Ah, so the split rule for Horrors and Curse of the walking Pox for Poxwalkers that add models to the unit, do not cost you points for those models. Only new units cost reinforcement points. (Page 3 - Rulebook FAQ)
Messiah wrote: Ah, so the split rule for Horrors and Curse of the walking Pox for Poxwalkers that add models to the unit, do not cost you points for those models. Only new units cost reinforcement points. (Page 3 - Rulebook FAQ)
You still have to pay for Horrors as their Split rule explicitly states it (see the Matched Play note).
Nvs wrote: It's laughable that the spell to kill a character and turn them into a spawn requires me to have a spawn in reserve. To hell with that.
You only need to have sufficient points to pay for it if you actually want to place it. Manifesting the power and killing their dude (aka the important parts imho, unless you really need that one extra model on an objective) do not require any reserved points.
Shield drones just got absolutely crushed with the change to Saviour Protocols.
I suppose they are still decent since if the enemy focuses them they are a bit tougher but changing the wound-transfer for Saviour Protocols to a mortal wound all but renders them useless in comparison to Gun Drones.
Not understanding all the teeth gnashing about the Shield Drones. They are brought in line with everything else in the game that lets you transfer wounds. 8 pts for an extra wound on a unit that you want to protect is still a steal. They still get their Invuln when protecting characters, too, as you can't target characters unless they are closest - so you have to target the Drone.
Tyranids pay 12.5 points per wound for Tyrant Guard, who have the same bodyguard function - except restricted to only Hive Tyrants.
JohnU wrote: Hope you didn't go all in on Acolytes.
Did some people actually think that acolytes were supposed to have 3 wounds and played them that way?
They stripped away almost everything unique & interesting about Inquisitorial retinues to pad out other minifactions, so yeah I'd wager plenty of folk might have thought making the bland bullet-catchers that remained actually good at catching bullets was a little pity-trade so people could keep their often lovingly converted models on the table for a bit longer.
rollawaythestone wrote: Not understanding all the teeth gnashing about the Shield Drones. They are brought in line with everything else in the game that lets you transfer wounds.
I just now realized how much of a strange argument that is. The armies various wargear rely on being different in order to function as equipment for that army otherwise you run the risk of ill-fitting rules.
As another example: Kustom Mega Blastas (and their divergences). despite their differences, they are ork plasma guns, if you could only fire one shot, can't choose to not overcharge it, fired by a BS5+ ork, and has random damage. It's one saving grace is that on a 1 it only does one mortal wound rather than slaying the wielder outright. But lets say it was changed to ""On a 1 the wielder is slain". It would make it all but useless, because the benefit is completely out weighted by the drawback. But now it's "more in line" with other plasma guns.
Q. Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).
As I read this, they answer no and then go on to describe excatly the same circumstances as those listed in the question. Very odd...
Also, does this mean that models (like vehicles) obscures and therefore gives cover?
Crazy_swede wrote: As I read this, they answer no and then go on to describe excatly the same circumstances as those listed in the question. Very odd...
They dont. The question and example are different, but only just.
Question is do the non-infantry units benefit from cover if they are at least 50% obscured but not on or within the terrain.
Example states that they do, but they must be on or within the terrain, namely that they are not obscured if the terrain is just between the shooter and the target.
So, a tank must have driven entirely into a copse or crater to be obscured, it cant have part of it sticking out.
Q. Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).
As I read this, they answer no and then go on to describe excatly the same circumstances as those listed in the question. Very odd...
Also, does this mean that models (like vehicles) obscures and therefore gives cover?
/ Fredrik
They do this a couple of times in both this FAQ and in prior FAQs.
"Simple Question?"
"No, however lengthy pedantry boiling down to yes."
Q. Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).
As I read this, they answer no and then go on to describe excatly the same circumstances as those listed in the question. Very odd...
Also, does this mean that models (like vehicles) obscures and therefore gives cover?
/ Fredrik
They do this a couple of times in both this FAQ and in prior FAQs.
