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.

Just spoke with GW support and they've been taking calls on this. Technically, they're not supposed to make a ruling yet since the rules have not been officially released, but the word in support is that if you have two intermixed units the best the targets can hope for is one unit gets a 4+ save and the other does not relative to a given shooter.

So, essentially when you look at the two potential target units from the perspective of the shooters, the unit with the most models in the "front rank" of the checkerboard formation is the "blocking unit" and the other unit gets a 4+ save. But under no circumstances would both units get a mutual 4+ save!

The wait on the phone was very short so give 'em a call. I did it twice with two different agents and got the same answer. In fact, they too thought it was just plain silly to claim both get a save.

This may remain a matter for debate at DD but I think we know where any FAQ would land on the issue!

MB

How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate wrote:
What isn't a rule?

Lots of things seem like rules, but really are not. Here's some of them:

* Rulezboyz do not create rules. GW doesn't pay someone to be a "Rulezboy", they pay someone to stock shelves, or take phone orders. In their spare time they answer the Rulesboyz e-mail account. They're not experts on the rules. They're often wrong. And if you ask them the same question three or four times, it's not unheard of to get three or four different answers. If your argument includes any reference to a Rulezboy, you've just refuted yourself. Redshirts (i.e. staff at GW stores) fall into this same category.

You apparently didn't read the guidelines titled How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate as I suggested. Not law, but still a good staple for any dispute.

I for one have called the Rulezboyz on issues regards rule disputes early in my 40k "career" and I can tell you, they are of no actual help and should not be regarded as an authority. Best thing to do, as many have stated, quit trying to convert the unbelieving and wait for an FAQ.

DaBoss wrote:

You apparently didn't read the guidelines titled How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate as I suggested. Not law, but still a good staple for any dispute.

I for one have called the Rulezboyz on issues regards rule disputes early in my 40k "career" and I can tell you, they are of no actual help and should not be regarded as an authority. Best thing to do, as many have stated, quit trying to convert the unbelieving and wait for an FAQ.

Nope, I read 'em and I fully agree about the support staff not being "official". Makes sense.

But a key missing element in the forum rules is that to have an intelligent rules debate you shouldn't take a Chinese menu approach to the rules.

Advocates for the mutual 4+ save repeatedly cite text that applies to the relative position of individual models, apply those rules to entire units, and then ignore related text that applies to the relative positions of entire units (eg see posts above and in related threads).

I got tired of repeating myself when they repeatedly took this Chinese menu approach to rules debate and wanted to "take the pulse" of the support staff. Are they official? Nope! But based on the poll results, the support staff's reaction, my knowledge of GW's rule writers, and, dare I say, common sense I'm 99% certain that if GW feels the need to issue a FAQ on the question they'll say one of the units may claim a 4+ save relative to a given shooter but certainly not both. That seems in line with ALL of the rules as written, well within the spirit of GW's new approach, and consistent with (I'll be bold and say it again), common sense and fair play.

Anyone willing to wager the opposite and assert that if/when GW issues a FAQ they'll allow both units to claim a 4+ save when fired at by a given unit?

MB

DaBoss, I think the only reason why we are the ones still chiming in is that everyone else has put MB on ignore already.

Maybe we should take a hint.

I voted NO. Why? Because a lot of the Stelek argument is nonsense.

Suppose you have a unit of Orks partially encircled by Grots being fired at by SM:


SSSSSSSSSS

gOOOOOOOg
ggggggggggg

Is someone seriously arguing that having a couple grots on the ends of the Ork formation confers a 4+ save to the Orks which can clearly be seen by every single SM model?

JohnHwangDD wrote:I voted NO. Why? Because a lot of the Stelek argument is nonsense.

Suppose you have a unit of Orks partially encircled by Grots being fired at by SM:


SSSSSSSSSS

gOOOOOOOg
ggggggggggg

Is someone seriously arguing that having a couple grots on the ends of the Ork formation confers a 4+ save to the Orks which can clearly be seen by every single SM model?

The grots in your diagram are not in unit cohesion... use the picture with the lines and circles... it gives a cleared understanding.

The Grots are definitely in cohesion - they clearly form a "U" shape.

Starting from the left-most Grot, cohesion goes down, over x9, up.

But the 2 grots at the end are not in cohesion with each other. You are not firing through the "gaps" and 1/2 of the orc models are not screened from shots. In your above example O wouldn't get saves because 50% wouldn't be obscured and you are not shooting through 2 models in unit coherency with each other. British people are bad at writing rules, i think we have all come to that understanding by now.

The arguement is that the coherency gap (the two inches between each squad member) is the important consideration for LoS purposes.

I still think this is a clear violation of the intent of intervention. I would seriously ping the sportmanship score of anyone who used this in a tourney, and in the tourney's that I run, it will be clearly stated that it is not allowed.

