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.

This reminds me of the old "baffle mirror" in 3rd Edition. Since you could only shoot one squad at a time, and you could only remove models who were actually in LOS, and models from other squads blocked LOS (the "one way mirror")... you could theoretically use movement trays and deploy 5 5-man Las-Plas squads in a square block like this:

12345
45123
23451
51234
34512

The end result being that any shooting from any single facing could only kill one model per unit per turn. Once you removed one model from the block you could get lucky and kill two models, or kill two if you shot them from a 45 degree angle view.

Obviously, the tactic was legal, but bs. Same thing with this new checkerboard/banana nonsense. It never saw tournament usage because it was bs, and it never saw local group usage anywhere that people were strong enough to stand up to bullies.

Glad to hear nobody tried to pull this in Vegas.

-JTS

Danny Internets wrote:
Perhaps you missed the part about GW reps giving out completely contradictory information. Ever heard of the GW Rulez Boys? Same nonsense, which is why people laugh at those who bring their "rulings" into discussions.

Just because rulings are not consist ant doesn't make any rule you don't like a 'house rule'. In the 12 years I have been playing 40k, often times, inconsistent rulings give way to clear FAQs when something exploitive or unintended begins to bubble to the surface. The more and more the abuse becomes used and gets clear 'nicknames' the activity is first disallowed at official events then people in FLGS stop using it because they can't get away with it at a tourney and then we get a clarification.

It doesn't make it a 'house rule'

And lots of people aren't, in particular those who wish to use the rules of 40k as they are written, not as per the whims of the local tournament organizer.

I would rather the whims of a organizer that has a clear path to someone at GW with the source of his ruling than that exploitive gitz who shows up in all tourneys who want to ride out a loophole until WD declares it dead.

This is inane. The rulebook doesn't show vehicles in "choo-choo train" formation so is that now illegal too? My codex doesn't have my specific army list printed so perhaps it is in violation of the spirit of the rules, you know, since it's not "clearly" permitted. By your logic nothing is clear unless each and every possible example (of which there are an infinite number) is printed in black and white.

Stop purposefully being obtuse and extending your attitude to rule concepts that have nothing to do with anything. Mutually generating cover saves are not 'clearly intended' and are not shown to be legal with other examples (wound allocation, cover saves and so on) and are based off of 'inferred' interpretations. And in all those formations they require exact movement because many times I can sit there with a laserpen and check every model I have to every model you have and many times if you were not 100% perfect I can find where your formation is not good enough to work. which destroys the game in spirit and time.

We have had this type of exploit in every edition and it always gets ruled against and cleared up soon enough. It has been like 2 months and the attitude of "if it is not FAQed it is legal" is a powergaming attitude that has been rightfully chased from GW events for years. Tourneys have the right it deploy rulings and they are official. Calling any ruling you don't agree with a HOUSE rule makes you sound like a crybaby and most times makes you lose sportsmanship ratings.

Hulksmash wrote:So how do you move legally in the banana system? you get that save until you move since you have to move one unit at a time and can't move through another unit you'll never get that part of the banana out in front again since, again, you can't move throught the other unit after it stops.

It reallys is pretty good for guard and i think you'll see people use it a few times till they get screwed on soft scores or until they try and move against someone who actually makes them move by the rules instead of being lenient.

Me, i'm generally pretty lenient about moving but if somebody tried this i'd be the biggest stickler for moving you'd ever seen...hehe

Rulebook, page 11. "Models in the way".

and

Rulebook, page 22. "Firing through units or area terrain"

Cool, still a lot of work and a lot places to screw up the movement. I had misread that part in the rulebook about being able to move through your own units if you could fit.

But you can bet i'll make you move each model of every unit. It'll slow the game down so much that you'll never finish a game, be a bore to play, and ensure low soft scores in a tournement setting. I generally play in a tournement enviorment but am still in it for the fun of playing not winning, though that does happen from time to time..hehe

Do you guys have soft scores? Because if you don't then run with it. To me it's RAW vs. Intent arguement and while it's legal and i won't question the tactuc when it's used against me it will impact how i percieve you and the game we are playing.

All in all, to each their own.