"Simple Question?"
"No, however lengthy pedantry boiling down to yes."
No, they say the unit has to be on/in the terrain AND obscured 50% by it to get cover.
The question was asking if a unit not in terrain could still benefit from that cover if obscured by it, and that answer is no.
Q. Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).
As I read this, they answer no and then go on to describe excatly the same circumstances as those listed in the question. Very odd...
Also, does this mean that models (like vehicles) obscures and therefore gives cover?
/ Fredrik
They do this a couple of times in both this FAQ and in prior FAQs.
"Simple Question?"
"No, however lengthy pedantry boiling down to yes."
No, they say the unit has to be on/in the terrain AND obscured 50% by it to get cover.
The question was asking if a unit not in terrain could still benefit from that cover if obscured by it, and that answer is no.
Exactly. No, but if you split hairs yes.
Simpler if you want to do that: Reword the question to spell out the correct interpretation, saves space and sounds less pedantic. It's not an interview, the FAQ writer decides the final wording of the question.
Has anyone noticed the huge changes for Genestealer Cult?
Purestrain Genestealers got a massive buff!!! They are 8pts cheaper base and get free Purestrain talons that were 3pts each. The talons are almost useless (in my opinion), but still a slight buff.
Heavy Rock Cutter got -1 to hit. I find this interesting because the other heavy rock weapons didn't receive this.
Cult Icon that was previously free because points were listed in the index now cost 20pts.
Q. Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually on or within it? A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover: • All of its models must be either on or within the terrain. • The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).
As I read this, they answer no and then go on to describe excatly the same circumstances as those listed in the question. Very odd...
Also, does this mean that models (like vehicles) obscures and therefore gives cover?
/ Fredrik
They do this a couple of times in both this FAQ and in prior FAQs.
"Simple Question?"
"No, however lengthy pedantry boiling down to yes."
No, they say the unit has to be on/in the terrain AND obscured 50% by it to get cover.
The question was asking if a unit not in terrain could still benefit from that cover if obscured by it, and that answer is no.
Exactly. No, but if you split hairs yes.
Simpler if you want to do that: Reword the question to spell out the correct interpretation, saves space and sounds less pedantic. It's not an interview, the FAQ writer decides the final wording of the question.
No, their response was "No. <Explanation of why it's no>." They aren't splitting hairs at all, they are explaining why the answer is no, so people can understand WHY it's no (likely because many people who've played previous editions assume that being obscured = in cover, so they are making it clear why it's no and not just some nebulous 'because we say no, go find the rules reason why yourself').
Unless of course you somehow think it's possible for a model to both be standing on/within terrain while also completely not being on/within terrain.
d-usa wrote: It can shoot with everything, it can be shot by everything.
Simple stuff really.
Not actually the point I was making. I don't deny or debate that it's not a target.
What I'm getting at is that, by that ruling, this vehicle isn't obscured. It is neither in nor on the terrain. It is behind it. It counts as unobscured.
Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).
...does this mean infantry units screening MCs are an option again, providing it's touching a terrain feature? You could quite easily obscure 50% of a Carnifex with a few Gargoyles.
d-usa wrote: It can shoot with everything, it can be shot by everything.
Simple stuff really.
Not actually the point I was making. I don't deny or debate that it's not a target.
What I'm getting at is that, by that ruling, this vehicle isn't obscured. It is neither in nor on the terrain. It is behind it. It counts as unobscured.
It's not obscured because there is no rule that anything should obscure it.
It's not even a ruling, it's a rule that never existed to begin with.
The only rule about cover that every existed in 8th is:
- If you are inside of terrain, you get cover.
- If you are big and inside of terrain, you get cover if the terrain is big enough to actually meaningfully cover you.
Anything other than that was rules from old editions that people had in their head.
