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.

Exactly my point. We don't track the shots that are deflected by a cover save. They are just absorbed by the cover. If the cover happens to be another unit, then so be it. That units soaks up the shots and suffers no damage.

Realistic? No. Will it work well for this game? Yes (it may even be required).

If you wanted a realistic rule then others have proposed something like:
Roll to hit normally. Then roll a d6 again for each shot. On a 4+ the intended target unit is hit. On a 1-3 the intervening unit is hit. Then roll to wound and make armour saves as normal.

The problem with this is that it is possible to shoot at two different squads now. If a unit of Chaos Marines shoots though a guardman squad to hit another Guardsman squad in the back, then a number of Guardsmen from both squads will propably be casualties. Both units could potentially fall back as a result. Pretty nasty. What if you shoot through three or four units to hit a distant squad? Can you potentially score casualties against four or five units with one shooting salvo?

That would be more phun then a complete IG army with cover save's

MB:

The rulebook answers this question:

"What if you roll a 5 and pass the cover save...
Where did the bullet, rocket, shuriken, laserbeam go? Into a big black hole?
No it did hit your other unit...But the massive rocket/bullet doesnt kill em anymore... How odd"

They specifically say (paraphrasing since I dont have the rulebook here) that you imagine for the saved shots that the person firing pulled up and did not fire because their target was obscured, or was distracted and missed everything due to the intervening unit.

We had an argument this sunday about this while playing. My friend, who plays guard, insisted this made no sense for his heavy-bolter guys since they'd just hold down the trigger and not care. I had to agree with him, but I tried to explain why they would assume it would work this way for most other weapons:

A turn in warhammer is a very, very short period of time. I don't know what the actual number is but you could assume it is as little as 5 or 10 seconds. When you're trying to aim your lascannon at something far away, it takes a bit of effort to make sure you're not wasting your shot. In real life, people aren't just holding down the trigger and hoping to hit, like they were playing quake or something. They take aim, wait, and then fire.

If something intervenes suddenly or just in general while you're tracking your target, there is no reason to assume you'd just fire immediately. You'd more likely pause, startled, or completely ignore it while trying to get a bead back on your original target. You aren't just firing wily-nilly into the enemy with most weapons, you're aiming. Maybe sometimes it took you two turns to get the shot you wanted instead of one. Wow, you waited a whole 10 seconds longer to take your shot. Or maybe you fired, but the distraction made you miss. Whee. Does this work abstractly for every type of weapon? No. Does it work for most of them? Yes.

I think everyone is really missing the point.

Blast templates.
Interwhatevering your units is full of fail, please do it.

holden88 wrote:

Now if it was real life, you'd just open fire on the lot and you'd kill roughly an even number of redt and blue hat guys. It would probably be easier to score hits too since the target as a whole is bigger now (2x the size of a single group). However, in the game a unit can only shoot at a single enemy target.

Holden...great posts!

Your proposed solution in another post makes sense but it's not part of the rules unfortunately. So, we have to work with GW's rules. In that case we have two options.

1. Make intermixed units HARDER to hit by giving them a 4+ save which is completely counter-intuitive

2. Simply don't confer any save bonus for intermixed units which is closer to common sense even though it should be easier to hit them


It's obvious there is some disagreement on the topic, so if one must err, I say err on the side of common sense. Why on God's green earth would anyone want to err on the side of a silly, non-sensical approach unless trying to eek out some further game advantage?

Is winning that important to some people that even if their God-given common sense tells them that their conclusion is aburd and may not be supported by the RAW, they are willing to ignore logic/common sense to obtain that game advantage?

Yikes!!! That's what this is really about. How far are gamers willing to go to exploit what they see as an advantage, no matter how counter-intuitive or absurd?!? Are they willing to surrender their reason and sportsmanship for a game advantage?

MB

Ok, one last time, since you've obviously give up actually arguing the rules:

Sucky rules are still rules. I really doubt many people like this rule and the implications. Unfortunately, you have to argue against the rules, not common sense or common decency.

