Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Mobile cover in the 5th ed
Topic Started: 14 Aug 2008, 04:55 AM (537 Views)
Severian
Member Avatar
Colour Sergeant
So it had to happen - somebody figured out the latest loophole in the rules and how to abuse it. Due to the fact that a squad that is partially obscured by another squad gets a 4+ save some genius came up wth the following:

If you take 2 squads (X and Y) and place them like this

XXXXX YYYYY
YYYYY XXXXX

They ALWAYS have a 4+ cover save because whoever is shooting at them is shooting through the other squad.

Who needs terrain when you can just make ur own cover with another squad.....


Please note that I do not advocate the use of this tactic but it is entirely legal and as such you will come accross it in competition :(


Any comments?
Offline
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

From what I've read..

It doesn't work quite like that, as niether squad is entirely in cover BUT you would potentially get a 6+ save for being partially covered. Which is invulnerable of course.

Yes this is entirely legal, but doesnt the 'moveable cover' have to be within a certain distance of the squad its protecting. Template weapons could make a mess of trying to exploit this tactic.

On the other hand, it makes for some very interesting new tactics, especially for quard who now have a chance of walking through bolter fire relatively unscathed although the amount of positioning and over lapping required to exploit this, and what'd happen the moment an assault unit got in renders it pretty useless for some armies.
 
# Marovian
Member Avatar
Ginger Law Enforcer
Not sure how well that would work.

The new rules in 5th Edition allow that option, but as a guard player I say let the enemy give it a go. My hell hound and Basilisk will make a mess of that formation in short order - and with no cover saves either, rendering it useless.

The new marines will have field day with it as well, once they get their hands on that Land Raider with the Heavy flamers.
Offline
 
Lt.Gregor
Member Avatar
Lieutenant
That might work, but let me just say:

DON"T BE THAT GUY!

You know the guy, that everyone dosen't want to play with cuz he'll argue for hours about how this is legal, but for some reason shouldn't be.
Offline
 
Severian
Member Avatar
Colour Sergeant
Asmodai Dark
14 Aug 2008, 11:39 AM
From what I've read..

It doesn't work quite like that, as niether squad is entirely in cover BUT you would potentially get a 6+ save for being partially covered. Which is invulnerable of course.

Yes this is entirely legal, but doesnt the 'moveable cover' have to be within a certain distance of the squad its protecting. Template weapons could make a mess of trying to exploit this tactic.

On the other hand, it makes for some very interesting new tactics, especially for quard who now have a chance of walking through bolter fire relatively unscathed although the amount of positioning and over lapping required to exploit this, and what'd happen the moment an assault unit got in renders it pretty useless for some armies.
Sorry fella page 21 under Intervening models it states that if a target is partialy covered by intervening models it gets a 4+ cover save. Note that not even the majority of the unit has to be obscured :(

Have to aggree with Lt.Gregor though "DON"T BE THAT GUY!"

The reality of it is that you are going to have to deal with this if you play competitions. My thoughts on the matter ?

I see flamers in my future, beatifull cover save ignoring flamers :D
Offline
 
Brambleten
Member Avatar
The Red Hood
if i see that against me, then im just going to have to bring out more markerlights to knock down the cover saves again.
looks like it could confuse some people though, if they decide to set up as shown, then take the guys on the left one way, and the guys on the right the other, mixing the units. if it were 2 devastator squads full of lascannons im sure someone notice you splitting wrongly, due to 8 lascannon guys moving one way and what looks like a tactical squad moving the other way
Offline
 
Stoss55
Member Avatar
Second Lieutenant
okay, sure, you'ld get a cover save. whoopie. it is only 4+. that does nothing for MeQs unless they are fighting alot of plasma. that only really helps out GeQs, and barely at that. it the cover save really worth it? it makes you alot more vulnerable to blasts/templates, getting both units assaulted, AND you give the other guy cover too! how good is that plasma weapon or heavy bolter when it is giving cover to those termies/guardsmen? might as well not have taken it at all.

IMO, only a tactical moron would use this, as the cons vastly outweigh the pros. if you want mobile cover, use a tank.
Offline
 
Severian
Member Avatar
Colour Sergeant
thewizardofoz
16 Aug 2008, 02:43 AM
okay, sure, you'ld get a cover save. whoopie. it is only 4+. that does nothing for MeQs unless they are fighting alot of plasma. that only really helps out GeQs, and barely at that. it the cover save really worth it? it makes you alot more vulnerable to blasts/templates, getting both units assaulted, AND you give the other guy cover too! how good is that plasma weapon or heavy bolter when it is giving cover to those termies/guardsmen? might as well not have taken it at all.

