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.

Ok, going to try to reword this and make it more acceptable. The goal of this thread is to try to simply gather information about how the community plays the intervening models rules.

--- This thread is not for arguing about which is right but instead how people play it --- Please feel free to state how you play it, please keep the arguing to a minimum. If you want to ask for clarification about what someone else said, please do so, I will be, but keep arguing to a minimum.

This comes up all the time and so many people play this completely differently from one another... So, how do you play it?

--- Keep in mind - This is just talking about infantry models, not monstrous creatures, not swarms, not vehicles.

The situation is that there are two infantry squads which are shooting at one another with some third unit in between them; I'm trying to see how you play it regarding their sizes, keep in mind very small infantry models like Gretchin and very large ones like Bloodcrushers. Please remember this description when reading the poll choices.

This poll appears to still suffer from the problem that plagued the original version: The correct answer according to the rulebook is missing because it's ignoring the fact that model geometry and positioning is what determines whether a shot is done through a unit or over it.

Based on the option text, you should add something like "Yes - "Partially Hidden" is intentionally generous, 4+ cover save regardless of the different infantry model sizes, but in some cases an infantry model can see over another infantry model".

Yeah, sorry, but the options still don't make a great deal of sense. In particular, the first 'No' response just doesn't fit the question asked at all.

So, like the first attempt, it fails at a basic level. The problem is, it attempts to see how everyone who plays it wrong does it. But as those who play it right cannot answer, the poll is flawed.

I voted the gretchin one. It makes it more realistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Post 99

The INAT has two really good diagrams that might help you out:



Note that the Fire warrior is on a hill - on the ground the gretchin would probably give cover. Regardless, without a photo of an exact situation we really can't help you.

solkan wrote:This poll appears to still suffer from the problem that plagued the original version: The correct answer according to the rulebook is missing because it's ignoring the fact that model geometry and positioning is what determines whether a shot is done through a unit or over it.

Based on the option text, you should add something like "Yes - "Partially Hidden" is intentionally generous, 4+ cover save regardless of the different infantry model sizes, but in some cases an infantry model can see over another infantry model".

I'm only going to correct you, I'm not going to argue, so if you have a response, I'll read it, but I will not respond.
1) Poll options cannot be as cumbersome as you suggest (or as wrong as you suggest),
2) "Yes - explained below" and "No - explained below" are a complete catch all, you cannot hold the position that my poll is flawed because the realm of all possible scenarios are available.
3) So many people disagree with what you proposed as "The correct way" THIS IS WHY I WANT TO HAVE A POLL ON THIS TOPIC, you and I agree on the geometry and position, we completely agree, but I dont care about my opinion, I want to know how the mass majority plays and people can now explain in their posts why they chose what they chose, this poll is not missing any possible opinion on the topic.
4) your proposed "Yes - "Partially Hidden" is intentionally generous, 4+ cover save regardless of the different infantry model sizes, but in some cases an infantry model can see over another infantry model" is not a "Yes" answer at all, it is my 4th option... because you cannot answer the poll question with "Yes" and then say "But in some cases it doesn't" you arn't making any sense once you try to say that "Any can intervene and confer on any other" and then say "But in some cases they cant"... you're not making any sense...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:Yeah, sorry, but the options still don't make a great deal of sense. In particular, the first 'No' response just doesn't fit the question asked at all.

"Can any model confer a cover save onto any other model"

"No, not all models can confer a cover onto all other models, in some cases there are models so small that they cannot confer a cover save to larger models. "

How does this not fit? Not to mention, dont choose it if you dont like it, choose and explain below. FYI each of my options are in here because I have personally seen people argue each single one multiple times, and i'm not talking about random scrubs, i'm talking about tournament organizers and people who have been playing for years. FYFI (for your further information lol) I am bringing this up because I have seen a lot of people who have played WH40k for a long time and are mixing certain things up, for example some people still play that each model has a defined "height value" from uhmm 4th edition? And I'm trying to see if people are interpreting the rules that way still.

Again, please realize that I am solely interested in gathering a bulk of data on this topic because I know what the rulebook says, I can quote it extemporaneously, I have examined it inside and out and then I have played with so many people who play in vastly different ways. I am not trying to make a point or convince anyone, I am trying to GATHER information, not convey it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

UltraPrime wrote:So, like the first attempt, it fails at a basic level. The problem is, it attempts to see how everyone who plays it wrong does it. But as those who play it right cannot answer, the poll is flawed.

