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.

Frankly I can't believe this issue is still being discussed. No matter what you think of the issue is it that hard to understand why the opposite side thinks differently from you?


Q: Why does intermixed units providing cover to each other seem ludicrous to some people when these same people are totally fine with an intervening unit providing a cover save to a unit beyond?

A: Because it fits with the idea presented in the rulebook for how the rule is supposed to work. If you have an intervening unit in between the firers and their target the 4+ cover save represents the fact that they are consciously trying to miss the unit in front and hit only the unit behind. If the firer's want to 'blindly spray' into the mass, they can by targeting the front enemy unit.

Two (or more) intermixed units both providing a cover save to each other 'breaks' this concept because the firers no longer have the ability to pick a front unit to "blindly spray" into because no matter which enemy unit they target it will receive a cover save from the other.

In other words, it stands to reason that if a unit is providing a cover save because it is 'intervening' there should always be an option to fire at this intervening unit to deny the opponent their cover save. In this way, the idea of two (or more) units in the open both providing each other with a cover save just doesn't 'make sense' to many people.


Q: Should this issue be FAQ'd by Games Workshop?

A: Whether you think the rules are crystal clear about allowing this maneuver or whether you think the RAW doesn't allow intermixed units to provide cover saves to each other is frankly immaterial to whether this issue should be FAQ'd by Games Workshop (in my personal opinion).

The fact is, this *is* an issue that will come up time and time again if it is not resolved one way or another, just like the 'unassaultable formation' in 4th edition. That alone makes it worthy for inclusion on any FAQ GW may release for 5th edition.

And much like that 'unassaultable formation' this is a tactic that appears to be legal by the RAW to many (although hotly disputed by others) and will likely not be used by all but a handful of players. In tournaments, the presence of sportsmanship scores are likely deterrent enough from this tactic ever being seen.


Finally, even if GW doesn't go ahead and make a FAQ ruling on this tactic, I can almost guarantee that any fan-made FAQs or tournament FAQs will do so. I know that this question will certainly make it into the next version of the INAT FAQ and that my personal vote will be against allowing it.



Yes, the tactic appears to be legal by the RAW, yes that position can be disputed, yes it deserves to be FAQ's because it a question that is bound to be asked frequently and no it will not destroy the game.


At least, that's my take.

I always think of it like this. What is INTENDED by an "intervening" unit providing a cover save? What is this intended to represent? Its intended to represent that when a shooter attempts to shoot through another unit and hit the unit behind it there is a chance that that front unit is hit instead. And for purpose of "Speed of play" if a coversave is made in this manor we do not track it to see if it does indeed damage that front unit, it is merely "forgotten". So why i ask would this still not apply when a unit is "blindly" firing into intermixed squads? Hmmm......?

If the RAW allow this formation then which rules? We keep seeing that assertion but nobody has put forth a complete arguement that cites all of the relevant rules. Just asserting "It's allowed by the RAW" or taking a Chinese menu approach to rules implementation to justify the tactic doesn't make the tactic legal. Here's an extreme example: let's say you have a pure assault Nid army up against an IG gun line army. When it comes time for combat you decide that you'll only recognize the assault rules and won't implement the shooting rules. And then you insist that the RAW only allows assault! That's exactly what has happended here.

Lot's of assertions about the RAW allowing the tactic but not once has anyone cited ALL the relevant rules since the first OP. Once others noted the relevant clause that governs the relative position of complete units no advocate for the cheesy tactic has been willing to cite that clause (which goes to the heart of the matter) when defending his assertion. Since that first post it's as if defenders of the tactic have been struck with collective amnesia. They either simply declare "It's allowed by the RAW" or cite a bunch of other rules pertaining to individual models.

In that respect, like Yak I'm amazed it's even an issue. So, here's a last post on the matter which should really help clarify things, especially since no advocate for the cheesy tactic has been able to answer my first diagram or explained their "yes" vote.

Below are two diagrams, A and B. One diagram shows a Space Marine unit facing a single large Ork unit. The other diagram shows a Space Marine unit facing two Ork units intermixed so as to confer a mutual 4+ save based on the selective reading of the RAW (in other words, as defenders of the cheesy tactic would claim.) Based on the rationale used by the advocates for the cheesy tactic (the shooter is confused when trying to shoot a particular unit), please identify the diagram (A or B) which shows the Marines facing two different Ork units (ie the diagram in which the Marines' heads are spinning in such utter confusion as they try to shoot Orks from a specific unit that their accuracy goes down by a whopping 50%!) And please identify the diagram shows a marine unit facing a single large Ork unit and calmly plinking away since they're no longer confused by having two target units mixed together in front of them.

