Quick Rules Question

[Reglor]

One thing I have to wonder is how he can get a unit this intermixed and still keep coherency. Also, if he can mix the units that much, he probaly can't move that group at all. Models can't move over the bases of other models, even friendly models. So how did he manage to get the group formed in the first place?

[Snozz]

Actually I just thought of something. Is it coherency if something else is in the way? Think about it. Say there is a thin wall covering half of the battle field. Now can you have half your unit go down one side and the other half go down the other side? They would still be in 2" coherency, just with a wall in the way. Not sure why you'd want to do this but yeah. You could point out that the wall is impassible terrain, but I'm sure the rulebook states that all models, friend or foe, are impassable. In which case they wouldn't be able to mix their units like this without spending near half an hour per movement phase with a pencil and several sheets of paper working out how to actually move his men. Even then he'd probably only get several inches of movement per turn.

[Praeger]

Actually I just thought of something. Is it coherency if something else is in the way? Think about it. Say there is a thin wall covering half of the battle field. Now can you have half your unit go down one side and the other half go down the other side? They would still be in 2" coherency, just with a wall in the way

 

Yes they are still in coherency.

 

The rule book dosnt state that they have to have direct LOS or anything else to their "brothers" in the unit for coherency - just as logn as they are within 2".

 

This player was not in anyway cheating and it is a valid tactic. For one thing as long as there is a 1.5 " gap between 2 "brother" models then another units model could easily fit within that gap and still move without problems.

 

As well as that for an army such as Tau or Imp Guard where they dont move much, this tactic is perfectly fine.

 

I do however have to re-read the rules on units giving cover saves before i say if he should have received the 4+ or not.

[njm3]

If half of a unit was on one side of a wall and half on the other, both groups would get a cover save. Models out of LOS count in cover. P22.

[maniclurker]

I'd discourage it as 'legal'......

 

Unfortunately, there isn't much to 'discourage' it as legal.

 

The simple fact of the matter is, is that it is legal. Regardless of the logic, or the 'cheese factor'.

 

However, as InquisitorPhred put it earlier, really make him stick by the rules when he moves the intermingled unit. He won't be going anywhere very fast, and won't accomplish what a horde army is supposed to be doing.

[SeattleDV8]

Another thing to look for in this type of troop mixing is that over 50% have to be covered by the other units. NOT from the same unit so in the example you gave if you moved a bit to you right (left on your graphic) you can see 6 models of unit A bingo ....no cover. As long as the squads are easy to tell apart ,and if your foe wishes to play this way Take the time to count how many models can be seen by your units. Do not let members of the same unit count as cover. pick off the open units. it is tough to move fairly and get perfect mixed cover.

[Celestin]

Since he would have had to place his models with at least 1 inch in between each in order to move them, how would he have had coherency? The 'B' unit on the far left would have been at least 3 inches from the nearest member of its unit. If he placed them close together, movement would have been nearly impossible.

[Praeger]

Since he would have had to place his models with at least 1 inch in between each in order to move them, how would he have had coherency? The 'B' unit on the far left would have been at least 3 inches from the nearest member of its unit. If he placed them close together, movement would have been nearly impossible.

 

No....at most he would have 2" gap between them.

 

EG:

 

A-2"-A

 

A-B-A-B-A-B-A

B-A-B-A-B-A-B

A-B-A-B-A-B-A

 

In the above example you can see how you can easily place the models so there is a 2" gap between bases, thus keeping coherency, but also this leaves enough room to place another model.

 

You can also see how they can be placed so that no matter what the majority of the unit will be hidden behind another unit.

[SeattleDV8]

if you move to the right or left of that grouping you will find that the 3 A's (or B's ) are in a line. One could easily get LOS to over 50% of either unit.

[Celestin]

No....at most he would have 2" gap between them.

 

EG:

 

A-2"-A

 

A-B-A-B-A-B-A

B-A-B-A-B-A-B

A-B-A-B-A-B-A

 

In the above example you can see how you can easily place the models so there is a 2" gap between bases, thus keeping coherency, but also this leaves enough room to place another model.

 

You can also see how they can be placed so that no matter what the majority of the unit will be hidden behind another unit.

 

I was referring to the original 3-squad setup, where models were spaced out quite a bit more.

 

And, as pointed out by the other poster, if you have the right angle (45 degrees) then it is possible to deny cover saves to a unit using the 2-squad setup shown there.

[InquisitorPhred]

if you move to the right or left of that grouping you will find that the 3 A's (or B's ) are in a line. One could easily get LOS to over 50% of either unit.

