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.

In the 5th Ed Rules you can draw LOS to a model in cover, like in area terrain or for a model that is behind another unit, but they still get a cover save.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:In the 5th Ed Rules you can draw LOS to a model in cover, like in area terrain or for a model that is behind another unit, but they still get a cover save.

but the one I can see clearing isn't in cover. And here is your problem - the word "behind". Don't remember exact wording when I played my first games of 5th, but you are going to run into probelms if it says behind, especially if it is refer to a being behind a unit. The diagram you have is "amongst" or "side by side" not "behind". I will wait until I reread the text again, but if it says "behind" I am calling BS on this.

fullheadofhair wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:In the 5th Ed Rules you can draw LOS to a model in cover, like in area terrain or for a model that is behind another unit, but they still get a cover save.

but the one I can see clearing isn't in cover. And here is your problem - the word "behind". Don't remember exact wording when I played my first games of 5th, but you are going to run into probelms if it says behind, especially if it is refer to a being behind a unit. The diagram you have is "amongst" or "side by side" not "behind". I will wait until I reread the text again, but if it says "behind" I am calling BS on this.

I actually don't think the word "behind" is in there, it just says if you're shooting at a unit through another unit, including through the gaps between models in the unit, then the target unit gets a cover save.

Welcome to 5th Edition, where Cameleoline Guardsmen get 3+ Cover Saves all the the time, and 2+ when they opt to be pinned.

At least, until the FAQ comes out.

CK

fullheadofhair wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:In the 5th Ed Rules you can draw LOS to a model in cover, like in area terrain or for a model that is behind another unit, but they still get a cover save.

but the one I can see clearing isn't in cover. And here is your problem - the word "behind". Don't remember exact wording when I played my first games of 5th, but you are going to run into probelms if it says behind, especially if it is refer to a being behind a unit. The diagram you have is "amongst" or "side by side" not "behind". I will wait until I reread the text again, but if it says "behind" I am calling BS on this.

I don't think you're grasping how the LOS/cover rules work in 5th edition. You only need to see a single model in the target unit for the unit to be a valid target.

However, to determine if the unit is "in cover" you have to check if the majority of the target models are in cover from the majority of the firing models.

Models in the target unit that are completely out of LOS count as being in cover. LOS drawn in between models from another unit also give the models behind it cover.

So if LOS to the majority of the target models passes in between models from another unit, that unit gets a cover save.

yakface wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:In the 5th Ed Rules you can draw LOS to a model in cover, like in area terrain or for a model that is behind another unit, but they still get a cover save.

but the one I can see clearing isn't in cover. And here is your problem - the word "behind". Don't remember exact wording when I played my first games of 5th, but you are going to run into probelms if it says behind, especially if it is refer to a being behind a unit. The diagram you have is "amongst" or "side by side" not "behind". I will wait until I reread the text again, but if it says "behind" I am calling BS on this.

I don't think you're grasping how the LOS/cover rules work in 5th edition. You only need to see a single model in the target unit for the unit to be a valid target.

However, to determine if the unit is "in cover" you have to check if the majority of the target models are in cover from the majority of the firing models.

Models in the target unit that are completely out of LOS count as being in cover. LOS drawn in between models from another unit also give the models behind it cover.

So if LOS to the majority of the target models passes in between models from another unit, that unit gets a cover save.

should have know better than to get excited about playing 40k - didn't like 4th so stopped playing. I will now wait and see how people play before I finish my Tau army. If I see this being the constant tactic that people use then I won't be playing 5th either.

What is really annoying is why GW cannot put out a rules set that douches cannot abuse and suck the fun out of playing. This example, if it starts to be the predominant way competitive people play, shows why it is difficult to have the casual not so competitive player and the competitive tournie player play together with both having fun. If I play, I get to play maybe 2 or 3 times a month. The moment some-one pulls interlocked troops to get a self-generating save that person goes on my "never ever play against coz they're douches" list.

fullheadofhair wrote:

should have know better than to get excited about playing 40k - didn't like 4th so stopped playing. I will now wait and see how people play before I finish my Tau army. If I see this being the constant tactic that people use then I won't be playing 5th either.