We can argue about if those rules are silly, and I would argue that they make sense when we realize that 40K isn't (and IMO never should have been) a complex battlefield simulation or complex wargame. It's the "beer and pretzel" dice rolling game that GW has always claimed it to be.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: What you need to do if put that big rock on a large base that the tank can sit on so it's technically 'in' the terrain as defined by the base
THEN you can get cover from being 50% obscured
You can even agree to handle this like they instruct to handle forests without bases: just agree that the 'base' of the terrain is an area covering X inches from it.
They tried so hard to make a standardized rule set then wrote a rule that says the tank in cover may not be in cover because it is not on the terrain. I personally feel like if its obscured and in the vicinity of the terrain obscuring it it should get the buff to its save. But I did not write the new edition rules. I just dont like how its shifted to pretty much LOS blocking terrain or it may as well be nothing…
H.B.M.C. wrote: So just being behind the terrain isn't enough?
Going back to my big rock example from the LOS debacle, is this Baneblade in cover?
No cover and can shoot you with everything. I love 8th except the terrain rules.....the terrain rules are super abstract right up until true LOS, when they get quite concrete.
Maybe they intentionally made it really hard to get cover, escpecially for non-infantry, as a balancing factor.
Or it was only done for simplification. Who knows.
I'm willing to do some games with RAW cover before deciding on house rules.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So just being behind the terrain isn't enough?
Going back to my big rock example from the LOS debacle, is this Baneblade in cover?
No cover and can shoot you with everything. I love 8th except the terrain rules.....the terrain rules are super abstract right up until true LOS, when they get quite concrete.
I've been pretty vocal about how much I like the edition so far but I will concede that the cover system needs some work. It's pretty glaring in the face of an otherwise super fun game.
The cover system works just fine once people stop treating this as 7.5th Edition and treat it as 8th Edition.
Cover is a terrain feature, not a line-of-sight feature.
If you are inside the terrain, you are interacting with the rules of the terrain. If you are not inside the terrain, the rules of the terrain don't apply to you.
You don't get a modifier because something can or cannot see you. Line-of-sight only determines if you can get shot, and has nothing to do with cover. You get a modifier because you are inside a physical piece of terrain, not next to it or behind it, but inside of it. You cannot get the benefit of being inside of the terrain if you are behind the terrain, and there has never been a "the rules for terrain affect anything inside of the terrain, as well as any big model anywhere else on the table as long as the piece of terrain crosses the line-of-sight that exists between two models that are not inside the terrain."
And that's really what it boils down to, the tl;dr of this whole issue is this:
GW: If a model is inside a piece of terrain, X happens.
Players: So if model A is not inside the piece of terrain and shoots at model B which is not inside the piece of terrain, X still happens because the piece of terrain is between the two right?
GW: No.
Players: That's stupid.
d-usa wrote: The cover system works just fine once people stop treating this as 7.5th Edition and treat it as 8th Edition.
Cover is a terrain feature, not a line-of-sight feature.
If you are inside the terrain, you are interacting with the rules of the terrain. If you are not inside the terrain, the rules of the terrain don't apply to you.
You don't get a modifier because something can or cannot see you. Line-of-sight only determines if you can get shot, and has nothing to do with cover. You get a modifier because you are inside a physical piece of terrain, not next to it or behind it, but inside of it. You cannot get the benefit of being inside of the terrain if you are behind the terrain, and there has never been a "the rules for terrain affect anything inside of the terrain, as well as any big model anywhere else on the table as long as the piece of terrain crosses the line-of-sight that exists between two models that are not inside the terrain."
And that's really what it boils down to, the tl;dr of this whole issue is this:
GW: If a model is inside a piece of terrain, X happens.
Players: So if model A is not inside the piece of terrain and shoots at model B which is not inside the piece of terrain, X still happens because the piece of terrain is between the two right?
GW: No.
Players: That's stupid.
It is stupid. I am not arguing how it works, I fully understand how it works; it doesn't mean I have to like it and the people I play with are house ruling it differently to make it make sense. We were hoping with the FAQ that GW would come to their senses, but we see they didn't. Rulings like this are why the ability to house rule exist. Whether it "works fine" is a really subjective thing. It works the way GW ruled it, but using the term "fine" doesn't ring with me and apparently I'm not alone.
d-usa wrote: The cover system works just fine once people stop treating this as 7.5th Edition and treat it as 8th Edition.