IMO, only a tactical moron would use this, as the cons vastly outweigh the pros. if you want mobile cover, use a tank.
Imagine the above example with thwo big squads of genestealrs and gaunts

the use of 30 Gaunts strung out protecting genestealers like the diagram below?

G = Gaunt
X = Genestealer

GGGGGGGGGG
XXXXXXXXXX
GGGGGGGGGG
XXXXXXXXXX
GGGGGGGGGG

4+ cover save and they like assault mate- bring it on. Not so moronic now eh?
Offline
 
Brambleten
Member Avatar
The Red Hood
Severian
16 Aug 2008, 12:15 PM


G = Gaunt
X = Genestealer

GGGGGGGGGG
XXXXXXXXXX
GGGGGGGGGG
XXXXXXXXXX
GGGGGGGGGG

4+ cover save and they like assault mate- bring it on. Not so moronic now eh?
somebody's hellhound or redeemer is going to have fun with that. whirlwinds might also have a good time against that ( anti cover save rounds ftw!)
Offline
 
Merceus
Member Avatar
Lieutenant
lol, unfortunately we have a blue-shirt down our local who does this exact thing with his chaos :P no one cares though ;)
Offline
 
Stoss55
Member Avatar
Second Lieutenant
Severian
16 Aug 2008, 12:15 PM
4+ cover save and they like assault mate- bring it on. Not so moronic now eh?
it is when i bring an AFP, Flamers, or hit it from the side. side shots will negate that cover save.

and when there are alot of blast and template weapons in most new 5th ed lists, this is just going to be helping your opponent. and in the case of the gaunt/stealer formation, if they try running, and they move at different speeds, you'll be moving at the speed of the slowest one. and with that in mind, i could rules lawyer the hell out of someone trying to move with that, since you dont move goups of units together like that, but one at a time. and unless there is a nice gap between models, then the unit that moves first will have to pour out the sides of that formation, because you cant move through a space smaller than the size of your base. try and move that formation and it will fall apart.

like i said, the cons outweigh the pros. i would gladly fight a formation like, just for the chance to wipe out 2 scoring units in 1 round of shooting. it would make my day.
Offline
 
Severian
Member Avatar
Colour Sergeant
thewizardofoz
18 Aug 2008, 01:08 AM
Severian
16 Aug 2008, 12:15 PM
4+ cover save and they like assault mate- bring it on. Not so moronic now eh?
, i could rules lawyer the hell out of someone trying to move with that, since you dont move goups of units together like that, but one at a time. and unless there is a nice gap between models, then the unit that moves first will have to pour out the sides of that formation, because you cant move through a space smaller than the size of your base. try and move that formation and it will fall apart.

Have to aggree with you about the movement. Only thought about it when a local player pointed it out in this post:

Right.

To all those people out there complaining about the
XXXYYY
YYYXXX
problem.

I'll probably allow it, heck I might even try it.

BUT, what everyone seems to forget is movement.
If you try this crap against me I will definitly make you move the
squads one at a time.

No way will you be moving at your full movement speed.

Because you can only move through gaps where your base can fit.
Don't even try to tell me that both squads move at the same speed.


Beatifull! :D
Offline
 
# Digits
Member Avatar
Shadowkin
Besides, anyone stupid enough to run the risk of having two squads pinned by the same arty barage - bring 'em on!
Offline
 
☺charlie_c67
Member Avatar
Lieutenant
See scouts would also have a field day here, pin one unit and the other can't move. Advantage lost....
Offline
 
Stoss55
Member Avatar
Second Lieutenant
i actually did a test of it to see how well a unit could move like that, using that tyranid example. the gaunts would have to move first, and only 5" at max, and then the stealers would come in behind. the gaunts no longer get cover then, and they are strung out as to be completely useless. and then if they did leave enough space to fit the model through, the footprint would be so huge that there is no way to fit it on the field practically.

it was a nice creative concept to be sure, but the guy who thought it up didnt know all the rules. i'm sure someone will find a way tho, sooner or later it is bound to happen...
Offline
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Warhammer 40,000 · Next Topic »