 

Doesn't matter, the invisible 2" line linking two models in another unit is essentially a phantasmal wall that stops bullets. You could have totally clear view to every model in the target unit, but firing through the gaps in another unit still grants cover.

[SeattleDV8]

Isn't the 2" for area terrain?

[InquisitorPhred]

Sorry, not 2" deep, I meant the 'line' that you'd measure coherency along. Stated more clearly, if you shoot 'through the gap' in a unit, the target gets a cover save. It doesn't matter if the target is in no way even the slightest bit obstructed by an actual model. (MCs and vehicles not withstanding of course.)

[Celestin]

I'm really not so sure about that. I'm looking at the Rulebook right now, and all I see about 'Intervening models' is the model itself, not units or coherency lines. This is probably the sort of thing that will need to be dealt with via Errata at some point, but for the time being, the Rulebook doesn't say anything about coherency, so coherency lines don't block line of sight, only models.

 

  X   X   X   X   X


A   A   A   A   A
 B   B   B   B   B

 

That formation would not appear to grant cover saves to either Squad A or Squad B when Squad X fires at either. Please let me know if there are other rules I'm missing.

[Praeger]

Let me go back to my example and point out some issues:

 

A-B-A-B-A-B-A

B-A-B-A-B-A-B

A-B-A-B-A-B-A

 

Lets imagine the atack is coming from the front. What PERCENTAGE of unit B will be hidden by unit A?

 

Direct LOS goes to the front rank, so thats 3 models - models HIDDEN = 7

 

So thats only 30% - less then half

 

What about if the fire was coming from one of the sides? left or right?

 

Only 1 B is visible. 9 hidden

 

So thats 10% are visible

 

What about viewing it from 45'?

 

This is the only chance you have - but it is only a chance.

 

Another point is that if instead of a "block" you mingle the units so they are an "arrow" pointed abckwards then even less can be seen.

 

In Celestins example NONE would be in cover.

 

This IS possible with 3 units, but you need to think about it difrently.

 

 

A 2" B 2" B 2" C 2" B 2" A

B 2" C 2" C 2" A 2" C 2" B

C 2" A 2" A 2" B 2" A 2" C

 

As you can see each is within 2" of another in the unit (sorry about the bad diagram - go grab some models and test for yourself)

[GTang]

For the three unit example, some blast templates where you measure from the point of impact might deny cover because they don't cross the theoretical lines between models in a unit.

 

What units or situations do you think would want to take advantage of this? Not being able to fire a clean shot back makes a difference for a lot of models. Template-happy folks, like Sisters, probably don't mind this formation as much.

[ArmouredWing]

I'd have no problems about facing someone with this tactic and to a certain extent I'd applaud them for their ingenuity. However the fact remains that if you're using this tactic you are bunching minis very close to each other to maintain unit coherency and presenting a VERY attractive target to squads with multiple templates (remember, no cover save).

 

Let them do it (it is legal after all) and find a counter to punish them with, it's that simple and it is what the game is about.

[Celestin]

Inquisitor w/ combi-flamer

3x Warrior w/ flamer

3x Acolyte w/combi-flamer

 

129 points, and will utterly wipe out all three of those units. Just toss them in a vehicle, run them right up in front, and inflict 7-9 hits or -more- with each of 7 flamer templates. If you're lucky enough to get 10 models under each template (shouldn't be -too- hard) then you'll be inflicting an average of 35 AP5 wounds divided between those squads. Buh-bye!

 

Yes, I realize only a few armies have that specific option, but others have options available. DA can field 3 combi-flamers and a flamer in a Veterans squad for similar cost, for example, and Imperial Guard have all sorts of template goodness available to them. (Enough Battle Cannons will decimate -any- unit.)

 

Make them regret being so cheesy until it stops.

[Praeger]

Actually Celestin your examples show how exactly UN-chessy it is.

 

If it can be counted then its not cheesy.

 

If its in the rules its not chessy.

 

Just use the right tactic and you will win :)

[InquisitorPhred]

I'm really not so sure about that. I'm looking at the Rulebook right now, and all I see about 'Intervening models' is the model itself, not units or coherency lines. This is probably the sort of thing that will need to be dealt with via Errata at some point, but for the time being, the Rulebook doesn't say anything about coherency, so coherency lines don't block line of sight, only models.

 

  X   X   X   X   X


A   A   A   A   A
 B   B   B   B   B

 

That formation would not appear to grant cover saves to either Squad A or Squad B when Squad X fires at either. Please let me know if there are other rules I'm missing.