Cover is a terrain feature, not a line-of-sight feature.
If you are inside the terrain, you are interacting with the rules of the terrain. If you are not inside the terrain, the rules of the terrain don't apply to you.
You don't get a modifier because something can or cannot see you. Line-of-sight only determines if you can get shot, and has nothing to do with cover. You get a modifier because you are inside a physical piece of terrain, not next to it or behind it, but inside of it. You cannot get the benefit of being inside of the terrain if you are behind the terrain, and there has never been a "the rules for terrain affect anything inside of the terrain, as well as any big model anywhere else on the table as long as the piece of terrain crosses the line-of-sight that exists between two models that are not inside the terrain."
And that's really what it boils down to, the tl;dr of this whole issue is this:
GW: If a model is inside a piece of terrain, X happens.
Players: So if model A is not inside the piece of terrain and shoots at model B which is not inside the piece of terrain, X still happens because the piece of terrain is between the two right?
GW: No.
Players: That's stupid.
It is stupid. I am not arguing how it works, I fully understand how it works; it doesn't mean I have to like it and the people I play with are house ruling it differently to make it make sense. We were hoping with the FAQ that GW would come to their senses, but we see they didn't. Rulings like this are why the ability to house rule exist. Whether it "works fine" is a really subjective thing. It works the way GW ruled it, but using the term "fine" doesn't ring with me and apparently I'm not alone.
If you're looking for it to make sense, you're playing the wrong game. After all, that Baneblade hidden behind the giant rock can still fire all of its guns at the same target, even if the weapon itself can't draw line of sight. For an abstract system, the rules don't have to 'make sense'.
Besides, people are still getting it slightly wrong. For a vehicle (monsters, etc...) to gain cover, they don't have to be 50% obscured by the terrain they are in/on - they just have to be 50% obscured by SOMETHING, including interposing models.
The terrain rules aren't as simple as "if you're in area terrain, you get a +1 to your armour save, and that's it". For one, terrain will block LOS, and if you can't draw LOS from the shooter to any part of the target, you can't shoot that target. Also, specific terrain features like Aegis lines still grant the benefit of cover to infantry units that are behind them, but other terrain features like walls and rocks don't - because of, uh, reasons. not strictly right
In fact, looking at the terrain examples on p.248, it's way more complicated than this. Woods, Ruins, and Battlescapes give cover to infantry, and to other units if they're at least 50% obscured - but you still need to be "on" the cover (so I guess that means everyone needs to glue their buildings to big ol' terrain bases). Barricades give the same benefit as Aegis lines. Chuckle. Fuel Pipes are barricades that also have a chance to explode.
Bull0 wrote: The terrain rules aren't as simple as "if you're in area terrain, you get a +1 to your armour save, and that's it". For one, terrain will block LOS, and if you can't draw LOS from the shooter to any part of the target, you can't shoot that target.
The terrain doesn't have anything to do with the LOS rules though, it's a separate issue.
If you can see it, you can shoot it. If you can't see it, you can't shoot it. It doesn't matter if that LOS is blocked by a piece of terrain or a dread. That's one rule.
If you are inside of terrain, the rules for that piece of terrain affect you. That's another rule.
Rule #1 doesn't invalidate Rule #2, and Rule #2 doesn't invalidate Rule #1. Sometimes both rules will apply to you and you get the modifier for stuff that can see and shoot you, and some stuff won't be able to see and shoot you.
Davor wrote: How is this the first FAQ? Didn't Dakka say there was already a FAQ last week? So shouldn't this be the second FAQ in the title?
That first one was actually labelled as "Designers' Notes" not FAQ, so this is technically the first FAQ.
I just find it funny how I and a few others were mocked or made fun of when saying they were Designer's Notes and other members of Dakka were saying they were FAQs.