"Yes for a different reason" "no for a different reason" explain below... how can you not answer this? again, if you dont like the poll dont respond... This isn't for you and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:The INAT has two really good diagrams that might help you out:

Note that the Fire warrior is on a hill - on the ground the gretchin would probably give cover. Regardless, without a photo of an exact situation we really can't help you.

Thank you for that, however, I am fully familiar with the rules, again, i'm not interested in the rules or what is "correct" but instead how people play this.

I play by the rules: if you are shooting OVER a unit and not THROUGH a unit, then y oiu do not confer a cover save.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I play by the rules: if you are shooting OVER a unit and not THROUGH a unit, then y oiu do not confer a cover save.

excellent, thank you for your input.

Me too.

The current LoS/Cover rules are a bit of a mess. This situation is a good example.

Nonetheless 59% or respondents (as of 22 votes) follow the rulebook.

Kilkrazy wrote:Me too.

The current LoS/Cover rules are a bit of a mess. This situation is a good example.

Nonetheless 59% or respondents (as of 22 votes) follow the rulebook.

exactly, I would like to see how people play them in order to sort things out, I just hope that this thread is allowed to be open long enough to allow me to gather some data.

I'm going to try to be helpful and provide a visual for the situation that the poll doesn't cover.

Model A, in green on the right, fires at Model B, in red, and then Model B fires back.

Model A:


Model B:


The overall situation:


Model A draws line of sight OVER the Nurglings and the unpainted metal table, while Model B draws line of sight THROUGH the Nurgling unit and the unpainted metal table.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Note that the example in the picture on the left is incorrect. Models C, D, and E are all obscured if you draw a line between the leftmost and rightmost gretchin models, and the rulebook gives no size limitation for gaps between models. This example is even incorrect under the INAT ruling; for models C, D, and E you are not firing through the shorter models so would not draw the line using them.

solkan wrote:I'm going to try to be helpful and provide a visual for the situation that the poll doesn't cover.

Model A, in green on the right, fires at Model B, in red, and then Model B fires back.

Model A draws line of sight OVER the Nurglings and the unpainted metal table, while Model B draws line of sight THROUGH the Nurgling unit and the unpainted metal table.

I appreciate this effort, it does help to see visuals for many people, however, I still dont understand why people are missing:

4th choice in my poll wrote:No - in some cases an infantry model can see over another infantry model

As far as your geometry argument for why the poll is inept, you're still missing that "Some cases" is 100% compatible with your entire position... Again, i'm not trying to explain to people how this works, I'm trying to gather information about how people play this. I know the rules and how they work 100%... You've yet to say anything new to me, again, I'm not interested in the rules, not interested in the "right way" to play this, not interested in my opinion (which is the same as yours FYI) I'm interested in how people actually play this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:

Note that the example in the picture on the left is incorrect. Models C, D, and E are all obscured if you draw a line between the leftmost and rightmost gretchin models, and the rulebook gives no size limitation for gaps between models. This example is even incorrect under the INAT ruling; for models C, D, and E you are not firing through the shorter models so would not draw the line using them.

Please refrain from thread jacking - if you are interested in discussing INAT's rulings or explanations, start a new thread.

visavismeyou wrote:

solkan wrote:I'm going to try to be helpful and provide a visual for the situation that the poll doesn't cover.

Model A, in green on the right, fires at Model B, in red, and then Model B fires back.

Model A draws line of sight OVER the Nurglings and the unpainted metal table, while Model B draws line of sight THROUGH the Nurgling unit and the unpainted metal table.

I appreciate this effort, it does help to see visuals for many people, however, I still dont understand why people are missing:

4th choice in my poll wrote:No - in some cases an infantry model can see over another infantry model

As far as your geometry argument for why the poll is inept, you're still missing that "Some cases" is 100% compatible with your entire position... Again, i'm not trying to explain to people how this works, I'm trying to gather information about how people play this. I know the rules and how they work 100%... You've yet to say anything new to me, again, I'm not interested in the rules, not interested in the "right way" to play this, not interested in my opinion (which is the same as yours FYI) I'm interested in how people actually play this.

If that's what you intended option #4 to mean, then it's a poorly worded and misleading option. Consider it in context:

Do the Red Guy and Green Guy get cover saves? (Logically equivalent to the poll question, "Can any intervening infantry model confer a cover save on any other size infantry model?" because in this case the cover save is conferred by the Nurglings, intervening infantry models.) Poll Answer: "No - in some cases an infantry model can see over another infantry model."

If the option said "Maybe - In some cases an infantry model can see over another infantry model, depending on size and position" or something similar, then I wouldn't have an issue with it. As it is, the poll responses as written imply that both the red and green models in my example either both get the cover save or both don't.

insaniak wrote:Yeah, sorry, but the options still don't make a great deal of sense. In particular, the first 'No' response just doesn't fit the question asked at all.

