Solution: Intermixing Units and Mutual 4+ Cover Saves

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.

**holden88**

Nurglitch wrote:
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.

I think the rules allow mutual cover saves to be granted to intermixed units. I don't really appreciate your insinuation that I am either an idiot and/or a cheater. To me the rule is plain as day, however. I do see that the word intercede injects a healthy dose of confusion to the issue. I appreciate that others may read the rules and have a different interperetaion than mine. I don't automatically assume they are idiots or cheater.

**Voodoo Boyz**

Nurglitch wrote:
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.

Just saying something authoritatively does not make it inherently true. What makes this amazing assumption that "no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective"?

The rules for cover are quite clear on the matter: If there is a question if one squad should get a cover save, you are supposed to look at the entire target squad from the point of view of the firing unit. If the majority of models are considered to be in cover (which includes being fired upon through the gaps between models in an intervening unit), then the whole squad is in cover.

There is nothing in the rules that makes interspersed units exclusionary from being intervening units. This is true for singular objects, but not from the perspective of a group of objects identified as a whole (better known as units as they are defined in 40k).

And while I normally wouldn't point this out, given how pedantic you are here I feel it's worth doing: the rules assume (and define behavior for) using models in three dimensional space, not two. Distances complicated by height are defined in the 5th ed rules, as well as moving vertically in relative to the gaming space using available movement.

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...).

Show me where in the rules that this formation is not legal and that the benefit does not extend to both squads.

The majority of models in both units are being fired upon through gaps in models from an intervening unit. All criteria required for claiming a 4+ cover save in the game are met by both units at the same time as defined by the rules.

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...

Are you always this pedantic or is it just when you're on the internet?

Technically this requires an errata, not a FAQ. Seeing as how the rules are defined in the game support this as they are written, the rules would have to change in order for this to be illegal.

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.

No, what you have is someone gaming the Rules as Written to gain an advantage in game that obviously is not the designers intention. You don't have a cheater, you have a poor sportsman.

Much like the "Goblin Slingshot" in WHFB, this is 100% within the rules but is an obvious abuse of the system.

**fullheadofhair**

[quote=Voodoo Boyz

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...

Are you always this pedantic or is it just when you're on the internet?

Technically this requires an errata, not a FAQ. Seeing as how the rules are defined in the game support this as they are written, the rules would have to change in order for this to be illegal.

**Voodoo Boyz**

fullheadofhair wrote:
Voodoo Boyz wrote:

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...

Are you always this pedantic or is it just when you're on the internet?

Technically this requires an errata, not a FAQ. Seeing as how the rules are defined in the game support this as they are written, the rules would have to change in order for this to be illegal.

Awesome out pedanticing of the Nurglethingy!!! (like my new word) However, a true pedant would not have used "technically", they would have said "actually" to make the statement a lot more definite. Please try and be a bit more careful for the future.

I believe you are correct. However I shall not deign to leave my ivory tower to edit the post whilst ye still have an error using your PHBB code properly to quoteh my...errm...quote.

**whitedragon**

Methinks my eyes burneth!

**Nurglitch**

holden88 wrote:I think the rules allow mutual cover saves to be granted to intermixed units. I don't really appreciate your insinuation that I am either an idiot and/or a cheater. To me the rule is plain as day, however. I do see that the word intercede injects a healthy dose of confusion to the issue. I appreciate that others may read the rules and have a different interperetaion than mine. I don't automatically assume they are idiots or cheater.

I'm not insinuating that you are an idiot. You are declaring it yourself by publicly admitting that you cannot read plain English properly, and cannot fathom your own inability to do so. The fact that interpretations differ simply means that one is correct and that the rest of not.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Just saying something authoritatively does not make it inherently true. What makes this amazing assumption that "no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective"?

Quite correct, except that I was not claiming any authority. I was simply asserting what the rules say. If you want to know why it is that no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective, on a flat and open 2D plane, go learn some geometry.

Voodoo wrote:The rules for cover are quite clear on the matter: If there is a question if one squad should get a cover save, you are supposed to look at the entire target squad from the point of view of the firing unit. If the majority of models are considered to be in cover (which includes being fired upon through the gaps between models in an intervening unit), then the whole squad is in cover.

