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.

I don't see how this is a bad idea. it's a bit annoying, but it's a nice tactics.

I don't know if its been mentioned yet, but it could be very easy with Assault Marines. Hello Blood Angels.

INAT clarified this. It is not possible to do this anymore if you play by those rules. It only allows 1 unit to gain cover in situations like this, not both.

Hoodwink wrote:INAT clarified this. It is not possible to do this anymore if you play by those rules. It only allows 1 unit to gain cover in situations like this, not both.

INAT =/= official, for what it's worth.

kronk wrote:

INAT =/= official, for what it's worth.

GWFAQ =/= official, for what it's worth.

The only rules that are official are whatever you and your opponent agree to. And if you don't agree or have a way of settling disputes, there is no game.

Many of the mutual cover formations are situational, and not always reliable and have to be 'precise' in measuring and placement. By time the game has degraded to 'It is technically legal/Oh yeah? i am going to make you individually measure every model under scrutiny' the game is over as far as I am concerned.

nkelsch wrote:
GWFAQ =/= official, for what it's worth.

GW FAQ = official. If you disagree, try finding a rule in a Dakka approved rules source that says otherwise.

so lets say I had 2 units of Hormagaunts. I deploy in the following pattern

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

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

Both units would get cover. I would then remove casulties from the backs of the squads so for example. turn 1, I lose 5 models from X unit. I pull like this.

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

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

On my next move, I then reconstitute the structure like this.

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

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

If you really wanna get cute, you can even put some units in between like so. In this example, I have 2 units of hive gauards getting cover saves as well

X X X X X X X X X X O O O O O O O O O O Please forgive the spacing here, Dakka is not spacing out the H's correctly. but you get the idea.
H H H O X H H H

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

I know its a pain in the ass for players to watch you do this dance, but hell against leaf blower armies, what else do you have?

That wouldn't work, you have to move 1 unit at a time and they also have to be in unit coherency. As far as I'm concerned, "Checkerboarding" is impossible and you shouldn't be wasting your time trying to do it.

I wish I could draw it better, but basically, the units are staggered so you can move through the gaps in the front unit with the models that were behind. This allows you to still follow the rules, and because "half" of your units are behind another unit, they get a 4+ cover save.

We do it all the time. I see Kroot do walls as well all the time. I don't understand why this is not more common place.

In fact the rules specifically state that you can do this. on page 22 its says

Firing through units or area terrain: 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 visible to the firer. Note that this does
not apply if the shots go over the area terrain or unit
rather than through

thebetter1 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
GWFAQ =/= official, for what it's worth.

GW FAQ = official. If you disagree, try finding a rule in a Dakka approved rules source that says otherwise.

Really?

Hrrrrrrm...

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

The only rules that are 'official' are the set of rules the two people who are playing the game at the time agree on. If the two people cannot agree on rules, then the game doesn't take place. No about of 'being right' or 'this is technically legal' makes the game get played if your opponent doesn't play you.

In 3rd edition it was possible to deploy models in such a way that you couldn't even shoot or assault them by RAW. It was called 'Funhouse Mirror'. It made the game unplayable.

So yeah... GWFAQ =/= official... The only rules that matter is what you and your opponent agree to before the game. If that includes the GW FAQ or INAT or just D6 rolloffs then those are the rules.

Whilst this formation is very difficult to move with standard infantry models (and if someone tries this on you make sure that you be a douche right back at them in their movement phase) and is generally pretty poor in the shooting phase as well (as you give your enemies a cover save) it is possible/effective with two units of jump infantry (2 assault squads).

Of course, one template weapon in there....

nkelsch wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
GWFAQ =/= official, for what it's worth.

GW FAQ = official. If you disagree, try finding a rule in a Dakka approved rules source that says otherwise.

Really?

Hrrrrrrm...

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

Really?

Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

Let's not turn this into a debate about the relative officiality of various FAQs. That's an old and tired discussion.

The issue of "checkerboarding" or interlacing units to mutually grant cover saves is also an old one. While technically possible, it is widely viewed as an absurd loophole, and even if my local group permitted it I would not expect to be able to use it against any stranger, by any means. INATFAQ has specifically ruled against it, while the GW FAQ is silent on the subject.

Mannahnin wrote:Let's not turn this into a debate about the relative officiality of various FAQs. That's an old and tired discussion.

The issue of "checkerboarding" or interlacing units to mutually grant cover saves is also an old one. While technically possible, it is widely viewed as an absurd loophole, and even if my local group permitted it I would not expect to be able to use it against any stranger, by any means. INATFAQ has specifically ruled against it, while the GW FAQ is silent on the subject.

I was just reminding people of the forum rules to try to head that off