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 had a question about a silly situation.

Assume I have a brood of 30 gants strung in a really long line, 1 gant deep running along the deployment zone. As close as possible to my opponent.

My opponent steals the initiative and goes first. He kills 28 gants by shooting.
I remove 28 and leave the gants on either end of the line which are easily a few feet apart on the table.

Can the rest of my broods claim cover because my opponent is shooting through a brood of gants?
Does it even matter if the gants are visible? (perhaps the 2 that remain are 100% out of sight from all of my opponents models, perhaps not)
The only other assumption that needs to be made is that the models shooting do not have LOS higher than the gant models.

Monstrous creatures . . . rather obviously not, but otherwise?

A rather less extreme version of this came up a while back. I refused to claim cover from the gants and I have been trying to find out why no cover should be allowed--RAW.

I was under the impression that you had to be shooting through models to grant the cover save.

Third bullet point, page 22.

"or through gaps between models in an intervening unit. . .even if it is completely visible to the firer"

not raw but i think it would be sensible that models not in coherency do not contribute to such a save.

Can you remove models in such a way to not remain in coherency?

Sometimes you have to, especially with wound allocation. This is an amazing question, btw I see no reason why it wouldn't work. The only penalty is moving them closer to each other the next phase and I believe they can still shoot, right?

Yes, I believe that casualties is one of the few things that override coheriency rules.

Yes, you can remove models like this, and yes it would grant a cover sav e for anyone shooting through the gaunt unit.

cheesy as hell tyhough....

You could always use the argument that all the shooting is "really" happening all at once so they're not removed before the other guys can aim if things get sticky. That's kind of the point of an abstract system anyway.

an interesting theoretical question, and probably belongs in the silly raw thread.

However, there are two types of places you could try this at... 1) casual games, or 2) tournament games.

If you try it in a casual game, prepare to either be cursed at, beaten, raped(gamers can get passionate about these things), or all of the above.
If you try it in a tournament, the other player will obviously call over a judge, and the judge will then either curse at you, beat you, or rape you(again, its a hate crime, not attraction... so no-homo).

In ANY case, don't do it.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Sometimes you have to, especially with wound allocation. This is an amazing question, btw I see no reason why it wouldn't work. The only penalty is moving them closer to each other the next phase and I believe they can still shoot, right?

Yes, they can shoot. The only restriction is on their movement phases.

In honesty, I did it on purpose to generate the save--just to see if my opponent could tell me why it would not work.
He couldn't.

Thus my question here.


Actually this leads into a secondary issue.
Is the forced move into coherency going to over-ride the Instictive Behavior (assuming a failed IB test)?

Maybe that should be another thread. . .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:You could always use the argument that all the shooting is "really" happening all at once so they're not removed before the other guys can aim if things get sticky. That's kind of the point of an abstract system anyway.

Only each squads shooting is simultaneous. The question itself is just as valid the following turn however, it would have taken at least 3 turns to get into coherency.

Honersstodnt wrote:an interesting theoretical question, and probably belongs in the silly raw thread.

In ANY case, don't do it.

I already said I did it.
Then refused the save.

I read the first few words of people's posts, get the gist, then post something. I am not responsible for the accuracy of my posts.

RAW, you would get the cover save, as the LOS is passing through a gap between models in the unit.

The brood would have to try to regain coherency next turn, and in subsequent turns if required.

And obviously, the brood is going to be hideously disadvantaged if they're assaulted.

much like checker boarding multiple units to give both a "firing through a unit" status, it is legal and will get you a 4+ cover save. it will also likely get you many a night sitting at an empty table for lack of willing opponents, lol.

The sad thing is I would allow this cover save without question.

Anyone who attemps that checker boarding joke tends to get beat out of the store.

I don't think this is necessarily a TFG thing to do... Imagine a 10-man nob squad, each outfitted differently for wound allocation. Spread out, you're looking at covering upwards of 30ish inches, and the vagaries of saves could easily lead to the circumstance OP presented (or, with SM, a 10-man tac squad with a PF SGT on one end and a Melta Gun on the other).

The RAW is clear, and the "simultaneous abstraction" view above is pretty much how I think about it. Not a TFG move at all.

But doing it intentionally with gaunts, then demanding cover saves would be TFG behaviour imo.

If it happened to me, I would not ask for a cover saved, and probably wouldnt take it if offered.

It's not really a gap by definition so I'd say no save and just be done with it.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:It's not really a gap by definition so I'd say no save and just be done with it.

A gap is a space between two objects. The distance between them is largely irrelevant.

At best, it's 'not really a gap' by one given definition of the word. But using that definition is going to require you to arbitrarily decide just how far apart models can be before the space between them is too large to still be considered a 'gap' and starts being whatever you want to call a larger space between two objects...

BRB: pg 21 'Intervening models'
"If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by other models , it receives a 4+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."

Since your unit now consists of only 2 models at the very outer edges, your no longer have any models providing that "partially hidden" viewpoint.
Sorry, no cover save (unless I am shooting something right along the edge where your model is physically at.
In addition you must move as rapidly as possible to get into coherancy. Meaning you could ONLY move directly towards each other (sorry, no moving forward 5", then closer 1" trying to maintain that imagined wall of cover).

dkellyj wrote:BRB: pg 21 'Intervening models'
"If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by other models , it receives a 4+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."