What is really annoying is why GW cannot put out a rules set that douches cannot abuse and suck the fun out of playing. This example, if it starts to be the predominant way competitive people play, shows why it is difficult to have the casual not so competitive player and the competitive tournie player play together with both having fun. If I play, I get to play maybe 2 or 3 times a month. The moment some-one pulls interlocked troops to get a self-generating save that person goes on my "never ever play against coz they're douches" list.

I don't see why this would become standard. The interspersed unit to prevent charges was legal in the last edition yet how many times did you see people actually trying to use that formation in actual games? I never did.

Also, this formation also penalizes the two interspersed units by giving generally giving out cover saves to any opponents they are shooting at (as they are firing through a friendly unit).


And how would GW prevent this from occuring in the rules? By not allowing friendly units to intermingle at all? Because that's the only way I could see this occuring and personally I would hate it if friendly models weren't allowed to move within a certain distance of each other.

Assault units or units with lousy shooting could do very well. Orks slugga boyz are the first that come to mind. Two units mixed, with a cover save, would do much better in turns one and two while crossing the field. Done with six units of 20-30 boyz a much larger proportion are making it across than otherwise.

I'll be calling this 'Zebra Formation'
From wiki: Since zebras are herd animals, the stripes may help to confuse predators - a number of zebras standing or moving close together may appear as one large animal, making it more difficult for the lion to pick out any single zebra to attack

Hmm, I think the best way to handle this is to wait until I see someone at the shop try it. Then I'll casually hit him in both kneecaps with a hammer, and drag him into the back alleys of the mall for the rats to dispose of him.

It's safe to say that people using a tactic like this won't have any friends left to object.

mikhaila wrote:Hmm, I think the best way to handle this is to wait until I see someone at the shop try it. Then I'll casually hit him in both kneecaps with a hammer, and drag him into the back alleys of the mall for the rats to dispose of him.

It's safe to say that people using a tactic like this won't have any friends left to object.

Stop confusing the newbs. Those are RACCOONS behind GRM, not Rats!

e.g.

Raccoon:


Rat:



Ok Ok...this is a rat:



OMG really...this is a rat:

EDITED FOR INFLAMMATORY POLITICAL CONTENT

FINE JUST KIDDING here's your damn rat!

yakface wrote:
And how would GW prevent this from occuring in the rules? By not allowing friendly units to intermingle at all? Because that's the only way I could see this occuring and personally I would hate it if friendly models weren't allowed to move within a certain distance of each other.

Three minutes of thinking and another five worth of typing (since I'm really bad at both) yielded this:

"In the case of two or more units all granting each other cover saves, the defending player nominates one of those units to be the "meatshields" at the start of the opponents shooting phase. The "meatshields" do not gain cover saves for being behind any of the other intermingled units. They do recieve saves for being behind other units that they aren't mingling with."

That was 62 words worth of rules clarification to remove some of the silliness with these cover save rules. I wonder how long it will take someone to figure out how to find a loophole in those two sentences?
I haven't played a single game of 5th ed. yet, but I find it extremely silly that an entire army can have a 4+ cover save while standing on an open plain. Dunno if this has been taken into account in the new codexes, maybe it's intentional that all melee units should come with mobile 4+ cover.

And if this is truly supposed to be happening, and the rumour of IG platoons ingoring friendlies for their own shooting is true, I'll have to paint up a platoon of footsloggers with zebra-style camoflage.

It's easier to clear this up than that.

"Units may not mutually provide cover saves to one another. In the case of interspersed units the controlling player must nominate which unit is being screened."

Honestly, I think this rule setup may go down the path of Goblin Slingshots and Miner Congalines in WHFB: Stuff that is 100% legal but everyone knows about and the threat of 0 Sports and a parking lot beatdown keep its use in check.

Augh... this makes me fear that cc armies will always try to do this. It makes me angry when a game does something like this, making people more resiliant to fire because they bunch up in a tight group instead of less resistant.

