Three unit checkerboarding

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.

**Manimal**

I seems that the general consensus in the 40k community is that two units giving each other mutual cover (checker-boarding) shouldn’t be done. (INAT specifically says it can’t give both units cover saves).

I am curious about opinions on three unit self generating cover. For example:
x x x x ....... y y y y
x z z z z z z z z z z y
. x xx x x y yy y y

where x,y,z are members of separate units. (dots are just for spacing)

**RustyKnight**

So, you're question is if two units giving mutual cover is bad, is three units doing the same thing bad? Isn't answer obvious? Like Spehss Muhren HUR obvious?

**LunaHound**

@Manimal:

I would let you play that way.

**Grey Templar**

if you had units close enough to do this, which I think would be ok with the formation you have(no sportsmanship points for you) but against most weapons you will have your armour any way, and really big guns with ordinance templates will ignore the cover anyway.

Cover is for orks, marines don't need it often enough to justify a cheezy

tactic like that

**Iron_Chaos_Brute**

Try it. When you can't move any of those units legally or spread to avoid templates, you'll see it isn't worth it.

**Manimal**

RustyKnight wrote:So, you're question is if two units giving mutual cover is bad, is three units doing the same thing bad? Isn't answer obvious? Like Spehss Muhren HUR obvious?

No, I don't think it is obvious. Each time you add a unit you have put more resources into generating a cover save at the cost of limiting movement.

I am curious as to what point (if any) people think it goes from being "unfair" to something they would be okay with.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:Try it. When you can't move any of those units legally or spread to avoid templates, you'll see it isn't worth it.

I am not sure what you mean. The members of the units could be spaced 2" apart already. They can also all legally move.

**PanzerLeader**

What he means is that if you are not careful with removing casualties, you will quickly lose coherency and have to waste a turn reestablishing it. Checkerboarding is ok, but the way you are set up you either have to pull troopers from the back ranks of X and Y to maintain Z's cover or you pull from the front ranks of X and Y and Z losses its cover save. Not nearly as effective as it appears.

**Manimal**

I am not asking about its effectiveness.

Though it is much harder to lose the cover save than you indicate with careful casualty removal. You can alternate pulling from the front and back so X or Y stay majority in cover until they get down to 4 members. X or Y will give a cover save to z if one member of the other unit still obscures line of sight.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ten casualties are required to break the cover save.

**MorbidlyObeseMonkey**

I would be perfectly fine with my opponent doing this.

In fact, I would have trouble trying not to laugh. This "tactic" will hinder you more than it will help you, and I would gladly let you do do it.

**wilsmire**

I had a guard player try this on me I laughed when he saw the 3 heavy flamers deep striking next to them

**willydstyle**

That formation certainly works.

I'd shoot unit z with a bunch of torrent-of-fire shooting.

Then your other units wouldn't have cover.

Not something I'm horribly worried about, as I don't over-rely on low-ap weaponry.

**Dracos**

Lol, 3 unit checkerboarding?

So you start of by acknowledging that the 40k community thinks checkerboarding is cheesy behavior, then ask if doing it MOAR would be okay?

Seriously, is this a troll attempt or just a stupid idea?

**willydstyle**

Well, I don't think checkerboarding is cheesy. I just think it's dumb and only works against bad players with bad lists who don't know the movement rules well enough to enforce them.

So the entire "40k community" does not think it is cheesy.

**Anpu42**

You know One Order of Pie could cause real problems
Now your 3 units nee to make Moral/Pinning Checks

**Illumini**

When you have to resort to this kind of tactics, it is time to ask yourself if your group maybe don't use enough terrain. With the amount of terrain advised in the BRB, you should probably never need to use a formation like this

I would however let you claim cover, but if you do this with squads that are difficult to see who belongs where, I would ask you not to, as it opens up for cheating (no-no, that guy is in that squad)

**pretre**

I like to call this formation 'Made to order triple sweeping advance'. Although a close second is 'Template Bait'.

**Manimal**

Dracos wrote:Lol, 3 unit checkerboarding?

So you start of by acknowledging that the 40k community thinks checkerboarding is cheesy behavior, then ask if doing it MOAR would be okay?

Seriously, is this a troll attempt or just a stupid idea?

If you had read the thread more carefully you would know that doing it MOAR isn't better in some way. It is worse because it requires more resources and is easier to counter.

Edited for snarkyness.

**EzeKK**

This looks okay. The problem comes when you get "tri-assaulted" like something like an ork mob or assault termies and your 3 squads get obliterated.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, thats why i say its ok to use this tactic, because its so easy to destroy it

I would put this tactic in with using firewarriors to assault marines.

**Jihallah**

I would play against it, after pointing out the flaws in it, and suggesting some better positionings...

also if you can't checkerboard with 2, i don't think adding another unit will/should halp. Otherwise you could probably whip up ork/nid horde armies of massive blobs with the entire army recieving a cover save from the entire army

not that thats is a good tactic but...

**thebetter1**

I believe you can do this to get around the INAT, if A gives cover to B which gives cover to C which gives cover to A. I would let you do this, but I would have allowed two units checkerboarded too.

**KingCracker**

I say go for it. People are just pissed they themselves didnt think up the checkerboard tactic (hurray for warhammer coversave!)
I dont use it, but honestly as long as you dont MIX units together to get your cover saves, then sure play away

**Thor665**

KingCracker wrote:I dont use it, but honestly as long as you dont MIX units together to get your cover saves, then sure play away

I'd agree with this. We have a local player who often fields his orks in two E shapes facing each other with the 'teeth' overlapping. It is effective versus some army configurations and full of fail versus others. I see nothing wrong with it and nothing against it in the rules as long as you follow all other movement rules.