 

p22, 3rd bullet: "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."

 

qed =)

 

 

For the three unit example, some blast templates where you measure from the point of impact might deny cover because they don't cross the theoretical lines between models in a unit.

 

Generally they will, remember, you are assessing the cover status of the entire target unit from the POV of the center of the template. From the center of the template, over 50% of the *entire* unit is likely to still be in cover. It's not just assessing those models under the template from the center of the template.

[Celestin]

Ah, but that allows even worse exploitations of game mechanics then depending on interpretation.

 

A			 A
A B B B B B B A
B C C C C C C B
C A A A A A A C
B C		 C B

 

You don't even need to worry about weird interspacing with this scheme, which should easily allow you to maintain cohesion, space for movement, and each unit protects another entirely. The thing is, I'm quite sure this isn't what GW intended, and if it showed up at the GTs at all, I'll be surprised if they don't make an errata to address this.

 

All the same, there is still one final way around the whole issue: height. Try getting a significant amount of height advantage in a game and you negate cover entirely, since you'll be firing over the top of the otherwise 'intervening' models.

 

Personally, I plan to simply say, "I'm firing at the front unit. If none of them are in front, then I will assign wounds to the whole lot as if it were one unit." If they are moving as a single formation, then that is what it is, and should be targetted as such, losing ALL cover saves. This is a game for having fun, and 6+ armour save orks getting 4+ cover saves just by mobbing up isn't in the rules, so it's horribly unbalanced and thus unfair. Fun games come from being fair. And when I'm not having fun, I don't play.

[GTang]

Well, in that one formation, blast templates would avoid at least one and possibly more than one cover save in a few positions.

 

While it's annoying, I'm not sure how big a problem it is. They can't shoot back clearly either. It puts three separate units in one place - template weapons and ordinance blasts could do well. You lose some maneuverability. These units are unlikely to run, else the formation get screwed up.

 

Assaulters or counterassaulters can assault one of those units in the formation and mess up the formation entirely. After all, the target doesn't count as being in real cover with respect to assault. And note that assaulting multiple units is optional, not required.

 

It's a very defensive play that significantly reduces offensive ability and flexibility.

[Celestin]

The whole purpose of a formation like is being discussed is to achieve 4+ cover saves for a unit with far worse regular saves, which normally has an AP value so poor that the opponent would take regular saves over the 4+ cover saves, or which is pure assault oriented. So, basically, you suffer no real drawbacks but gain large advantages.

 

This is like Eldar placing War Walkers with Scatter Lasers behind lots of cover when fighting marines. Sure, there's cover to give you a 4+ invuln save, but the Scatter Laser is only AP6 anyways, you get your better 3+, but he gets the full benefit of cover against return attacks. But at least though a rather nasty tactic, that's perfectly legitimate and makes plenty of sense.

 

In this case, there is no real cover, this is unit A screening for unit B, screening for unit C, screening for unit A. 40k isn't about playing out Three Stooges skits. If I see a big mass of orks headed towards me, I'm going to fire at them indiscriminately. That's what -should- happen. You fire at the front rank instead of unit X, and inflict casualties on whomever is in front. If three separate squads are in front of an intermingled unit and you somehow inflict 30+ wounds, I guess that wiped them all out, and the other orks will learn to spread out.

 

As for assaulting such a unit, that's exactly against the point. Since these units are typically assault-oriented, assaulting even one is often suicide, and you typically want to shoot them to death before they reach you.

[WarpSpawn]

To be honest, I don't think it's a viable tactic for anything other than a gunline anyway. Assault armies are going to be a complete pain to maneuver in this formation. Just try it with your own models and see.

 

First of all, you're going to need to leave at least 1" gaps in much of the formation, to ensure models can move through the gaps. Second, when you measure around one or more models during movement, your going to lose a substantial amount of movement in the process. Thirdly, when you through in the random movement of running, keeping formation will be next to impossible. Finally, it's ludicrously vulnerable to blast and template weapons.

 

RAW legal? I expect so, yes.

 

Cheesy as hell? Gorgonzola I tell you!!!

 

Likely to see much use? I doubt it.

[GTang]

Another potential minus I can think of is that against certain abilities that target models, you risk losing unit coherency when those models are lost. (Vindicare assassin, for example.) Then you have to choose to keep the two or three units together, move them apart and lose the cover, or some other things that you would not normally risk in the more common formations.