No, this is not a secret IQ test being conducted by a university and we promise not to giggle at your answers (assuming you have the courage to anwer). Based on the rationale offered up by the defenders of the tactic it should be really easy to ID the diagram that shows marines crying out in confusion, "Gawd it's hard to shoot these Orks!"

DIAGRAM A


DIAGRAM B

Red_Lives wrote: So why i ask would this still not apply when a unit is "blindly" firing into intermixed squads? Hmmm......?

Perfect candidate to answer the diagram question above! Why indeed! So, which diagram shows confused marines firing blindly into two units and so confused that their accuracy drops 50% and which diagram shows marines NOT confused and shooting accurately into a single large unit?

And more importantly, based on the diagrams above, why the huge difference in accuracy between the two situations?

(Again, I promise that this is isn't a secret university study.)

READ MY ABOVE POST!

How about there is a 50% chance you hit an orc from the unit you weren't targeting? Which is what the "Intervening" rule represents. And as i said before for purpose of speed of play shots which you made your cover save on are "forgotten"

Red_Lives wrote:READ MY ABOVE POST!

I did. Thus you're the perfect test subj...er candidate.

1. Which diagram shows marines firing wildly in confusion with a 50% reduction in accuracy and which diagram shows marines calmly firing away at full accuracy and how did you reach your conclulsion?

2. And, why the huge difference in accuracy between the two based on the diagrams above? (I'll spell it out for you...given that in both diagrams the marine unit is presented with a huge, amporphous mass 'o' orks, why the difference in accuracy?)

Please answer question 1 (should be easy since, based on your rationale, the marines would have done the same!). Only after answer question 1 proceed to question 2.

1. Its a game, Both and neither

2. It was a design decision by GW. They decided to not track damage after saves (of any sort) GW decided that non-template weapons cannot damage more than 1 unit. And in their minds where there is a chance an object or other model gets in the way it grants a save. And as i said 3 other times in the spirit of "speed of play" these saves are forgotten. I do not fully understand why they decided to do this but alas it was their decision.

Red_Lives wrote:1. Its a game, Both and neither

Bzzzz! Wrong. Which diagram shows two ork units and confused marines firing at 50% accuracy and which diagram shows one ork unit and marines firing at normal accuracy. Shouldn't be a problem for anyone who rationalizes the mutual 4+ tactic based on the premise that the shooter is firing wildly and confused by the presence of two intermixed (not intervening) units.

Red_Lives wrote: 2. It was a design decision by GW. They decided to not track damage after saves (of any sort) GW decided that non-template weapons cannot damage more than 1 unit. And in their minds where there is a chance an object or other model gets in the way it grants a save. And as i said 3 other times in the spirit of "speed of play" these saves are forgotten. I do not fully understand why they decided to do this but alas it was their decision.

According to Da Boss (and forum rules?) author intent, phrases such as "And in their minds", and "spirit of play" are not to be considered in YMDC. You're explaining what you think GW intended which is not what I asked. I asked you to explain YOUR choice of which diagram above shows two ork units and a confused marine unit, which shows a single ork unit and a calm marine unit, and then explain why the huge difference in accuracy given that the two situations are physically identical.

You have 2 identical and pretty no showing pictures, what do you expekt people to say? It can be any number of units arranged in about a miljon diffrent combinations.

MajerBlundor, you are desperatly trying to make somebody fall into your "clever" trap. And nobody is biting.
Note that it is nothing more than that, a trap.
Your continued insistence of getting the answer you are looking for makes you look less than brilliant.

Stop comparing to real life, stop applying common sense and stop pretending you know what the Designers had in mind. Please just read the rules and what they say.
You are the only one here trying to read something into the rules that isn't there.

Just stop while you have a shred of dignity left.

Please explain what you mean by "trap". What trap?

There's no "trap" here if you honestly believe the tactic is legal and rational. So, instead of a personal attack, please stay on topic and answer the question yourself.

If the tactic is legal and rational that shouldn't be a problem for a brilliant guy like you. Have at it!