If you're going to say that the rules for cover are "quite clear" and then argue some contrary conclusion from that position, then you're going to have to give an exegesis of the rules and show the given value of "clear". That is if you want to avoid simply contradicting me, and you actually want to demonstrate the correctness of your position. Show your work, or STFU.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:There is nothing in the rules that makes interspersed units exclusionary from being intervening units. This is true for singular objects, but not from the perspective of a group of objects identified as a whole (better known as units as they are defined in 40k).

Yes, actually there is something in the rules that excludes interspersed units from conferring mutual cover saves: it's call the rules. Specifically it's the part of the rules discussing the position of the unit conferring the save to the unit receiving the save:

"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 visble to the firer."

VoodooBoyz wrote:And while I normally wouldn't point this out, given how pedantic you are here I feel it's worth doing: the rules assume (and define behavior for) using models in three dimensional space, not two. Distances complicated by height are defined in the 5th ed rules, as well as moving vertically in relative to the gaming space using available movement.

Your assumption of pedantry reveals your own ignorant stupidity, since my point is applicable to any n-dimensional open space, and two dimensions is the easiest way to visualize the set of relations described in the rules.

VoodooBoyz wrote:Are you always this pedantic or is it just when you're on the internet?

Are you always a jerk, or is it just when you're on the internet?

VoodooBoyz wrote:Technically this requires an errata, not a FAQ. Seeing as how the rules are defined in the game support this as they are written, the rules would have to change in order for this to be illegal.

Wrong, an errata would be required if the rules permitted something as stupid as two units providing mutual cover saves. They do not, and only idiots suppose that they do. Since FAQs are for idiots, and errata are only for fixing typos, an FAQ is what is required.

**holden88**

Nurglitch, I see you have doggedly latched on to the most common defenition of Intervene: "To come between". However, that doesn't mean that this is the only possbile defenition of the word. Words can have many different meanings with subtle differences. Here are some alternate (yet perfectly legal and accurate) defenitions of Intervene found in various dictionaries.

1) (of things) to occur incidentally so as to modify or hinder
2) To occur as an extraneous or unplanned circumstance
3) To involve oneself in a situation so as to alter or hinder an action or development
4) get involved, so as to alter or hinder an action
5) to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification

Any of the above defenitions support the mutual cover save argument. Face it, english does not say only what you what you think it says. Unfortunately, your entire position is built on the false presumption that there is one and only one possible usage of the word intervene.

**akira5665**

Crikey- I have never seen Nurglitch respond like that before!

: thumbsup :

**fullheadofhair**

Ooops .. something got Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit's nickers in a twist. We have a couple of idiots a nice "STFU".

BTW, Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit, as we are all pedants, you have made the grave error of generalization. Some questions in an FAQ are for idiots who cannot read, some questions are for where rule designers have managed A+B equals C but B+A doesn't equal C.

So, not all FAQ's are for idiots - unless you count yourself as an idiot seeing as (if memory serves correctly) your position has been opposite to a couple of FAQ questions.

P1 Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit says FAQ's are for idiots
P2 Many people agree with Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit
P3 Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit has to read an FAQ to be current with rules as they can be different to his reading of the rules

C1 Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit calls himself an idiot.
C2 People who agree with Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit think he is an idiot
C3 If you agree with Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit who is an idiot therefore you are an idiot
C4 Everyone who agrees with Nurglethingywhatyahmacallit is an idiot.

ooooh my first P/C analysis. How did I do?

***Edited the P/C analysis coz it was wrong.

**Nurglitch**

FullheadofFail wrote:***Edited the P/C analysis coz it was wrong.

Fail.

**fullheadofhair**

Nurglitch wrote:
FullheadofFail wrote:***Edited the P/C analysis coz it was wrong.

Fail.

I am sorry, but wouldn't it be a FAIL if I hadn't tried to adjust it? I have heard there are such things as logic classes that explain this type of thing and teach you to explain it in a way that is incredibly long winded, verbose and superior to all others. That type of class would really help on a board like YMDC, so you might want to consider it. I am happy to remain the intellectually challanged, short n' fat bald englishman that I am.