Well, does it say that the Grots on the ends need to be in cohesion with each other, or does it simply say "between the gaps" without specifying how large those gaps are allowed to be?

as i said British people are bad at writing rules.

Or perhaps it's that American people are bad at interpreting British rules?

Or both O.o

I don't understand where the confusion arrises here or why it's considered a cheezy tactic?

Look at the unit you want to shoot at. If 50% or more of the target unit is obscured, then they gain a cover save. Simple.

So I look and see two enemy units intermixed with one another. I look at squad A. At least 50% of them are obscured (what they are obscured by is irrelevant except for determining what kind of save they get). I look at squad B. 50% of them are obscured also. Either one would get a save.

Note, it may be possible that squad A gets a save but squad B doesn't. Squad B might get a save while squad A doesn't. It depends on how the models happened to be are arranged at the time.

Not allowing them to gain saves from one another is like saying a unit can't get saves when they are in a woods. Because they are in among the tree's (intermixed) means that the tree's are not interveening, so no save. If you for some reason wanted to shoot at the tree's instead of the unit hiding there then the tree's would get a cover save if 50% or more of the tree's were obscured by the unit.

A unit should be able to hide in another unit just the same as it can hide in a woods.

I think people are hung up on the word intervening. People seem to be saying that only one squad can intervene another and not vice versa. Two squads can intervene each other equally. When you decide to shoot and it's time to determine LOS and check for any possible cover saves that's when you determine who is intervening who. If you select squad A, then it may be possible that squad B is intervening. If you select squad B then squad A might count as intervening. Intervening is not a fixed trait. It is an instantanous characteristic that is assigned to a unit at the moment of firing.

It's the logic for why you can't shoot into close combat. When two squads are locked in hand to hand combat they are imagined to be engaged in a swirling melee (ie:intermixed with one another). You can't pick out your guys from the enemy. Notice that on the enemys turn he can't shoot into the combat either. Both opposing units are equally interveening each other.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I voted NO. Why? Because a lot of the Stelek argument is nonsense.

Suppose you have a unit of Orks partially encircled by Grots being fired at by SM:


SSSSSSSSSS

gOOOOOOOg
ggggggggggg

Is someone seriously arguing that having a couple grots on the ends of the Ork formation confers a 4+ save to the Orks which can clearly be seen by every single SM model?

No, nobody is saying that. 50% or more of the Orks are all the visible to the Space Marines, so no cover save. If the Marines decide to shoot at the Grots, then the Grots get a save because at least 50% of the Grots are obscured (by the Orks). I think everyone agrees with this?

What some people (including myself) are saying is this:

SSSSSSSSSS

gOgOgOgOgO
OgOgOgOgOg

Note that this is a perfectly legal formation. Each model is within 2" of another squadmate.

Now when the Marines shoot the Orks, at least 50% of them are obscured (by the Grots), so cover save granted. Agreed?
However, if the Marines choose to shoot the Grots instead, they are also at least 50% obscured (by the Orks), so cover save granted. Some people are saying no. Only one unit here can be granted a cover save.

My question to these people would be which unit is granted a cover save? The first unit shot at in the enemy shooting phase? Does the owning player decide which unit is screening which. When do they declare that desicion? Do we need a special marker to show which unit is screening which to be placed down in the movement phase? The rules don't cover any of this. I for one dont think the rules need to cover these situation because according to the RAW both units are granting cover saves to one another.

The rules for intervening units do not need FAQing. They clearly state that the cover save is granted in the same way as "if it was behind terrain" and not as if in area terrain.

It goes on to say that bodies aren't blocking the shots but that "the firer is distracted by the more immediate threat" (ie. closer to them).

In other words, it only applies to a unit behind another unit.

I dont think I've ever posted over here on Dakka Dakka, but this topic just made me scratch my head. If GW is taking alot of calls on this, then it definetly needs to be Faq'd. One thing I will say is that units being shot at by these unit's would absolutely get cover saves. I mean this is already extremely shaky as it is, but unlike alot of people I don't really give a damn either way. Does this means that Gaunts and stealer's can do the same thing, or that terminators can mix with marines? It interesting when talking about orc mobs but what happens when 5 man tactical squads are giving devastator squads cover, it can get a little over powered and power gamed, not just by horde players. 10 LC terminators in a 20 man crusader squad? Yikes. However I do see where the argument has validity. Ill try my best not to butcher a diagram or two.

OGOGOGOGOGOGOG
GOGOGOGOGOGOGO
GOGOGOGOGOGOGO

Roll to see what Squads gets cover and which squad doesn't( AFTER declaring target.) Just a house rule.( No effect against ord.)