Since your unit now consists of only 2 models at the very outer edges, your no longer have any models providing that "partially hidden" viewpoint.
Sorry, no cover save (unless I am shooting something right along the edge where your model is physically at.
In addition you must move as rapidly as possible to get into coherancy. Meaning you could ONLY move directly towards each other (sorry, no moving forward 5", then closer 1" trying to maintain that imagined wall of cover).

you need to turn the page to 22. see "firing through units or area terrain" where it says "the target is in cover, EVEN IF IT IS COMPLETELY VISIBLE TO THE FIRER." the cover save is legal albeit ridiculous.

dkellyj wrote:Since your unit now consists of only 2 models at the very outer edges, your no longer have any models providing that "partially hidden" viewpoint.
Sorry, no cover save (unless I am shooting something right along the edge where your model is physically at.

Have a look at page 22. The second bullet point.

Shooting through a unit is an exception to the normal cover rules.

dkellyj wrote:BRB: pg 21 'Intervening models'
"If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by other models , it receives a 4+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."

Since your unit now consists of only 2 models at the very outer edges, your no longer have any models providing that "partially hidden" viewpoint.
Sorry, no cover save (unless I am shooting something right along the edge where your model is physically at.
In addition you must move as rapidly as possible to get into coherancy. Meaning you could ONLY move directly towards each other (sorry, no moving forward 5", then closer 1" trying to maintain that imagined wall of cover).

kirsanth wrote:Third bullet point, page 22.

"or through gaps between models in an intervening unit. . .even if it is completely visible to the firer"

As others have said, you still get the save, but it is very Kudos for pulling it off however

Again, the definition of "gap." Sorry, 4 feet between 2 models is a bit more than a gap. In addition you have the issue that he is deliberately removing identical model types deliberately taking 'like-kind' models out of coherency (yes, it's his choice which ones to remove...but sportsmanship demands self control). In either event insist on your return cover save (since he is now shooting through his imaginary gap-o-rama), then next turn kill 1 of the 2 remaining models and the issue is gone.
Worse comes to worse, I kick your butt anyways, flip you off, then pass along what a cheese-d!#k you are. Pull that stunt on a second person (because i'll never play you again) and you'll be looking for a new shop to play in.

dkellyj wrote:Again, the definition of "gap." Sorry, 4 feet between 2 models is a bit more than a gap.

And also again, that's only one definition. A 'gap' is also defined as a space between two objects.

So in the context provided, we can define a gap between models as either:
1: the space between the models, regardless of the actual distance
or
2: a small space between the models.

1 is a universally applicable definition. No further rule is required.
2 requires an arbitrary figure to be applied, to regulate just how large the 'gap' can be before it ceases to be a gap.


So, from a pure RAW standpoint, the first would seem like the most logical interpretation to apply. Whether or not it makes any sense on the tabletop is completely up to you, and would depend on your personal view of the game as a simulation or an abstraction. (For what it's worth, GW themselves don't consider 40K to be a simulation, nor do they intend it to be such).

Personally, given how often (not very) this is likely to actually arise on the tabletop, I have no problem with allowing it as per the (as I see them) RAW.

Worse comes to worse, I kick your butt anyways, flip you off, then pass along what a cheese-d!#k you are. Pull that stunt on a second person (because i'll never play you again) and you'll be looking for a new shop to play in.

Or, and I realise that it's a crazy idea, you could just laugh it off as one of those odd little things that comes out of a ruleset that is trying to populate a battlefield with plastic toy soldiers, discuss it with your opponent after the game if you have a real issue with it and either agree that it's an interesting tactic that isn't going to be useful very often or that it's a dodgy loophole that should be avoided for the sake of everybody's sanity, and move on...

@dkellyj
A gap is still a gap even if the distance is very large. Example, a man wants to jump across a 400 meter gap...

Secondly, I think you must understand that different people have different expectations as to what is an acceptable tactic or interpretation of the rules. To so strongly reject another interpretation as to what is acceptable means completely disregarding that. This isn't so strong a case as say denying Wraithguard the ability to shoot. (due to a lack of eyes on the model) To be more clear, it isn't that I have a problem with your rejection of the tactic in itself, more the overly strong reaction, implying that that player is akin to a TFG and that the rest of the shop would all immediately come to a similar conclusion and essentially bar him. Although I now have to think over the implications of this strategy, I would almost certainly allow it to be used against me, and I may (after attempting to introduce the it to those in my shop) use it against opponents.

Edit: ninja'd (spelling?) by insaniak

Wouldn't the majority rule override this, as it goes on to talk about it further on page 22 under "Units partially in cover"?

*shrugs*
1 turn with a 4+ Cover save? I suppose that giving the enemy and extra turn to move would be a bit powerful, say, can any Gaunts Scout or Infiltrate for 2 turns of cover if there's enough terrrain? anyway, in most armies the Monstrous Creatures (and tanks for Orks) won't benefit so no worries about wasting a Lascannon, you probably spent the rest of your shots on the gaunts in a small game, in a large game you'll likly just overkill the unit, they don't need to be in your sights to die after all.

I can see the trouble it can stir up but really, it's the kind of move you can see coming, sorta shady but out in plain sight

Talked about this at our club last night, well known and has been used at GT finals - was even used with the previous edition Ork 'dex, where grots gave a save if you shot through them.

Honer - see above; even at a tournament (UK GT finals,not some small shop thing) this is allowed so I suggest you were wrong twice

So if the 'gap' between the two models gives cover to units behind them, does this also restrict any units moving between the gap, as you cannot move through another unit?