Here's a question for you: Do units get cover saves from other units vs blast weapons? So if I shoot my battle cannon at interspersed units A and B, do they both take it in the face with no save?

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Honestly, I think this rule setup may go down the path of Goblin Slingshots and Miner Congalines in WHFB: Stuff that is 100% legal but everyone knows about and the threat of 0 Sports and a parking lot beatdown keep its use in check.

Well, I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. It's the difference between how one single unit in one specific army can be abused, and a general rule failure, which may not even be a failure.

Even this would work for RAW
12121212
12121212
12121212
12121212
12121212
If you are shooting from any side, more than 50% of the unit is screened, as you have to shoot in between another unit if you are staring down the lines of this formation.

in fact I even think that this might even give you better cover saves front he sides, as the models int he unit that ware in the back would be completely blocked from LOS but in a viable unit to be targeted and get a 3+ cover save. you could also gtg and make this a 2+ cover save if you wanted

I obviously don't have the book, but I think I saw this rule in the advance copy.

this rule is lame. It should be (IMHO) you cannot shoot though your own units, but you can shoot though opposing units.

there should be certain armies (like orks) which allow you to shoot though your own units. But they would have rules such as

"it's a grot's life" - you may shoot though a unit of grots as if they wern't there. but for ever to hit roll for a weapon that misses the enemy unit MUST be rolled again against the grot unit. if the to-hit roll succeeds roll for damage and saves as normal for the grot unit.

or something.

these magical 4+ saves are poorly conceived, I think.

Wehrkind wrote:Here's a question for you: Do units get cover saves from other units vs blast weapons? So if I shoot my battle cannon at interspersed units A and B, do they both take it in the face with no save?

yes. it's a regular cover save.

template weapons never allow cover saves, so they negate it. But everything else that is affected by a cover save is affectedby this cover save.

so yes, the more targets you have for your battle cannon, the fewer are killed

Sushicaddy wrote:
this rule is lame. It should be (IMHO) you cannot shoot though your own units, but you can shoot though opposing units.

That's called Flames of War.

It's gotten quite popular because it uses common sense approaches to fun games and rules that allow you to have fun.

this would even work for small mobile units, like jetbikes

W=warlock unit 1
L=Warlock unit 2
J=jetbikes unit 1
G=getbike unit 2

WJGL
GGJJ

Sushicaddy wrote:
this rule is lame. It should be (IMHO) you cannot shoot though your own units, but you can shoot though opposing units.

Agreed

these magical 4+ saves are poorly conceived, I think.

Also agreed.

However...

These are the rules. Saying that you're going to physically assault someone in the parking lot after the game because they're playing with the rules that have been provided is both lame and immature. If you have a group of friends, and you all agree not to do it, that's a good solution to the problem. If you attend a tournament, and get the tournament organizer to change it for that tournament, that's fine too. But if you play a pickup game with someone you don't know, you should expect that it's possible, and you're free to use it yourself too.

Hmmm that's unfortunate. They probably should have just said that blast weapons do not allow for cover saves from screening.

Redbeard wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Honestly, I think this rule setup may go down the path of Goblin Slingshots and Miner Congalines in WHFB: Stuff that is 100% legal but everyone knows about and the threat of 0 Sports and a parking lot beatdown keep its use in check.

Well, I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. It's the difference between how one single unit in one specific army can be abused, and a general rule failure, which may not even be a failure.

I think it's a fair direct comparison because while this is a general flaw/exploit of the general rules of the game that anyone can take advantage of, the specifics on what it does/does not do to the rest of the unit effectively means it will only be used by certain kinds of units (Orks, Nids, Assault Armies), and even then it's got limited applications to specific units in those armies.

As such I think it's fairly close in terms of the situation, and the "solution" is something that is universal in how it deals with these scenarios.

Redbeard wrote:

Sushicaddy wrote:
this rule is lame. It should be (IMHO) you cannot shoot though your own units, but you can shoot though opposing units.

Agreed

these magical 4+ saves are poorly conceived, I think.

Also agreed.