GGGGGGGGGGGGG
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOG
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOG
GOGGGGGGGGGGGGOG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

A Gisnt Squad I know But when Taking Direct Fire I would Say that this way Both Units DEFINETLY get a cover save, as much as I hate to say it. As both Units are more than 50 percent obscured. THE GROT BOX

Those who assert that intermixed units confer mutual 4+ cover saves state that the reason is the shooters are confused. Seeing all those troops jumping around in front of them means that they can't target a specific unit and thus the intermixed units should get the save.

Based on that rationale put forth on several occassions now, in the diagram below does one Ork unit get the cover save or more than one Ork unit? Why? Please explain your conclusion.

MajerBlundor wrote:Those who assert that intermixed units confer mutual 4+ cover saves state that the reason is the shooters are confused. Seeing all those troops jumping around in front of them means that they can't target a specific unit and thus the intermixed units should get the save.

Which is all well and good as a justification for a rule... but in an actual rules discussion is meaningless.

Real-world analogies don't prove or disprove gaming rules. The rules do that.

If the rule says that a model gets a cover save if another model is in the way, it makes no difference whatsoever what the real-world justification for that may be. The model gets the cover save.

Otherwise, we'd all be arguing over whether our models can move... since their legs are glued to large round discs covered in gravel, which in the real world would make movement tricky at best.

MajerBlundor wrote:Those who assert that intermixed units confer mutual 4+ cover saves state that the reason is the shooters are confused. Seeing all those troops jumping around in front of them means that they can't target a specific unit and thus the intermixed units should get the save.

That's not the reason intermixed units confer mutual 4+ covers saves. The reason is that when targeting either unit, each unit is at least 50% obscured. If you are shooting at a target and that target is at least 50% obscured, then the target is granted a cover save. That's it.

What you are talking about is some sort of out of game logic as to why the rules are certain way. While it is interesting to postulate, rationalize or otherwise analyze the rules in this manner, it really has no bearing on what the actual game mechanics are. It's nice when real world logic dovetails with game rules to produce results that are intuative and sensible, however in the matter of the units confering a cover save to another unit, I don't believe this is the case.

MajerBlundor wrote:Based on that rationale put forth on several occassions now, in the diagram below does one Ork unit get the cover save or more than one Ork unit? Why? Please explain your conclusion.

I'm not sure I understand your question. What I assume you're saying is that there are two Ork units in the diagram above (that are intermixed)? Then I suppose your question is why would troops be confused when ordered to shoot at the Orks, because all Orks looks the same and so the two units simply appears to be one big unit. Therefore no hesitation or confusion should ensue when ordered to open fire on them?

I'm going to assume this the challenge your putting forth.

The answer is "because the rulebook says so". The Rulebook says that the out of game logic for cover saves has to do with the confusion and hesitation caused when the target unit is partially obscured. This is the reason they state in the book.

I agree with you (if I actually understand your point), this makes no sense when a unit is giving cover to another unit. As I have stated elsewhere I don't believe a soldier would hesitate to shoot at an enemy if another enemy got in the way. The fluff reasons given (by the book) don't make a heck of a lot of sense in certain circumstances.

This doesn't change the way the rules work however. We can't just decide to interperet the rules based on how logical (or illogical) we think the explanations for the rules are. What we can do is attempt to determine what the rules actually say and implement them in our games (or choose to alter the rules you don't like by means of house rules).

I'll state my position again. Two units granting each other cover saves is logical, realistic and one possible way to simulate what would actually happen in real life. What doesn't make sense is that the covering unit is immune to damage (for that shooting volley).

Wrote several replies, but erased them as they were less than polite.

I'll disagree with the statement that I'm somehow cheating by making a house rule to avoid arguements about a slippery part of rule manipulation.

Kallbrand wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Imagine you're the GW staffer with the absolute power to settle the question.

For me, it's a reality. I own the stores, it's my call. I see this as a rules perversion that will cause endless arguements, and slow down the game. 98% of the people coming in want to play 40k, not some rules-lawyer version of the game and endless RAW arguements. Our house rule is that if the units are so intermixed that it's not obvious which one gets the cover save from the other, then neither one does. This puts the responibility on the controlling player to set up his models correctly, to gain the cover save.

You mean they dont get to play by the real rules? Setting up correctly actually includes this ridiculous formation until FAQed. I also think this rule is crappy and would prefer to not have it in but it is there at the moment and removing rules for personal flavor actually seems like cheating to me.

See I just don't believe that RAW supports this idea, lets face it, a pretty poor sporting & illogical attempt to gain a cover save. Yes we can wordhammer this to death.

simple fact. If you play me and use this I shake you hand and put my models away. I play maybe 2 a month if I am lucky (work f/t and study f/t) and I am not wasting a gaming on some cheating asshat who is trying to gain an advantage their are not entitle to.