Nah, you're wrong. LOS interacts with cover in the sense that non-infantry models only get the benefit of cover if they're >50% obscured. It's nowhere near as cut and dried as you say it is.
Bull0 wrote: Nah, you're wrong. LOS interacts with cover in the sense that non-infantry models only get the benefit of cover if they're >50% obscured. It's nowhere near as cut and dried as you say it is.
LOS determines if you can shoot it. 50% obscured, inside or outside of terrain, you can shoot it because you can see it.
Being inside of the terrain determines if the terrain rules apply to you. If you are not inside the terrain, the rules don't apply to you.
The rule "can I see it" must be met before you can shoot anything anywhere on the table. There is no rule about "can you shoot stuff that is 25% obscured, 50%, 75%, is that part of a wing or part of the torso, antenna or backpack, I don't know if this is a valid shot, I need a judge to analyze the anatomical feature I am looking at to determine if it is a valid target", the rule is "you can shoot it if you see any part of it". Then you resolve the shooting.
Then comes wounding.
Then comes rolling for a save, and applying any modifiers including for terrain. The rule part of "If in terrain...." comes before any "...then do X" actions. The rule part of "If in terrain..." has to be met before "...infantry models must be ...." ever becomes a factor. If you are in terrain, apply the rules for terrain. If you are not in terrain, don't apply the rules for terrain. The rules for 50% obscured still only apply to models in terrain, not behind. You don't get a positive modifier to your savings throw because a piece of terrain is between the shooter and the target, and you don't get a negative modifier to your savings throw because a model with a plasma cannon is standing between the shooter and the target.
GW: If a model is inside a piece of terrain, X happens.
Players: So if model A is not inside the piece of terrain and shoots at model B which is not inside the piece of terrain, X still happens because the piece of terrain is between the two right?
GW: No.
Players: That's stupid.
And "Players" are exactly right. The game still uses TLoS, it's ludicrous that an object that is 99% obscured from the perspective of the attacking model isn't counted as being in Cover. If they wanted to get away from TLoS that would be one thing, personally I'd have been happy to switch to a category system whereby units are assigned a "size" and all terrain is given a "rank" and if LoS is drawn through a bit of terrain what cover you get if any is determined by comparing the two on a matrix or something along those lines, but they kept TLoS for most stuff - it's not a matter of "stop thinking this is 7.5", this system is bad no matter what you're comparing it to IMO.
GW: If a model is inside a piece of terrain, X happens.
Players: So if model A is not inside the piece of terrain and shoots at model B which is not inside the piece of terrain, X still happens because the piece of terrain is between the two right?
GW: No.
Players: That's stupid.
And "Players" are exactly right. The game still uses TLoS, it's ludicrous that an object that is 99% obscured from the perspective of the attacking model isn't counted as being in Cover. If they wanted to get away from TLoS that would be one thing, personally I'd have been happy to switch to a category system whereby units are assigned a "size" and all terrain is given a "rank" and if LoS is drawn through a bit of terrain what cover you get if any is determined by comparing the two on a matrix or something along those lines, but they kept TLoS for most stuff - it's not a matter of "stop thinking this is 7.5", this system is bad no matter what you're comparing it to IMO.
Yes, it uses TLoS, but it only uses it for determining if you can shoot it. That's it, simple as that. People then try to argue that TLoS should affect things that have nothing to do with TLoS under the rule set.
8th has two simple rules in effect here: A) If you can see it, you can shoot it & B) If it's inside a piece of terrain, it is affected by rules for that piece of terrain.
If none of the previous editions existed, nobody would have any issue with those rules. Instead people have echoes of previous editions in mind, want to use a system of matrices and charts, and then take countless other factors into account to determine modifiers.
Maybe people enjoyed spending time before their games making sure they agree which piece of what is area terrain, what counts as soft cover, what counts as hard cover, what part of their model counts as actually being part of the model for LOS purposes. Maybe people enjoy a system of "LOS affect shooting only" and "be inside the terrain to be affected by the terrain".
