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.

Janthkin, I maintain that cover saves aren't given for a checkerboard. Checkerboarding (as I've seen it) so that the units may move through each other means that you end up with columns of orks. No ork in one squad is obscuring view of any ork in the other squad.

As such, half the squad isn't in cover; in fact none of it is in cover. The orks will grant cover saves because they are firing through the lines of their own unit, but they won't get any cover in return.

Look: In order for a unit to receive cover, 50% of the unit must be in cover. Simply standing behind something doesn't give you cover. Putting a single ork model in front of a trukk doesn't give it cover. Putting an ork in front of a group of orks doesn't give that group of orks cover. And checkerboarding doesn't necessarily give you cover. You actually have to obscure some of the orks. Here's another friendly diagram.

Troop 1: X
Troop 2: O

X X X X X X X X
O O O O O O O O
X X X X X X X X
O O O O O O O O

In that formation, if I am standing either directly in front of the formation, or directly to the side of it, there are no orks in either troop choice being obscured by the other troop choice. I can see every single ork unobstructed. That's why there is no cover save. 50% of either of them aren't in cover.

Here's another formation:

XXXXXXXXXX
O O O O O O O O
XXXXXXXXXX
O O O O O O O O

In that formation, both squads are going to receive cover from directly ahead because 50% of both squads are obstructed from view by the other troop choice. However, if I'm standing to the side of this formation, there are still going to be no cover saves. And in this formation, the troops can't move straight ahead because friendly troops are treated as impassable terrain. Remember, 50% have to actually be in cover, obstructed, obscured, unseem, or something to get it (or in area terrain). Sticking a squad of gretchin in front of a battlewagon don't give the battlewagon a cover save either - the gretchin aren't tall enough to cover 50% of the vehicle.

Dashofpepper wrote:Janthkin, I maintain that cover saves aren't given for a checkerboard. Checkerboarding (as I've seen it) so that the units may move through each other means that you end up with columns of orks. No ork in one squad is obscuring view of any ork in the other squad.

As such, half the squad isn't in cover; in fact none of it is in cover. The orks will grant cover saves because they are firing through the lines of their own unit, but they won't get any cover in return.

Look: In order for a unit to receive cover, 50% of the unit must be in cover. Simply standing behind something doesn't give you cover. Putting a single ork model in front of a trukk doesn't give it cover. Putting an ork in front of a group of orks doesn't give that group of orks cover. And checkerboarding doesn't necessarily give you cover. You actually have to obscure some of the orks. Here's another friendly diagram.

Troop 1: X
Troop 2: O

X X X X X X X X
O O O O O O O O
X X X X X X X X
O O O O O O O O

In that formation, if I am standing either directly in front of the formation, or directly to the side of it, there are no orks in either troop choice being obscured by the other troop choice. I can see every single ork unobstructed. That's why there is no cover save. 50% of either of them aren't in cover.

Here's another formation:

XXXXXXXXXX
O O O O O O O O
XXXXXXXXXX
O O O O O O O O

In that formation, both squads are going to receive cover from directly ahead because 50% of both squads are obstructed from view by the other troop choice. However, if I'm standing to the side of this formation, there are still going to be no cover saves. And in this formation, the troops can't move straight ahead because friendly troops are treated as impassable terrain. Remember, 50% have to actually be in cover, obstructed, obscured, unseem, or something to get it (or in area terrain). Sticking a squad of gretchin in front of a battlewagon don't give the battlewagon a cover save either - the gretchin aren't tall enough to cover 50% of the vehicle.

I think you missed a portion of the rules on cover; I've taken the liberty of bolding your error. See pg. 22:

p. 22, Exceptions wrote:
Firing through units or area terrain: if a model fires. . . through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer.

You are correct that gretchin aren't likely to give cover to a battlewagon, but that's because vehicles/monstrous creatures have their own rules for cover (requiring 50% of the model to be obscured). You are also correct that, viewed from the side, there may not be cover.

I'll have to go pore over the rule book later, for now its all packed up; we're moving this weekend!

For the life of me I can't figure out why anybody would bother playing if they are just going to abuse the rules so blatantly. That is like playing a game on god mode, it is pointless.

This formation is also legal. Unit 1=X unit 2=O


XOXOXOXOXOXOX
XOXOXOXOXOXOX -Everything from here on is being "fired through another unit" And is also much easier to move model by model.
XOXOXOXOXOXOX

Janthkin wrote:
Here's another formation:

XXXXXXXXXX
O O O O O O O O
XXXXXXXXXX
O O O O O O O O


Firing through units or area terrain: if a model fires. . . through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer.

You are correct that gretchin aren't likely to give cover to a battlewagon, but that's because vehicles/monstrous creatures have their own rules for cover (requiring 50% of the model to be obscured). You are also correct that, viewed from the side, there may not be cover.