And uh, gamers are willing to go very, very far to exploit an advantage, so long as they don't think they'll lose too many sportsmanship points for it.

Martndemus wrote:
What if you roll a 5 and pass the cover save...
Where did the bullet, rocket, shuriken, laserbeam go? Into a big black hole?
No it did hit your other unit...But the massive rocket/bullet doesnt kill em anymore... How odd

Pg 21 of the rulebook. "This does not mean that the intervening models literally shot the shots, but rather that they obscure the sight of the firers or otherwise spoil their aim. A successful cover save in this case might mean that the firer has not shot at all, missing the fleeting moment when the target was in its sights. This is because, in the case of intervening friends, the firer would be afraid of hitting his comrades; while in the case of intervening enemies, the firer is distracted by the more immediate threat."

The rules are built to be simple and concise. If you start throwing in shooting and hitting multiple units due to proximity of fire and all that stuff, the rules get bogged down by examples, loopholes, inconsistencies, and the like. Just accept it the way it is and move on. You are changing nothing until you begin to write for GW.

MajerBlundor wrote:
1. Make intermixed units HARDER to hit by giving them a 4+ save which is completely counter-intuitive

2. Simply don't confer any save bonus for intermixed units which is closer to common sense even though it should be easier to hit them

It's obvious there is some disagreement on the topic, so if one must err, I say err on the side of common sense. Why on God's green earth would anyone want to err on the side of a silly, non-sensical approach unless trying to eek out some further game advantage?

This is where we disagree. I don't think it's non-sensical to give units cover saves when they are hiding behind (or within) another unit. Indeed, we grant cover saves to a unit that is intermixed with a group of rocks so why wouldn't we grant a cover save when they are intermixed with a group of other humanoids? Simply put, whenever a unit is intermixed with something that can potentially block or impair accurate and damaging weapons fire shouldn't that unit get a cover save (regarless of what is providing that save?).

Once again, the part that I think is non-sensical is that units that are providing a cover save are immune to the damage that they absorb. This is not the same issue that you bring up in your original post (but it is related).

MajerBlundor wrote:
Is winning that important to some people that even if their God-given common sense tells them that their conclusion is aburd and may not be supported by the RAW, they are willing to ignore logic/common sense to obtain that game advantage?

Yikes!!! That's what this is really about. How far are gamers willing to go to exploit what they see as an advantage, no matter how counter-intuitive or absurd?!? Are they willing to surrender their reason and sportsmanship for a game advantage?
MB

Let me tell you a story. I started playing 40k in 2nd edition. I was a guard player and really enjoyed the tanks (read: treadhead). In 2nd edition there were precise and detailed rules about moving vehicles. Vehicles could only turn so much in a given turn. The faster a vehicle went, then less it could turn. A vehicle could drive in reverse but only at 1/2 speed (and only if it spent the previous turn stopped). Vehicles had to slowly speed up too. They couldn't be stopped one turn and then be moving flat out in the next.

What all this meant is that vehicles handled fairly realisticly. If you wanted to turn your tank around and drive in the opposite direction, you had to either slow down and/or stop, pivot 180 degrees and then speed up in the new direction. Or you could make a wide sweeping turn at a higher speed.

When 3rd edition came out I hated the simplified movement rules. Vehicles could move in any direction and end up facing where they wanted after they moved. To me, this sucked. For a while I refused to play this way. If my tank went full speed in a certain direction, then damd it! it was going to end up facing in that direction. Basically I was handicapping myself in favour of the visual appeal and realism of the game.

After having my exposed rear armour exploited a few times and after I had difficulty bringing weapons to bear on my enemy I evetually swung around to way everyone plays the game. I started moving vehicles in any direction and any facing and stopped worrying about how they ended up there. It's a concession I made to continue playing the game.