Oh, don't get me wrong.
I wouldn't use either the checkerboard or the banana in a game. But that is just me and it doesn't change the legality of it (as you yourself mention).
I don't go to tournaments myself, too many chances of running into guys using just that kind of things.

I do not believe that GW intended for two units to be able to provide mutual coversaves, but I would never use that as an argument in discussing the legality of it.

Just because rulings are not consist ant doesn't make any rule you don't like a 'house rule'. In the 12 years I have been playing 40k, often times, inconsistent rulings give way to clear FAQs when something exploitive or unintended begins to bubble to the surface. The more and more the abuse becomes used and gets clear 'nicknames' the activity is first disallowed at official events then people in FLGS stop using it because they can't get away with it at a tourney and then we get a clarification.

It doesn't make it a 'house rule'

Actually, when a rule is invented and only used in certain places as opposed to all places that DOES make it a house rule. The number of places in which it is used only indicates the prevalence of said homebrewed or house rule, not the validity of its interpretation. It has nothing to do with what I like or don't like, it has to do with what is published as the definitive rules by GW. Just because Jimmy in Trade Sales at GW gave you his personal opinion about the interpretation of the rule doesn't make it official--being in the rulebook or distributed as a supplement to the rulebook or particular event is official.

Story time:
Back in 4th edition I played a game against an opponent who didn't know the rules well and expressed hostility any time I pointed out that what he was doing was incorrect. At one point he called the Rulez Boys when I pointed out to him that you can specifically target Independent Characters in close combat because they essentially function as a separate unit. Guess what the GW rep said? You guessed it: you can't target ICs in close combat if they are joined with a unit. So I guess that made it an official ruling right?

I would rather the whims of a organizer that has a clear path to someone at GW with the source of his ruling than that exploitive gitz who shows up in all tourneys who want to ride out a loophole until WD declares it dead.

Too bad those clear paths are often to people who (a) have no idea what they're talking about, (b) are heavily influenced by the phrasing of the question, or (c) don't bother to confer with anyone else in their department or in development. Just because you consider it a loophole doesn't mean it is one. Barring a closing-their-eyes-and-sticking-fingers-in-their-ears scenario, GW has been aware of this "loophole" since the first version of the 5th edition rules was leaked yet never bothered to do anything about it. Perhaps they don't intend to ever. It's not your place to say nor is it the place of the local tournament host, or even Jimmy in trade sales unless he goes through the proper channels to have it put into the official tournament rules.

Stop purposefully being obtuse and extending your attitude to rule concepts that have nothing to do with anything. Mutually generating cover saves are not 'clearly intended' and are not shown to be legal with other examples (wound allocation, cover saves and so on) and are based off of 'inferred' interpretations. And in all those formations they require exact movement because many times I can sit there with a laserpen and check every model I have to every model you have and many times if you were not 100% perfect I can find where your formation is not good enough to work. which destroys the game in spirit and time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum. You stated your argument as the application of the general rule:

And until there is a diagram in the rulebook or WD clearly showing the banana or checkerboard formation as a valid and functional tactic, your opinion that it is 'clearly permitted' is your opinion. There is nothing clear about it.

I have extended your argument to show how it leads to absurd outcomes to show that your argument is flawed. It has nothing to do with being obtuse, it has to do with your logic being bad.

We have had this type of exploit in every edition and it always gets ruled against and cleared up soon enough. It has been like 2 months and the attitude of "if it is not FAQed it is legal" is a powergaming attitude that has been rightfully chased from GW events for years. Tourneys have the right it deploy rulings and they are official. Calling any ruling you don't agree with a HOUSE rule makes you sound like a crybaby and most times makes you lose sportsmanship ratings.

Exactly how many years is "soon enough" in your opinion? There were plenty of issues in 4th edition that were NEVER "cleared up" despite the clamoring of individuals such as yourself who insisted that certain tactics were clearly unintended and would be fixed promptly. With regards to tournaments, they most certainly do have the right to enforce their own rules, however I don't see anything about not being permitted to use the self-generating cover saves tactic in the rules packet, do you? It's not like they weren't aware of it--it's a very well-known power-gamer tactic and this is a tournament specifically catering to power-gamers.