You're diagrams are irrelevant as this is a game, not real. It has nothing to do with what the marines are thinking and thier "cool under fire". It's a rule, it's there, it may or may not get FAQ'ed.
As Yak was saying, it's there to represent trying to hit the unit behind while not hitting the one in front. Sure, they could have put in a rule about resolving hits that are avoided by the cover save being allocated to the front unit, but what if there is more than one unit inbetween, it just gets too complicated.
THis is a game of units, you select and fire at a unit, not at the entire army and hope you hit something. The rules have to be written to reflect that, which is why they work the way they do.
Sure, IMHO it's a pretty lame tactic but it's legal and I won't begrudge my opponent for using it, I'll just adapt my tactics to beat it the best I can. Who knows? They could FAQ it right away, in a month, or not at all.
It's already been pointed out that just going off the root "inter" (between, among, in the midst of, within) this tactic is covered by the rules, so let's just drop it, shall we? You aren't going to convince anyone who deosn't already agree with you otherwise and although you may be attempting to be humorous, you are IMHO coming off as arrogant ("BZZ! Wrong!" for example). I personally won't be reading this thread anymore myself as it's becoming quite redundant.

mattyboy22 wrote:You're diagrams are irrelevant as this is a game, not real. It has nothing to do with what the marines are thinking and thier "cool under fire". It's a rule, it's there, it may or may not get FAQ'ed.
As Yak was saying, it's there to represent trying to hit the unit behind while not hitting the one in front. Sure, they could have put in a rule about resolving hits that are avoided by the cover save being allocated to the front unit, but what if there is more than one unit inbetween, it just gets too complicated.
THis is a game of units, you select and fire at a unit, not at the entire army and hope you hit something. The rules have to be written to reflect that, which is why they work the way they do.
Sure, IMHO it's a pretty lame tactic but it's legal and I won't begrudge my opponent for using it, I'll just adapt my tactics to beat it the best I can. Who knows? They could FAQ it right away, in a month, or not at all.
It's already been pointed out that just going off the root "inter" (between, among, in the midst of, within) this tactic is covered by the rules, so let's just drop it, shall we? You aren't going to convince anyone who deosn't already agree with you otherwise and although you may be attempting to be humorous, you are IMHO coming off as arrogant ("BZZ! Wrong!" for example). I personally won't be reading this thread anymore myself as it's becoming quite redundant.

You're right, the game is about units. And the rules state "intervening units" when it comes to awarding 4+ cover saves. Not intermixed units. (And no, I'm not the only one who sees it this way)

And you can't just go off the root "inter" if you're playing by the RAW. Intevene and intermix are two different words with different definitions.

In fact, your post is a perfect illustration of the problem here. You call the tactic legal and then refuse to consider the actual words in the text (ie intervening unit) and declare that only the root "inter" matters, NOT the actual words in the text.

Read the review of 5E below. The author does a great job of describing how some in the 40K community have really given the hobby a black eye by trying to twist and ingore rules to gain every tiny advantage no matter how absurd. He uses language that I wouldn't but he's dead on right!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37374

Here's the relevant quote edited for a family web site:

"Let’s face it, the reason 40k players have the reputation they do is not because of the community, but because of the over competitive who bend, break or shatter the conventions of fair play just to get a leg up for the free GW gives out for every sanctioned tournament. And if there’s a way to squeeze an extra ounce of advantage out of the game, these will take it. We’re all waiting for the first tourney pictures to surface of entire units modeled to be belly crawling across the field just to take full advantage of any low terrain."

Is gaining a competitive advantage so important that one is serisously willing to simply edit the RAW and drop not only whole terms (eg intervening unit) but now we have gamers willing to chop up words and only consider the freakin "root" to gain that advantage?!?! That's really through the looking glass!

MB

*throws in towel*

Intervene: to occur or be between two things

Between: in the space separating ; among

So if a unit is between the firing unit and the target, it can also be among either unit (so if a unit of orks was firing at the Marines, the marines could get the 4+ as well.

Didn't say you were the only one, just that you aren't going to convince anyone.

Anyway congrats, you are the first person on my ignore list. And you are being arrogant again, lighten up.

I think this topic is well discussed and can be closed.

I dont really care what people do. Ill just equip my dakkafexes with BS instead of Devs.
Problem solved.

I vote close this topic and if MajerBlundor starts it again to suspend his posting privileges. (as he started 2 extra threads with the same topic)

Regardless of the current RAW, if you had the absolute power to settle the issue in ANY way you deemed appropriate, would two intermixed units in the open confer mutual 4+ saves?



I answer question. what do you guys think of these house rules?

In the interest of speed of play & beer & pretzel compatibility.