So to answer your question, YES I think players are willing to surrender thier reason to gain an in game advantage (the same advantages as everyone else). The nature of the game requires certain logical and realistic trains of thought to be shelved. The game can't be 100% logical and realistic. Some concessions are made for the sake of gameplay.

lambadomy wrote:MB:

The rulebook answers this question:

"What if you roll a 5 and pass the cover save...
Where did the bullet, rocket, shuriken, laserbeam go? Into a big black hole?
No it did hit your other unit...But the massive rocket/bullet doesnt kill em anymore... How odd"

They specifically say (paraphrasing since I dont have the rulebook here) that you imagine for the saved shots that the person firing pulled up and did not fire because their target was obscured, or was distracted and missed everything due to the intervening unit.

We had an argument this sunday about this while playing. My friend, who plays guard, insisted this made no sense for his heavy-bolter guys since they'd just hold down the trigger and not care. I had to agree with him, but I tried to explain why they would assume it would work this way for most other weapons:

A turn in warhammer is a very, very short period of time. I don't know what the actual number is but you could assume it is as little as 5 or 10 seconds. When you're trying to aim your lascannon at something far away, it takes a bit of effort to make sure you're not wasting your shot. In real life, people aren't just holding down the trigger and hoping to hit, like they were playing quake or something. They take aim, wait, and then fire.

If something intervenes suddenly or just in general while you're tracking your target, there is no reason to assume you'd just fire immediately. You'd more likely pause, startled, or completely ignore it while trying to get a bead back on your original target. You aren't just firing wily-nilly into the enemy with most weapons, you're aiming. Maybe sometimes it took you two turns to get the shot you wanted instead of one. Wow, you waited a whole 10 seconds longer to take your shot. Or maybe you fired, but the distraction made you miss. Whee. Does this work abstractly for every type of weapon? No. Does it work for most of them? Yes.

While this is the logic the rulebook is putting forth is is a bit ludicrous. I can't imagine most units would refrain from pulling the trigger because the enemy became momentarily obscured by another enemy.

I guess I can sort of see it happening with snipers or other presicion shooters, but most units won't care.

I can see it now, a Khorne Bezerker is closing on the enemy, bolt pistol in hand laying into the enemy with accurate fire. He lines up a Guardsman in his sight and almost squeezes the trigger. Suddenly, another Guardsman pops into his sight. He instantly slacks of on the trigger. "Whew" he thinks to himself "Praise Khorne, I almost shot some guy from a whole other squad. I best be more careful in the future."

BTW how does that Bezerker even know that guy is from another squad and not just another guy from the initial squad (for the majority of the Imperiums enemies, I'm sure all Guardsmen look alike)? After all The indivdual troopers in any given squad are moving around each other constantly right? Wouldn't they interrupt an enemies aim just as well?

Okay, how about Orks, do they even aim? In my mind they just run towards the enemy, guns blazing. As long as the barrel is more or less pointed in the direction of the enemy, that's good enough.

The only way I can buy this fluffy interpertation is if the sarge (or Nob or whoever is charge of the squad) orders the unit to open fire and there is some confusion about which target they are supposed to shoot at.

"Open fire men" Sword outstreched pointing towards the advancing enemy troops.
"Huh? Does he mean the enemy squad in front or the enemy squad in back?"

mispost

I can't see the intermixing ploy working at a grand tournament. They will fix this for the benefit of people without common sense. Anyone who would try this in a non tournament game is rediculous and obviously unconcerned about the original intent or the game designer.

FunkyFresh wrote:I can't see the intermixing ploy working at a grand tournament. They will fix this for the benefit of people without common sense. Anyone who would try this in a non tournament game is rediculous and obviously unconcerned about the original intent or the game designer.

Serves people right when they try to use loopholes...

Eventually, a judge is going to tell them it doenst work that way, they'll be forced to comply in not cheat..er... playing the way they want to, and their whole game plan will go swirling down the toilet...losing them the game. Then they'll come onto dakka and blame the judge publicly.