And OP, for god's sake, give it up. No-one is going to change their mind on this until it is faq.

mikhaila wrote:Wrote several replies, but erased them as they were less than polite.

I'll disagree with the statement that I'm somehow cheating by making a house rule to avoid arguements about a slippery part of rule manipulation.

Kallbrand wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Imagine you're the GW staffer with the absolute power to settle the question.

For me, it's a reality. I own the stores, it's my call. I see this as a rules perversion that will cause endless arguements, and slow down the game. 98% of the people coming in want to play 40k, not some rules-lawyer version of the game and endless RAW arguements. Our house rule is that if the units are so intermixed that it's not obvious which one gets the cover save from the other, then neither one does. This puts the responibility on the controlling player to set up his models correctly, to gain the cover save.

You mean they dont get to play by the real rules? Setting up correctly actually includes this ridiculous formation until FAQed. I also think this rule is crappy and would prefer to not have it in but it is there at the moment and removing rules for personal flavor actually seems like cheating to me.

Should have stuck with the rude version. Original comment of cheating was just dumb and thoughtless. setting up correctly DOES NOT include this ridiclous formation in HIS shop. Nothing wrong with changing a rule as long as everyone is aware of it. Who else remembers the reems of house rules for V3 - some had a life of their own and spread!

Red_Lives wrote:as i said British people are bad at writing rules.

Really, you don't think it is possible that Americans might just be slightly competitive and twist a few rules into knots to gain an advantage.

fullheadofhair wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:as i said British people are bad at writing rules.

Really, you don't think it is possible that Americans might just be slightly competitive and twist a few rules into knots to gain an advantage.

The chances of this EVER coming up are about 1/100 games for this reason.

yakface wrote:
It will be difficult to move two intermingled units like that as models are not allowed to move through friendly models or between gaps too small for their base to fit.

In fact, in is entirely possible to set your units up intermingled to the point where you wouldn't be allowed to really move either of your intermingled units at all!


As for close combat, the rules now allow you to come within 1" fo enemy models while charging, full stop. That means intermingled enemy units no longer stop charges.

And i really don't see why the OP has such a major issue with this. I really fail to see how shooting at an intermixed unit is that much different if 1 unit was 6" in front of the other. The rule is to represent the "chance" that your shot was stopped before it reached its intended target. I really fail to see how it makes a difference how close that other unit is or where it is. And its not really playing for an advantage either. For 1 reason... Blast weapons.

I think calling somebody a 'Cheater' for having 'House rules' in THEIR OWN STORE is a bit much.

Much as Mikhalia and I disagree on most things..I think your ruder response would have been an interesting read.

Anyhoo-how many threads has this dude infiltrated with this Chezzy-Bullgak question?

Sorry MajorBlunder- I have to say I wouldn't play against a dude who tried that on me.

My response would be(as soon as the rule was pulled)

"Wow dude, you win. I am just going to pack up now, and go over there on the couch and play some MTG, or some "Hello Ktty" RPG. Wanna GM?"

Red_Lives wrote:And i really don't see why the OP has such a major issue with this. I really fail to see how shooting at an intermixed unit is that much different if 1 unit was 6" in front of the other. The rule is to represent the "chance" that your shot was stopped before it reached its intended target. I really fail to see how it makes a difference how close that other unit is or where it is. And its not really playing for an advantage either. For 1 reason... Blast weapons.

This is actually really easy to do and move, once it is set up just move each model forward six inches.

I don't understand why you don't see this is an advantage. 2 units in totally open ground with no terrain nearby getting a 4+ cover save where only one should. Of-course it is an advantage. Instead of, for example, 10 marines getting a 4+ you now have 20 getting it.

akira5665 wrote:I think calling somebody a 'Cheater' for having 'House rules' in THEIR OWN STORE is a bit much.

Much as Mikhalia and I disagree on most things..I think your ruder response would have been an interesting read.

Anyhoo-how many threads has this dude infiltrated with this Chezzy-Bullgak question?

Sorry MajorBlunder- I have to say I wouldn't play against a dude who tried that on me.

My response would be(as soon as the rule was pulled)

"Wow dude, you win. I am just going to pack up now, and go over there on the couch and play some MTG, or some "Hello Ktty" RPG. Wanna GM?"

Hello Kitty rpg!!!!!

Wait until the LARPer's come across that idea. If you came across that in the park or street you would think you popped an acid tab.

"Intent"?
"Common sense"?
"In the real world...."?

And now "Droolsboyz"?

You cannot use the poll as a argument for anything.
Did I vote that I would change the rule? Yes.
Does it change that it is legal right now? No.

MajerBlundor (major blunder?), give it up.

Of all the strange arguments put forth by you there is only one missing. You still haven't claimed to be a GW Games Designer or have an inside source on the Games Designer Staff.