Calling any ruling you don't agree with a HOUSE rule makes you sound like a crybaby and most times makes you lose sportsmanship ratings.

Perhaps you aren't aware that the 'Ard Boyz Tournament doesn't use sportsmanship ratings. Kudos on the name-calling though.

Yep, like i said it's legal but you just know looking at it they didn't mean it that way. Oh well, there are always loopholes for those people that feel they need them.

As for running in to players doing this i didn't see a single person try it. At tournements time is of the essence if you gonna get to the maximum score you can and this tends to slow people down so maybe that's why i haven't seen it yet.

Steelmage99 wrote:I don't go to tournaments myself, too many chances of running into guys using just that kind of things.

If you want to go to tourneys, please go steelmage... In my experience, tourneys are filled with the most sporting, intelligent players. There may be bad apples, like with all types of social interactions in a group. But for the most part, tourney regulars are communicative and understanding.

I think it has to do with the fact that tourney regulars are constantly playing against new people, with different play habits and different expectations of their games. It builds their social skill muscles, and they learn not to do things like checkerboarding, or 'you can't legally assault me (4th ed) formations, because they have a reputation to uphold and personal accountability for their actions.

FLGS bullies and gaming group bullies can sometimes go on short runs of alpha status... but they tend to run into guys that don't roll over, and then they disappear. Those are your checkerboarders, among other 'gamey' practices.

Didn't see it at the Ard Boyz. Saw it at our last RTT where the guy was proud to use it.

Danny Internets, the fact is, the next two tournaments I go to I already know this is not allowed.

So I have to build lists and play the game with that in mind.

That's nice, but I thought this thread was about the 'Ard Boyz Tournament?

A few things to keep in mind:

1. If a majority of a unit cannot be seen, then it gets a cover save.
2. If a majority of a unit cannot see, then it gives a cover save.
3. If I have two units in checkerboard, only one should be getting a cover save, but both give a cover save to their targets since both are shooting through a unit.

If two units arrange themselves like Steelmage shows, then they both get saves, but also give cover saves to their targets when they fire. Yes, this is annoying if they are Sternguard or something else that can take away cover saves. But is this really any different than if they just stood in woods? Isn't there a risk of completely blocking their own line of sight so reducing their own fire? Nothing to cry about. As more and more ranged weapons start to ignore cover saves, this will be seen less frequently.

And for the Ard Boyz, I didn't see anyone try this in my area.

40kenthusiast wrote:I saw a guard army doing the mutual cover-save formation. They all had cameleoline armor too, so they rocked a 3+ save vs. shooting, going to ground if it got heavy.

Wow. I didn't even think of a guard army using it. That is just nasty.

I think it would be hilarious if the judge had ruled that every time he made a cover save he had to remove a model from the other unit.... >_<

"Wow. I didn't even think of a guard army using it. That is just nasty."

Well, it didn't do him much good. Khorne Daemons just charged all over him.

Shep wrote:FLGS bullies and gaming group bullies can sometimes go on short runs of alpha status... but they tend to run into guys that don't roll over, and then they disappear.

Very well put.

I chased alot of those douchebags away from my FLGS.

Play by the rules please.

Shep wrote:
I think it has to do with the fact that tourney regulars are constantly playing against new people, with different play habits and different expectations of their games. It builds their social skill muscles, and they learn not to do things like checkerboarding, or 'you can't legally assault me (4th ed) formations, because they have a reputation to uphold and personal accountability for their actions.

FLGS bullies and gaming group bullies can sometimes go on short runs of alpha status... but they tend to run into guys that don't roll over, and then they disappear. Those are your checkerboarders, among other 'gamey' practices.

QFMFT. Those types also don't fare too well when they leave their small ponds, either. Like going to a GT and getting scorned/laughed out of the building by the regulars for being a d-bag.

-JTS

JTS1486 wrote:

Shep wrote:
I think it has to do with the fact that tourney regulars are constantly playing against new people, with different play habits and different expectations of their games. It builds their social skill muscles, and they learn not to do things like checkerboarding, or 'you can't legally assault me (4th ed) formations, because they have a reputation to uphold and personal accountability for their actions.