Those of us that dont take advantage of loopholes will find our gameplans sturdier and wont find judges deciding against us in ways that totally break our game.

Intermixed units...I cannot wait...I'll just stick to rapid firing high str high/no AP weapons.

Deadshane1 wrote:

FunkyFresh wrote:I can't see the intermixing ploy working at a grand tournament. They will fix this for the benefit of people without common sense. Anyone who would try this in a non tournament game is rediculous and obviously unconcerned about the original intent or the game designer.

Serves people right when they try to use loopholes...

Eventually, a judge is going to tell them it doenst work that way, they'll be forced to comply in not cheat..er... playing the way they want to, and their whole game plan will go swirling down the toilet...losing them the game. Then they'll come onto dakka and blame the judge publicly.

Those of us that dont take advantage of loopholes will find our gameplans sturdier and wont find judges deciding against us in ways that totally break our game.

Intermixed units...I cannot wait...I'll just stick to rapid firing high str high/no AP weapons.

For this specific I would actually agree, its silly and quite "stupid" and would nice to be seen gone.
BUT the same thing can happen around other things. Remembering my last time when a judge ruled that you can actually move within 1 of things as long as you dont stop within it. Resulted in my opponent running zig-zags around my models and just ending their movement more then 1" away(actually making my whole game plan go down the toilet and costing me the tournament win). There are a tip ton of other rulings that have changed the power balance in the game at tournaments leaving pepole "farked". So the next time you might actually get that against you, when using something in the rulebook that might or might not be "silly-cheezy-stupid" in your mind is overruled.

I also fail to see why this "breaks" the intent of the rule... Its to represent that there is a 50% or so chance that when shooting at a unit you hit the WRONG unit right?

I think that some people are forgetting that if LOS is drawn BETWEEN a gap in between two models of a unit, the unit being shot at does get a cover save under 5th.

Due to the positioning of these models, both units would get a cover save in this case. Casualty removal would need to be careful to retain this advantage for long though and as already been stated blast and (especially with no cover save permitted) template weapons will have a field day on this.

Red_Lives wrote:I also fail to see why this "breaks" the intent of the rule... Its to represent that there is a 50% or so chance that when shooting at a unit you hit the WRONG unit right?

Dont be daft. This is obviously manipulating the rule in a direction that was not intended....otherwise, where are the diagrams in the 5th edition rulebook depicting intermixed units. The rulebook clearly shows examples of one unit giving cover to another. It has NO examples of two units granting each other a cover save simultaniously. Wouldnt you think that this 'might' be a big deal, two units standing out in the open both with cover saves?....yet its not even addressed in the rulebook.

I plan on making the game as difficult as I can for anyone who uses this underhanded tactic. Notifying judges, making sure one unit at a time is moved, making a point of hitting the two units with ordinance on general principle....excetera.

Deadshane1 wrote:
I plan on making the game as difficult as I can for anyone who uses this underhanded tactic. Notifying judges, making sure one unit at a time is moved, making a point of hitting the two units with ordinance on general principle....excetera.

That's a fine response. Your opponent is doing something legal that you don't like so you do legal things in response. Nothing wrong with that at all.

This is exactly what I expect and enjoy at a tournament.

Democratus wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
I plan on making the game as difficult as I can for anyone who uses this underhanded tactic. Notifying judges, making sure one unit at a time is moved, making a point of hitting the two units with ordinance on general principle....excetera.

That's a fine response. Your opponent is doing something legal that you don't like so you do legal things in response. Nothing wrong with that at all.

This is exactly what I expect and enjoy at a tournament.

Just saying... the first thing people are going to try is move the whole combination as if it is one...its easier and doenst require any precision. Clearly Illegal.

Also...any judges who disagree with these tactics might "accidentally" pair these people up with 'Fzorgle' opponents. Funny.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Democratus wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
I plan on making the game as difficult as I can for anyone who uses this underhanded tactic. Notifying judges, making sure one unit at a time is moved, making a point of hitting the two units with ordinance on general principle....excetera.

