Friday, July 30, 2010
I really wanted to turn back time and visit the Ork articles that Melissia wrote on BoLS, as there was some awesome fighting and Melissia actually made a surprisingly good account for herself (in the fighting, not the article- that was shit). Mostly, though, I just wanted to stick it to Brent for killing project mayhem by pointing out that they let Melissia do an article, but won't even answer his e-mails. Then I realized I could do that without wading through 200 or so BoLS comments to mine for gold. Seriously though, does this prove that if you troll enough you get your own guest feature? Or does it prove that being friends with someone who's shagging someone from the blog gets you special favors?
Coming from the ever popular "U make da call" section of Dakka Dakka, today's fight is brought to you by the GAP (you'll get this 5 minutes from now, I promise). "Asinine cover save querry" proves to be anything but. It also proves to be hilarious. Today's fight should be a little short too, which is good for everyone, so enjoy.
As always, none of the names have been changed to protect the innocent, but their avatars have been for my own amusement. There is a poll for you to vote on the winner at the upper right hand side of your computer screen (or TV is you are reading this on a gaming console, in which case- get a life). My snowmobiling will happen in red and it will rock your ass. Let's get it on....
~title notwithstanding this is where I started to get excited.
Assume I have a brood of 30 gants strung in a really long line, ~it's conga time 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. ~then you laugh at your dumbass opponent as your Tervigons replace all of those termagants the next turn...
Can the rest of my broods claim cover because my opponent is shooting through a brood of gants? ~jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, this is the greatest dick move I've seen in a while
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 people posting in a rules forum would read the rules before making themselves look like an idiot
~oh shit, real evidence this early in a fight. surely it's over already, right..?
"or through gaps between models in an intervening unit. . .even if it is completely visible to the firer"
~just go home. never come back here. do not pass go, do not collect $200
~I don't know, can you read the rulebook and find where it says you can't, asshole?
~other than your opponent being a whiny bitch as we'll see shortly The only penalty is moving them closer to each other the next phase and I believe they can still shoot, right?
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. ~or you could just stop explaining everything away with fuzzy logic and realize you're playing a game and that the rulebook specifically allows this move.
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.
Thus my question here. ~but you answered your own question. So really you just wanted to say: "look at this dirty trick I figured out (or more likely stole from somebody better than me). How huge is my epeen?"
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. ~it'll be a sad day when somebody gets raped over a rules dispute. Unless dolphins are involved. Then it will be glorious
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). ~I find you so repulsing that I can't even come up with something horrible to say about you. Moving on...
In ANY case, don't do it. ~you're not the boss of me
~oh no you didn't! now you done did it!
Then refused the save. ~my, how chivalrous of you
~oh shit, gaps. this is where everything starts to go off the rails
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. ~they lost 93% of their unit in one turn of shooting. I think they're hideously disadvantaged at just about everything. They should be thankfull that they survived, though, and were able to draw that much fire away from shit that matters and can't be replaced by a T-section (that was supposed to be a joke about Tervigon birthing. I don't think it worked..)
~for those of you not in the know, TFG stands for "that fucking guy" 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.
~your name sounds like it might be Klingon for turdburger 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. ~you are a gentleman as well. well, that and completely going to die in the Darwinian sense
~ wait, what? so I'd say no save and just be done with it.
~mind the gap 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... ~well that was certainly fucking necessary
"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." ~haven't we already covered this?
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. ~did you read any of this thread before you posted? my guess is no. my guess is also that you never learned to read
Sorry, no cover save (unless I am shooting something right along the edge where your model is physically at. ~how would that matter. if you knew what you were talking about you'd realize that the unit intervenes, not the model.
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). ~umm, not shit Sherlock. Good thing that was never even questioned elsewhere in this thread. I'd like to send you away from here with a copy of our home game: Friday Night Internet Fight home edition from Milton Bradley.
Again, the definition of "gap." Sorry, 4 feet between 2 models is a bit more than a gap. ~well that's certainly open to debate 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). ~show me that in the rule book. aren't you being just as unsportsmanlike if you're trying to remove a unit that your opponent carefully place to cover his whole army? isn't killing unsportsmanlike? 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. ~and you just wasted more time shooting at termagants. congrats!
I'd like to take this time to point out that this is actually a MOD here. what's up with all these awesome mod fights lately?
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
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. ~danger you're close to killing your whole argument. abort! abort!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, ~since I'm stealing this tactic it's going to happen all the time now :) I have no problem with allowing it as per the (as I see them) RAW.
~would you like some w(h)ine with that cheesedick? wait, what? 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. ~man if people got that bent out of shape over nothing, I'd already be looking for a new shop to play in. Getting kicked out would be a fucking favor if you ask me. Where do you play dj?
insaniak- 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... ~lol
~wait are you faithful to the Emperor or trying to say that they Emperor is faithful? 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? ~really, you can't? might want to READ YOUR FUCKING RULEBOOK YOU ASSHAT!!
~I like what I said better
~not glad to see that you still exist
~oh shit, now it's back on
~according to what. maybe you've been spending too much time at the Baby GAP I find it funny the OP is defending this now when his original stance was he didn't do it, just wanted to see hte Reaction. Well which is it ? ~I think you're confused. Now I am too. Balls
Claiming that the space is too big to be a gap is more asinine than saying the save is allowed by the rules.
an unfilled space or interval; a break in continuity ~haha, suck it Blow Fly. You're thwarted by Webster's yet again!