FLGS bullies and gaming group bullies can sometimes go on short runs of alpha status... but they tend to run into guys that don't roll over, and then they disappear. Those are your checkerboarders, among other 'gamey' practices.

QFMFT. Those types also don't fare too well when they leave their small ponds, either. Like going to a GT and getting scorned/laughed out of the building by the regulars for being a d-bag.

-JTS

I love the ones who come up to a game at a tournament, and as part of their introduction, they say, "I've never lost a game in a tournament."

If you listen to the pod casts, Jervis and the other game designers say that they really didn't like the technical rule crap going on in 4th Ed, like sniping and whatnot. I would expect some kind of FAQ on this. Too bad it wasn't addressed in the rulebook... but maybe they thought they did with "The Most Important Rule." You know that one, the one about "both" players having fun?

Warprat

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) Jervis doesn't know what the hell he's talking about half the time. If everything he said was converted into a rule, the game would stop functioning altogether from sheer idiocy and contradicting statements.

Going by the new SM Codex, Jervis' style of rule writing seems to be taking a unit, giving it a 'cool' new ability that allows it to break rules in the 5e rulebook, and calling it good design.

New Machine Spirit, Sternguard ammo and deep strike assault, Combat Tactics... they're all good and decent for an SM player, but if every new codex has rules that let you ignore the rules, I just don't see how they think the overall rule system can be that good to begin with.

Having a rule that basically says "Can't we all just get along?" at the start of your rulebook should indicate to intelligent readers that the rules aren't that well written.

I really wish my TO at 'ard boyz got that memo. one of my opponents was an IG player that used this to give 40+ guardsmen standing in the open a cover save.

Now if that player (or any other) tried that in a friendly game he would be choking on my foot but because it's RAW there's nothing I can do about it in 'ard boyz.

You can shoot them with flamers That works.

Actually, plenty of game systems have rulesets that work fine, and certain special units that stand out are just units that ignore the rules.

Take Warmachine for example. If something is invisible, you can't shoot it. Or if they have stealth, shots from far away auto-miss.

But then there's Everblight, a faction that completely IGNORES any and all concealment, invisibility, cloud effects, and even terrain. Just ignores it.

Then there's the Zealots with the Monolith bearer - "Yeah I can't be killed this turn" "Can't?" "Nope. At all. By any means. Completely invincible"

I don't get why doing a checkerboard/banana to give your troops cover is considered gamey/cheesy by so many people.

It's very clear and perfectly legit in the rules. We have RAW for a reason, so that people aren't trying to predict what GW intended with their rules.
Can anyone here honestly tell me what was really intended by these rules, not unless you helped write the book you can't.

Calling cheese at someone using the rules intelligently is really stupid. It's about the same as calling cheese when you're opponent tells you hes playing chaos space marines. (oh man 3+ armor saves are so lame and cheesy) - yea, sounds stupid doesn't it. Or using tanks or even a full infantry unit completely in front of another to block LOS. I have never ever seen anyone call cheese for placing units behind tanks and using them to advance.

I am mainly a space marines player so this doesn't effect me that much. However if a TO started implementing house rules at GW sanctioned events I would call him out on it.

So please don't pretend that you know what the developers intended and play by the rules. Basically if the developers didn't want self-generating cover saves they would FAQ it, and until that happens it is perfectly legit.

Froggage wrote:Having a rule that basically says "Can't we all just get along?" at the start of your rulebook should indicate to intelligent readers that the rules aren't that well written.

At least GW acknowledge it! And they're getting better.

Froggage wrote:Having a rule that basically says "Can't we all just get along?" at the start of your rulebook should indicate to intelligent readers that the rules aren't that well written.

So because they acknowledge that there might be problems with the rules we should disregard the rules entirely? That certainly would make for an...interesting...tournament. Calvinball, anyone? House rules are fine and good, but tournaments need to establish what they are ahead of time and enforce them fairly and consistently. There were several tournament-specific rules for the 'Ard Boyz (such as how Kill Points were scored), but prohibiting the self-generating cover saves tactic was not among them.

My vote would be to get all players who think self-generating cover saves are allowed to stand in pairs in the open and then let me shoot at them.

Any survivors can then tell me it works