"Can any model confer a cover save onto any other model"

"No, not all models can confer a cover onto all other models, in some cases there are models so small that they cannot confer a cover save to larger models. "

insaniak wrote:No - in some cases an infantry model can see over another infantry model"

...which doesn't make any sense. The answer is saying that sometimes they don't... which is not a 'no' answer, because the poll is asking if they can ever confer a cover save, not if they always do so.

Negation of a universal is a equivalent to an existential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

solkan wrote:If that's what you intended option #4 to mean, then it's a poorly worded and misleading option.

Its not poorly worded, it is worded exactly as it is supposed to be in order to get across the position of the players I'm trying to represent that play this way. Furthermore, it means exactly what it says, negate the statement: "Any model can give cover to any other model" and you get "No, not all models can give cover to all other models, sometimes one can see over another". Perfectly worded, again, I'm representing positions I've encountered, if you dont like how one is worded then dont select that option and select a catch all and explain it in a post, you've already stated your position so thank you very much!

visavismeyou wrote:Furthermore, it means exactly what it says, negate the statement: "Any model can give cover to any other model" and you get "No, not all models can give cover to all other models, sometimes one can see over another".

Being able to sometimes see over certain models doesn't mean that they can never provide cover. That's why this option is being questioned... You have obviously made a connection in your head that makes it make sense, but that connection is not implicit in the wording you have actually used. As written, it's a nonsensical option.

insaniak wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:Furthermore, it means exactly what it says, negate the statement: "Any model can give cover to any other model" and you get "No, not all models can give cover to all other models, sometimes one can see over another".

Being able to sometimes see over certain models doesn't mean that they can never provide cover. That's why this option is being questioned... You have obviously made a connection in your head that makes it make sense, but that connection is not implicit in the wording you have actually used. As written, it's a nonsensical option.

Wrong, again, the negation of a universal is an existential, meaning that "Not all times" is the same as "at least once" or "Sometimes"... so the negation of "any... can confer onto any" becomes "Sometimes... some... can... onto some others" or "Some models can confer onto some"... I can prove this in a fitch style proof using quantifier logic... but I dont have the time nor the inclination and I dont think I can copy and paste my logic program results into this forum and it be readable... again... if you dont like that one, please choose another one.

Visavimeyou, it's your poll and you can do what you want with it. However, my previous posts and this one are my unsolicited peer review of it, and the fact that you can prove the statement is correct in a Fitch style proof is wonderful, beautiful and completely irrelevant.

There are multiple continuations of the response that are valid in casual English, despite the fact that whatever logic training you might have received has instructed you otherwise. The fact that you have been instructed that one or more of the possible continuations is incorrect is unfortunately counter productive in this situation. Consider a different question:

Q: Can anyone go to the moon? A: No - it's too difficult for most people.
Among the possible implied negations are:
1. No, no one can go to the moon.
2. No, some people can not go to the moon.
3. No, only some people can go to the moon.

There are a similar number of possible continuations that the reader can supply for your fourth option. Because you left out the continuation in the poll response, the intended continuation is left open and is therefore ambiguous. If it were an isolated statement, it might be reasonable to expect a reader to consider all of the possibilities and select the option that best fits. However, because it's in a poll surrounded by what are presumably other incorrect answers, it is much less reasonable to expect a reader to consider the other possibilities.

If you're conducting the poll as an exercise in conducting polls and don't actually care whether the data you're collecting actually coincides with how people play and don't plan on making any conclusions from the data, that's great. However, you've professed that you're attempting to discover how people are actually playing, and you appear to be attempting to do so with a poll that has issues that you don't want to address, that's quite troubling because the data is questionable.

solkan wrote:Visavimeyou, it's your poll and you can do what you want with it.

Thank you for your opinions, I'll take this to private messages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:But that connection is not implicit in the wording you have actually used. As written, it's a nonsensical option.

having reread this interaction while responding in private messages has made me think of a better perhaps more effective way to respond to you, its all about context, as I said, the negation of a universal allows for "some" to be used. Yes, if you say "Not all the time" you could mean "none of the time" however, that is why I provided clear context because "Not all the time" is equivalent to "Some of the time" and "Most of the time" and "once in a while" and many other statements; it is equivalent to anything you want to say which means "anything less than 100% of the time".

Thus, the context of "Some" (which is how some players are playing it) means the option is fully valid and makes perfect sense; again, please pay attention to context.