The problem is not that 8th Edition is stupid. The problem is that 8th Edition is being judged because people try to apply a rule that doesn't even exist.
Hang on, somebody please correct me if I got this wrong. Longstrike gets to add 1 to all to hit rolls for HH within 6". Which means that they can never overheat the Ion Cannons as 1+1=2 and so they never 'rolled' a 1 for the purposes of overcharging?
d-use is really making a lot of sense here. The rules are simple and clear (although fairly abstract) It's just that some players can't wrap their heads around it. Therefore it seems stupid and counter-intuitive to them. It's the same thing with modifiers. Explaining these rules to people who have never played the game before is easy as 1-2-3. It's only those carrying baggage over from previous editions that are breaking-down over it.
I would add that I actually like the terrain rules (Heresy!!!) as I think it means that boards and battlefields in general need to be approached in a completely different manner.
I quite like the idea of having boards approximately 50% covered in large 'blobs' of different shapes and sizes which count as area terrain and the other 50% as completely open ground. Rather than individual rocks, building etc, When creating terrain the first thing should be getting a large 'base' on which to have bits a pieces (almost like mini dioramas) placed over it (Still plenty of space for models)
If a model is on this area terrain, then the terrain rules apply to them, if you are on the open ground, they don't. Easy (and open up a huge range of gaming and modeling opportunities)
^ Andrew C, That is correct, but you need to be within 6"
I quite like the idea of having boards approximately 50% covered in large 'blobs' of different shapes and sizes which count as area terrain and the other 50% as completely open ground. Rather than individual rocks, building etc, When creating terrain the first thing should be getting a large 'base' on which to have bits a pieces (almost like mini dioramas) placed over it (Still plenty of space for models)
If a model is on this area terrain, then the terrain rules apply to them, if you are on the open ground, they don't. Easy (and open up a huge range of gaming and modeling opportunities)
That's what I'm thinking of doing, and I think it is the best of both worlds: being in terrain to be affected by it, but still having the spirit of LOS blocking terrain (for models on the base of the terrain).
I also think that getting rid of firing arcs really requires that you get rid of the old cover rules as well. You can't have one without the other and it's needed to balance the two issues out.
I also want to clarify that I don't try to argue that the rules result in a realistic game. I just think that GW has tried to make the game more realistic with each edition, and every time they tried to improve the "what can you see, what gives you cover" rule it resulted in more and more bloated rules, which in turn resulted in more and more rule lawyering, which resulted in more and more ambiguity because you get even more bloated rules to address the previous rule lawyering. I think just taking the axe to all of that mess and going "see it, shoot it, be inside of it to get the benefit of it" was the right move.
Would "take the amount of models of unit X, look at the amount of unit Y, determine the type and amount of terrain between the two, consult chart A and cross reference it with table B, determine if there should be a penalty to shooting or a benefit to a savings throw" make the game more realistic? Most likely. But I don't think it would make the game any better.
You couldn't ask for a slicker, clearer rule-set. However... it is met with silly diagrams showing Baneblades 90% behind rocks as seen from 1 particular POV. Jesus wept. If you want terrain and cover to play a bigger part in your games. Make bigger areas. Seems fairly straight forward to me. I've seen a couple of Youtube battle reports bemoaning the lack of available cover and the board had like half a dozen smallish bits of terrain scattered across it. Yeah... terrain doesn't play a big role if you don't MAKE it play a bigger role.
GW: If a model is inside a piece of terrain, X happens.
Players: So if model A is not inside the piece of terrain and shoots at model B which is not inside the piece of terrain, X still happens because the piece of terrain is between the two right?
GW: No.
Players: That's stupid.
And "Players" are exactly right. The game still uses TLoS, it's ludicrous that an object that is 99% obscured from the perspective of the attacking model isn't counted as being in Cover. If they wanted to get away from TLoS that would be one thing, personally I'd have been happy to switch to a category system whereby units are assigned a "size" and all terrain is given a "rank" and if LoS is drawn through a bit of terrain what cover you get if any is determined by comparing the two on a matrix or something along those lines, but they kept TLoS for most stuff - it's not a matter of "stop thinking this is 7.5", this system is bad no matter what you're comparing it to IMO.