However...

These are the rules. Saying that you're going to physically assault someone in the parking lot after the game because they're playing with the rules that have been provided is both lame and immature. If you have a group of friends, and you all agree not to do it, that's a good solution to the problem. If you attend a tournament, and get the tournament organizer to change it for that tournament, that's fine too. But if you play a pickup game with someone you don't know, you should expect that it's possible, and you're free to use it yourself too.

I never said I would physically assault someone for using this formation. It RAW, and I'm fine with that. I usually have many issues with what I consider to be poorly conceived rules, But use them when I play the game, because they are the rules of the game.

I'm not hating, or saying i will stab someone in the kidneys for doing this, it's just poorly conceived from a crunch format. Form follows function, so your rules should make people play the way you want them to, not make a rule, then cry foul when people follow the letter of the rule.

It's poorly conceived, but i will still use it because it is the game.

I don't know if I would use this formation in anything by an 'Ard boys tourney, though.

Stelek wrote:

Sushicaddy wrote:
this rule is lame. It should be (IMHO) you cannot shoot though your own units, but you can shoot though opposing units.

That's called Flames of War.

It's gotten quite popular because it uses common sense approaches to fun games and rules that allow you to have fun.

I know.

I'm actually working on a 40K that uses FOW rules and scale.

It's working VERY well, though Space marines tend to get swarmed even more so than they do in regular 40K.

Time to bring more Hellhounds I suppose. The damned thing seems to even provide cover against barrages.

Krak_kirby wrote:Assault units or units with lousy shooting could do very well. Orks slugga boyz are the first that come to mind. Two units mixed, with a cover save, would do much better in turns one and two while crossing the field. Done with six units of 20-30 boyz a much larger proportion are making it across than otherwise.

If you're going to move 120 boyz across the board in this formation, PLEASE build movement trays for them. Should be easy enough - each row has 1" gaps between bases, and each row is offset 1" from the row in front.

Then take pictures, and we will spread them far and wide across the internet - with luck, maybe we can SHAME GW into improving their rules.

yakface wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Just for fun here are some thoughts:

IG Army with the Cameleone doctrine.

Two Conscript Platoons, to screen the entire army of IG, giving each Cameleone Guardsmen a 3+ Cover save out in the open.

Not only that, but the two Conscript Platoons in this formation would give each other 4+ Cover saves, making it harder to "shoot the screen" to get them to go away.

The only problem about this kind of speculation is that we don't know for sure how the codex conversion FAQs for 5th edition will rule on stuff like this. They may say that Cameleone doesn't affect screening cover saves, for example.

But yeah, assuming they don't make any major changes like that, Cameleone will be an utterly fantastic doctrine in v5.

Woah awsome Idea, I will start on it immediately.

and no one here has spoted the eldar ... i have done this but not often (as it falls flat if any one knows how it works) unit of vypers spred out to max spred in a line and a unit of pathfinder (rangers) sat behind ... they have 2+ cover save in both 4th ed and 5th ed ... ok you can give a unit your shooting at a 4+ cover save but it makes your rangers more or less invicable as the run across the table (vechical recks also give cover save so even if the vypers died the still give you a save)

If my opponent was setting up with this kind of "1 2 1 2 1 2" pattern, I would argue that NEITHER are screening each other, because both units have models on the "front rank". Either that or he will have to choose which unit is really front of the other. I know that units can get mixed up especially if stuff starts running away and regrouping and all that, but if it's deliberate I'm not gonna let it fly.

If he tried to say each got a cover save from setting up like that, I'd measure down to the last millimeter for everything and purposely slow the game down checking my true distance that way, and make him measure the same way when it's his turn to shoot, just to piss him off.

Then I would probably forfeit 2 hours in after the 2nd turn or so and go play someone who isn't an jackass.

I can kind of understand the horseshoe method and in fact I was planning that with my platoons, to have them kind of encircle the command squad.. but still with enough space to be able to tell the units apart. But mixing things up like that to try and abuse the rules is really just kinda gay*.





* No offense meant to people who are really gay.