Not entirely true
.................T
XXXXXXXXXX
O O O O O O O O
XXXXXXXXXX
O O O O O O O O
.................T

Everything behind the Ts I marked provides a coversave as they are being fired through the "gaps" of an intervening unit As long as models in X and O are in coherency.

Interleaving like this leaves the Ork player massively vulnerable to assault. You're guaranteed to contact two of his units, he gets limited benefit from counterattack since his models will crowd each other out, and No Retreat wounds will absolutely slaughter him. Most armies have some kind of hard assault unit that will totally tear Orks apart in this situation; my personal favourite would be a big squad of Black Templar Assault Terminators. With the right vow you're looking at about 40 Orks from direct attacks and another 40 from No Retreat wounds.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:Most armies have some kind of hard assault unit that will totally tear Orks apart in this situation;

I can think of one that doesn't. Luckily we have Submunition Railguns for it instead.

I've not seen those threads before - I've also never seen the double-banana thing.

Basically, i see both method of screening as taking advantage of the rules in a way that isn't intended. Although they are perfectly legal RAW, I wouldn't look favourably on a player who set their models up like this.

In this situation, I would definitely insist upon the player moving units one at a time, as is RAW.

If i'm right, from a checkerboard formation, the only way either unit can move would be to 'file out' to the left or right.

From a banana formation as in the black/red diagram, neither unit could ever move in any direction. The models on the end of the lines can move around, but none of the models at the apex are allowed to move through the other unit...

As long as there is room for the bases, units are allowed to move through each other. This isn't Fantasy.

Unit coherency - 2". Base width - 1". Easy peacy.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:Interleaving like this leaves the Ork player massively vulnerable to assault. You're guaranteed to contact two of his units, he gets limited benefit from counterattack since his models will crowd each other out, and No Retreat wounds will absolutely slaughter him. Most armies have some kind of hard assault unit that will totally tear Orks apart in this situation; my personal favourite would be a big squad of Black Templar Assault Terminators. With the right vow you're looking at about 40 Orks from direct attacks and another 40 from No Retreat wounds.

Sorry for the double post - just saw this

Am i right in thinking that, when counterattacking or retreating, you still can't move through impassable terrain?

If so, then you could attack both ork units on one charge, but ONLY be in combat with the ones you're touching and within 2". None of the orks can move through the 'other' unit to countertattack (moving one unit at a time, of course), so you fight only a few orks. If you win, and the ork units flee, they hit impassable terrain (the other unit) and are automatically destroyed...

Correct?

EDIT

Steelmage99 wrote:As long as there is room for the bases, units are allowed to move through each other. This isn't Fantasy.

Unit coherency - 2". Base width - 1". Easy peacy.

But surely the checkerboard strategy only works when the gaps between models are less than 1", right? If you leave a 2" gap between each of the models in a row, the row behind wouldn't get their cover save, since you'd be able to see them...?

EDIT

Nope, hold on, I'm wrong. Ignore this...

= Ork boyz
= Grots
(note the single boy in the middle of the grot line, he provides coherency)

.............

.............
.............
.............

It may be 'legal', but the whole thing might aswell be a neon sign that reads: "Dump pie/templates here!"
This begs for a squad of ten nobs with kombi skorcha's riding a looted wagon with a skorcha led into battle by a couple warbosses with a kombi skorcha each, and a trukload of burnaz for good measure, one on each of the tank's flanks.

Guys, for the record this is a checker board formation:

xoxoxoxoxoxo
oxoxoxoxoxox
xoxoxoxoxoxo
oxoxoxoxoxox

This gives both squads cover from every direction and it's very easy to set-up and move the sauads. With a 2" gap between models of the same squad, there is plenty of room to accomodate another squad.

As an aside, I don't think it is unreasonable to give both squads cover in this case. What is unreasonable is that when a squad uses another squad as cover, the shots that are saved do not cause wounds to the "cover" squad. This is why this situation makes no sense and seems like an abuse.

holden, that checkerboard works just fine - the problem arises that when you set up like that, the units checkerboarding are going to have REAL trouble moving.

yea... I like to make my opponent (if they do this) mark their bases. If they move one that is not in the same unit, they are done moving that unit.

At ard boyz the opponent I had round 1 constantly messed up and it just annoyed the crap out of me. we got to turn 3 with all of his models.... Given one less turn I would have won... lol

Why would it be difficult to move these units? As long as you keep your squads out in the open (which is kinda the point of this tactic) there should be no problem. What I think most people underestimate is how far apart you can keep your models. The vast majority of people I see tend to keep their squads pretty bunched up. If you maintain a 2" gap between models then there is plenty of room to move and position models inbetween.

While I don't personally use the dual cover save rules loop-hole, there have been games where I've had other reasons to interleave squads together and I've never found it difficult to move these formations.

Reasons like this is why I have two thunderfire cannons.