Yes, it uses TLoS, but it only uses it for determining if you can shoot it. That's it, simple as that. People then try to argue that TLoS should affect things that have nothing to do with TLoS under the rule set.
8th has two simple rules in effect here: A) If you can see it, you can shoot it & B) If it's inside a piece of terrain, it is affected by rules for that piece of terrain.
If none of the previous editions existed, nobody would have any issue with those rules. Instead people have echoes of previous editions in mind, want to use a system of matrices and charts, and then take countless other factors into account to determine modifiers.
Maybe people enjoyed spending time before their games making sure they agree which piece of what is area terrain, what counts as soft cover, what counts as hard cover, what part of their model counts as actually being part of the model for LOS purposes. Maybe people enjoy a system of "LOS affect shooting only" and "be inside the terrain to be affected by the terrain".
The problem is not that 8th Edition is stupid. The problem is that 8th Edition is being judged because people try to apply a rule that doesn't even exist.
You keep re-explaining this over and over again in a really condescending way, so permit me to be absolutely, utterly clear:
We fully understand and grasp the rules. We fully understand and grasp the context of the rules.
We still think the rules are moronic.
If the rules may state that "model's eye view" is sacrosanct one moment and irrelevant the next, but that doesn't make the rules good or logically coherent. You're never going to convince me that rules which treat a model shooting a tank that's almost completely visible and a model shooting a tank where the firer can only see a single link at the very tippy-end front of the track as the exact same scenario are good rules.
Why do people keep saying LOS "only" applies to whether or not you can shoot at a unit, when it's right there in the rules that non-infantry models need to be 50% obscured from the firer (in addition to being within the terrain) to get cover?
If the rules may state that "model's eye view" is sacrosanct one moment and irrelevant the next, but that doesn't make the rules good or logically coherent.
Are you in unit cohesion if an enemy unit is within LoS of your unit?
Can you even be in cohesion if the enemy is not visible at all?
Can you advance your unit if the enemy is visible, or only if it is obscured, or can you only advance your unit if they have no LOS of any enemy unit?
What unit has to have LoS to which unit in order to embark or disembark on a transport?
Can you deploy if a unit is within LoS of your deploying unit?
If a unit is 50% obscured, can I charge it?
The answer to all these questions is "LoS doesn't matter, because LoS doesn't have anything to do with it". Rules that are not affected by LoS are not affected by LoS.
Stop trying to apply that LoS applies to a rule that has nothing to do with LoS. LoS isn't a sacrosanct rule, it's a rule that only applies to a very limited and narrow aspect of the game. It mattered a lot more in 7th, and 6th, and 5th, and 4th. It affected movement for models, to hit rolls, saves, it affected many different things in many different times. This edition, it only affects "can I shoot it", and has no affect on the vast majority of the game mechanics aside from "can I shoot it".
You're never going to convince me that rules which treat a model shooting a tank that's almost completely visible and a model shooting a tank where the firer can only see a single link at the very tippy-end front of the track as the exact same scenario are good rules.
It's a good rule because it's a consistent rule. It's consistent with the same rule that lets that tank shoot every single weapon even though only a link is looking at the target.
The rules don't treat the models as a static entity frozen in time. The same abstraction that lets a tank shoot every weapon, because it assumes that a tank can race out from behind the building and shoot you and race back behind the building is the same abstraction that lets you shoot that tank while it's not in cover because it's racing out to shoot at you. They don't fight battles like it's the 18th century, my army doesn't shoot your army while you are standing still waiting to be shot, and then I stand still while you move around to shoot me. Both armies are shooting at the same time. Your tank is doing a 360 to shoot all its weapons at my unit, and at the same time I'm shooting at your tank that now has a single T value rather than armor values for different facings, because it's constantly moving around and shooting while being shot at. Your tank benefits from the rule when it comes to shooting, and it suffers when it comes to being shot at.
