone could tell which model belongs to which unit.

pavonis wrote:I thought all units had to stay far enough apart so everyone could tell which model belongs to which unit.

It's a nice practice, but there is no such rule.

If you have trouble telling units apart, that's what unit markings are for...

Please read these threads (among others) instead of continuing this discussion:


http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/212725.page#306120
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/214208.page#325871
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/214181.page#325560