**Voodoo Boyz**

If you want to know why it is that no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective, on a flat and open 2D plane, go learn some geometry.

If you want to quote me and respond like this, then at least quote properly.

For individual objects, or a single model, then this is true by basic geometry.

Unfortunately for you, we're not talking about individual objects. We're talking about UNITS, which are collections of models formed into a group with at most 2" of space between each individual model that makes up the unit.

Because we're talking about units, not individual models, and more specifically how the rules define units to get cover saves, the entire premise for your argument falls apart as I'm about to show.

If you're going to say that the rules for cover are "quite clear" and then argue some contrary conclusion from that position, then you're going to have to give an exegesis of the rules and show the given value of "clear". That is if you want to avoid simply contradicting me, and you actually want to demonstrate the correctness of your position. Show your work, or STFU.

I have already shown it, you just chose to ignore quoting it or responding to it in any fashion:

"The majority of models in both units are being fired upon through gaps in models from an intervening unit. All criteria required for claiming a 4+ cover save in the game are met by both units at the same time as defined by the rules."

Yes, actually there is something in the rules that excludes interspersed units from conferring mutual cover saves: it's call the rules. Specifically it's the part of the rules discussing the position of the unit conferring the save to the unit receiving the save:

"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 visble to the firer."

That's the first half of the rules on how units get cover saves, but you're ignoring the other half of the rule that defines how units that have the majority of their models in cover (which is what the above rules-quote defines), then the unit gets to take the cover save.

Lets break it down.

Target Unit A and B are in the interspersed formation, they are being shot at by Firing Unit X.

XXXXXXXXXXX

A A A A A A
B B B B B B
A A A A A A
B B B B B B
A A A A A A
B B B B B B

From the point of view of Unit X, to fire on Unit A it will have to shoot through the gaps of models in Unit B.

The majority of the models in Unit A are actually being shot at through the gaps of models in Unit B.

In order for this to be the case, there are models in Unit B which are in front of models in Unit A.

These models in Unit B are in between the majority of models in Unit A and Firing Unit X.

Being in between two things is one of the definitions of intervening. Reference.

As such this completely satisfies the rules in order for the target unit to claim the cover save. The onus is on you to somehow show that despite the fact that Unit B has models that come in between Firing Unit X and Target Unit A that it is somehow not an "intervening unit". If you can't do that, then I'd suggest you follow your own advice and "STFU".

There are no restrictions in the rules on what an intervening unit is, or that somehow the majority of models in a unit must intervene with another unit to claim a cover save. As such we must use the definition of intervening which in this application means "to occur or be between two things."

Again, the key here is that you are completely ignoring the fact that we are talking about Units, not singular objects on a 2D plane.

Your assumption of pedantry reveals your own ignorant stupidity, since my point is applicable to any n-dimensional open space, and two dimensions is the easiest way to visualize the set of relations described in the rules.

Your entire post was pedantic and insulting, but the specific part about you being pedantic is quoted here:

"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..."

Are you always a jerk, or is it just when you're on the internet?

I'm merely responding in kind. You're the one who comes into the thread with a post which says multiple times that anyone who does not interpret the rules as you do to be an idiot, and at the same time childishly try to make some kind of correction about the proper use of the word "deserve" in reference to a FAQ. If you're going to act this way then I'm going to call you on it, and at the same time show exactly how wrong you are with your little rant per the Rules As Written.

Wrong, an errata would be required if the rules permitted something as stupid as two units providing mutual cover saves. They do not, and only idiots suppose that they do. Since FAQs are for idiots, and errata are only for fixing typos, an FAQ is what is required.

Actually only an idiot would try to argue that a defined group of objects that has a subset of those objects "occur or be between two things" is somehow not intervening.

Considering this is your entire basis to refute the fact that interspersed units can provide mutual cover saves per the rules in 5th Edition, I'd definitely reconsider who you call an idiot.

**Cadian16th**

Voodoo Boyz wrote:
If you want to know why it is that no two things can be in front of one another from the same co-relative perspective, on a flat and open 2D plane, go learn some geometry.

If you want to quote me and respond like this, then at least quote properly.

For individual objects, or a single model, then this is true by basic geometry.