That's a fine response. Your opponent is doing something legal that you don't like so you do legal things in response. Nothing wrong with that at all.

This is exactly what I expect and enjoy at a tournament.

Just saying... the first thing people are going to try is move the whole combination as if it is one...its easier and doenst require any precision. Clearly Illegal.

Also...any judges who disagree with these tactics might "accidentally" pair these people up with 'Fzorgle' opponents. Funny.

That would be hilarious, one Fzorgle can seriously stop one unit from moving forward at all (thus dispersing the formation). Two Fzorgle's in the same turn can prevent either unit from legally moving again for the rest of the game!

Right which is an example that its a strong formation but surely NOT unbeatable.

quick question.... how did Fzorgle end up meaning lash?

Red_Lives wrote:Right which is an example that its a strong formation but surely NOT unbeatable.

More like using the rules to screw with someone trying to exploit them.

Ok we can all agree this is legal? no?

we can all agree this is unsportsmanlike? no?

We can all agree its not easy to legally move/keep this formation? no?

we can all agree to let this topic die now? no?

You just helped keep it alive.

Deadshane1 wrote:You just helped keep it alive.

so did you.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Democratus wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
I plan on making the game as difficult as I can for anyone who uses this underhanded tactic. Notifying judges, making sure one unit at a time is moved, making a point of hitting the two units with ordinance on general principle....excetera.

That's a fine response. Your opponent is doing something legal that you don't like so you do legal things in response. Nothing wrong with that at all.

This is exactly what I expect and enjoy at a tournament.

Just saying... the first thing people are going to try is move the whole combination as if it is one...its easier and doenst require any precision. Clearly Illegal.

Also...any judges who disagree with these tactics might "accidentally" pair these people up with 'Fzorgle' opponents. Funny.

That would be hilarious, one Fzorgle can seriously stop one unit from moving forward at all (thus dispersing the formation). Two Fzorgle's in the same turn can prevent either unit from legally moving again for the rest of the game!

BWAHAHAHAHA
I can see it now.
Two Lashes on two units.
The first unit is moved into a circle formation around ONE member of another squad while leaving ONE member 2" away.
The second unit is, then, lashed in a similar pattern right next to it, totally encircling the lone man and staying within 2" of their own member trapped in the other circle.

That would be a fitting response to someon intermixing (Though I still believe it's not a violation of the rules... just a cheesy way of interpreting them).
Eric

Red_Lives wrote:Right which is an example that its a strong formation but surely NOT unbeatable.

Aside from the fact that only *one* army in 40k has this ability at all, and that ability is limited to only *one* option from *one* HQ type...

In contrast, this tactic is basically free and available to nearly all arnies.

The asymmetry between the tactic and the counter is very high.

Oh god, imagine Eldar Pathfinders with this rule....

MajerBlundor wrote:
"If a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain (such as between two trees in a wood) or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visble to the firer."

Ok, I swore to myself I would stay out of this, but this is the RAW element that should be payed attention to here.

Let's start out slow, and define intervening, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

intervene, 4. to occur or lie between two things

Now that we have that out of the way, let us look closer at the rule. While it may say that shooting through gaps in models confers a cover save, according to the RAW, these models need to be from an intervening unit. The OP is not completely inaccurate in his original argument: intervening is a different scenario from interlaced. Even if you didn't use Merriam-Webster's definition, any other definition of intervene will show you a fairly similar description. While the illustration with the Grots and Boys may have shown some models were obscured by other models, the models that obscured them were not from an intervening unit... simply another unit. In order to really be considered intervening (in my book), the entire unit should exist somewhere between the target and the firer. While the unit need not be smack in front of the target/firer, it is fairly easy to tell in terms of relative position. There are so many different scenarios that it is impossible for any amount of RAW to clearly define them.