House rule 1) Pick up the dice that failed to penetrate the cover save. Roll them again to wound the other squad & that squad gets to make a cover save. This will cut down on the overall casualties inflicted (than with no cover) and is in keeping with the fact that less shots would be fired through hesitation, but also inflict more casualties because the ones that hit the cover get a chance to wound!

House rule 2) Get the controlling player to nominate which squad is the intervening squad & only one can intervene .

Yeah. And lock out that Akira idiot too-he really gets my Goat.

I change my vote.

*Both* units get cover saves.

But for every cover save that is claimed, the firing player gets to give the opponent a swat, stroke or slash with a GW whippy stick.

After the game, if such cover saves are claimed for more than one turn, the firing player may beat the opponent with a 2x4 (no more than 3' long) for a random duration determined by a neutral third party.

Yakface wrote:Yes, the tactic appears to be legal by the RAW, yes that position can be disputed, yes it deserves to be FAQ's because it a question that is bound to be asked frequently and no it will not destroy the game.

There's a couple of things wrong with this and I'd like to address them.

Firstly, the tactic is not legal. The rules do not allow it. The rules do not even appear to allow it, since they assume both the natural meta-rules of natural language and an open two dimensional space (the game board) wherein no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective. some peoples' inability (and/or unwillingness) to read the rules properly merely makes it seem that way to them.

That's alright, some people need claymore mines label "This end towards end" or "Warning: Coffee may be hot". Some people even think that there's something to Intelligent Design. And, as we are all unfortunately aware, there lurks amongst GW fans a species of highly advanced idiot that defies all reasonable attempts at idiot-proofing (and some people, often the same people, wonder why GW often holds external feedback in contempt...).

Secondly, it does not deserve an FAQ; it requires an FAQ. Only moral agents and subjects deserve things, and is simply a rule that is being misused by idiots, and exploited by those wishing to take advantage of idiots. Much like many products require special warning labels so that the responsibility for misuse is rightly apportioned to those that would misuse them, rather than the manufacturer, an FAQ is required so that GW is not (wrongly) blamed for the disability, moral or intellectual, of its end-users.

The absence of an FAQ will not break the game, And if it were instituted, the misuse of this rule would not longer serve as telltale clue that an idiot, and perhaps also a cheater, were among us.

Well the thing is.... as soon as you argue the point, both units get a cover save...... at 5+.

Lordhat wrote:Well the thing is.... as soon as you argue the point, both units get a cover save...... at 5+.

sounds like a good house rule.

I think that some people are forgetting that if LOS is drawn BETWEEN a gap in between two models of a unit, the unit being shot at does get a cover save under 5th.

Due to the positioning of these models, both units would get a cover save in this case. Casualty removal would need to be careful to retain this advantage for long though and as already been stated blast and (especially with no cover save permitted) template weapons will have a field day on this.

Agreed. It's very clear that the gaps between models in a unit provide cover. Its also clearly stated that if a majority of models in a unit are behind cover then the whole unit gets cover.

Q.E.D.

This is a natural result of a bad rule created by GW. Units providing cover saves without taking any damage is simply poor rules creation. Get angry with GW, not your opponent, when something like this comes up. Maybe if there is enough pain and complaining then this will go away in 6th edition.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this side of things whilst getting all up-in arms about this but...

With the intermingled orc units, would they also (due to the same rules of firing through the unit they are mingled with) provide any opponent they shot at with the same 4+ cover save?

I agree this is a bit of a stupid rule, we'll see whether it gets FAQ'd, but I see everyone complaining that the orcs will be making cover saves, without taking into account that any squad such a formation shot at would also get an equivalent save.

Not that getting a 4+ cover save matters much to marines, but the same squad of orcs/grots approcaching an IG squad probably wouldn't find themselves hitting much.

"On Noes! My Orks shooting is bad because my opponents get a cover save! Woe iz me! Woe iz me!"

Yeah, like an Ork player is going to care about shooting when all he's trying to do is get a couple huge mobs of Boyz into HtH.

Orks would care more about shooting now, seeing as they have one of the best shooting units in the game, point for point.

Their guns are AP6, so unless you've got a 5+ save or worse, you're really not gaining much from getting a 4+ Cover save from Ork shooting.

The problem with this formation is that while slowed, it's actually very useful if your opponent wanted to be a git and use it.

Generally, longtime ork players aren't part of a power-gamer culture and don't try to play metagame & rules-lawyering to get an advantage. If we were out to win at all costs we'd have selected a different race with less random efficacy. So I don't see orks using this tactic much. We'd just throw a unit of grots up front where they should be!