Unfortunately for you, we're not talking about individual objects. We're talking about UNITS, which are collections of models formed into a group with at most 2" of space between each individual model that makes up the unit.

Because we're talking about units, not individual models, and more specifically how the rules define units to get cover saves, the entire premise for your argument falls apart as I'm about to show.

If you're going to say that the rules for cover are "quite clear" and then argue some contrary conclusion from that position, then you're going to have to give an exegesis of the rules and show the given value of "clear". That is if you want to avoid simply contradicting me, and you actually want to demonstrate the correctness of your position. Show your work, or STFU.

I have already shown it, you just chose to ignore quoting it or responding to it in any fashion:

"The majority of models in both units are being fired upon through gaps in models from an intervening unit. All criteria required for claiming a 4+ cover save in the game are met by both units at the same time as defined by the rules."

Yes, actually there is something in the rules that excludes interspersed units from conferring mutual cover saves: it's call the rules. Specifically it's the part of the rules discussing the position of the unit conferring the save to the unit receiving the save:

"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 visble to the firer."

That's the first half of the rules on how units get cover saves, but you're ignoring the other half of the rule that defines how units that have the majority of their models in cover (which is what the above rules-quote defines), then the unit gets to take the cover save.

Lets break it down.

Target Unit A and B are in the interspersed formation, they are being shot at by Firing Unit X.

XXXXXXXXXXX

A A A A A A
B B B B B B
A A A A A A
B B B B B B
A A A A A A
B B B B B B

From the point of view of Unit X, to fire on Unit A it will have to shoot through the gaps of models in Unit B.

The majority of the models in Unit A are actually being shot at through the gaps of models in Unit B.

In order for this to be the case, there are models in Unit B which are in front of models in Unit A.

These models in Unit B are in between the majority of models in Unit A and Firing Unit X.

Being in between two things is one of the definitions of intervening. Reference.

As such this completely satisfies the rules in order for the target unit to claim the cover save. The onus is on you to somehow show that despite the fact that Unit B has models that come in between Firing Unit X and Target Unit A that it is somehow not an "intervening unit". If you can't do that, then I'd suggest you follow your own advice and "STFU".

There are no restrictions in the rules on what an intervening unit is, or that somehow the majority of models in a unit must intervene with another unit to claim a cover save. As such we must use the definition of intervening which in this application means "to occur or be between two things."

Again, the key here is that you are completely ignoring the fact that we are talking about Units, not singular objects on a 2D plane.

Your assumption of pedantry reveals your own ignorant stupidity, since my point is applicable to any n-dimensional open space, and two dimensions is the easiest way to visualize the set of relations described in the rules.

Your entire post was pedantic and insulting, but the specific part about you being pedantic is quoted here:

"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..."

Are you always a jerk, or is it just when you're on the internet?

I'm merely responding in kind. You're the one who comes into the thread with a post which says multiple times that anyone who does not interpret the rules as you do to be an idiot, and at the same time childishly try to make some kind of correction about the proper use of the word "deserve" in reference to a FAQ. If you're going to act this way then I'm going to call you on it, and at the same time show exactly how wrong you are with your little rant per the Rules As Written.

Wrong, an errata would be required if the rules permitted something as stupid as two units providing mutual cover saves. They do not, and only idiots suppose that they do. Since FAQs are for idiots, and errata are only for fixing typos, an FAQ is what is required.

Actually only an idiot would try to argue that a defined group of objects that has a subset of those objects "occur or be between two things" is somehow not intervening.

Considering this is your entire basis to refute the fact that interspersed units can provide mutual cover saves per the rules in 5th Edition, I'd definitely reconsider who you call an idiot.

/thread

**JohnHwangDD**

holden88 wrote:Nurglitch, I see you have doggedly latched on to the most common defenition of Intervene: "To come between"

Given that the rulebook is notionally written for common folk, using the most common definition is probably the most accurate definition.

Now unless you can clearly demonstrate that GW had some other, uncommon definition in mind, as stated by the BBB author himself, such a line of argument is going to be fruitless.

If we have to get to the point at which we need to interpret every word in the GW rulebook based on uncommon interpretations, the rulebook might as well not exist, because nobody is going to agree on anything.

So let's assume the common definition unless clearly indicated otherwise.