We are talking about the same rule set that lets me shoot you with guns coming out of my rear, because I can target you even though my guns are all pointing in a different direction that the target. And a rule set that lets me walk through walls. And a rule set that let's plasma weapons explode more because it's dark outside. If you don't want "stupid rules", then why are you playing 8th Edition, or GW at all for that matter. Personally, I think that when you look at the rules as a whole, the cover rules make perfect sense. It makes 8th Edition a much better game than previous editions, and I'm glad they are ruling it in the FAQs the way they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bull0 wrote: Why do people keep saying LOS "only" applies to whether or not you can shoot at a unit, when it's right there in the rules that non-infantry models need to be 50% obscured from the firer (in addition to being within the terrain) to get cover?
Am I having a fething stroke or what?
Again:
1) Can I shoot it? Check LoS.
2) Does it get cover? Check to see if it is inside a piece of terrain, to see if terrain rules apply to it.
Without being in the terrain, you don't even check to see if it is obscured. But the cover still comes from a rule granted by the piece of terrain, it is not granted by a rule caused by LoS.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, but, why do Plasma Guns explode more at night?
the machine spirits are afraid of the dark
And they're afraid of aircraft as well.
And during an night-time air raid? They just can't even!!!
Bull0 wrote: Am I having a fething stroke or what?
You're not. Some people are concerned, to put it mildly, that the LOS rules creates situations similar to my Banerock, where that tank is not getting the benefits of cover despite the fact that you can only see a tiny bit of it, because it is neither in nor on the cover.
Many here see it as incongruent as you need TLOS to see if you can fire at the target, but that's it. Everything after that is abstracted.
AndrewC wrote: Hang on, somebody please correct me if I got this wrong. Longstrike gets to add 1 to all to hit rolls for HH within 6". Which means that they can never overheat the Ion Cannons as 1+1=2 and so they never 'rolled' a 1 for the purposes of overcharging?
Is that right?
Cheers
Andrew
Nah, a natural 1 always fails unless you can reroll it. So keeps one marker light hit relevant to help avoid overheating Longstrike!
AndrewC wrote: Hang on, somebody please correct me if I got this wrong. Longstrike gets to add 1 to all to hit rolls for HH within 6". Which means that they can never overheat the Ion Cannons as 1+1=2 and so they never 'rolled' a 1 for the purposes of overcharging?
Is that right?
Cheers
Andrew
Nah, a natural 1 always fails unless you can reroll it. So keeps one marker light hit relevant to help avoid overheating Longstrike!
That's not how most overheating (including the Ion Cannon) works though, it's based on the modified roll, not the natural roll.
So you might miss because you rolled a natural 1, but your final result isn't a 1 after modifiers.
What I want to know does the Necron Destroyers hardwired for hatred stack with targeting relay?
I dont think it does, but neither does is say it doesn't unlike Master Techronmancer vs Techronmancer which are exactly the same which is odd, you would think either he would get a +2 to Reanimation or extend his range to 6"
Tarrell wrote: What I want to know does the Necron Destroyers hardwired for hatred stack with targeting relay?
I dont think it does, but neither does is say it doesn't unlike Master Techronmancer vs Techronmancer which are exactly the same which is odd, you would think either he would get a +2 to Reanimation or extend his range to 6"
One is +1 to the roll, the other is reroll 1s, right? So they're different bonusses.
AndrewC wrote: Hang on, somebody please correct me if I got this wrong. Longstrike gets to add 1 to all to hit rolls for HH within 6". Which means that they can never overheat the Ion Cannons as 1+1=2 and so they never 'rolled' a 1 for the purposes of overcharging?
Is that right?
Cheers
Andrew
Rolling a 1 is still a failure, this is stated in the rules.
AndrewC wrote: Hang on, somebody please correct me if I got this wrong. Longstrike gets to add 1 to all to hit rolls for HH within 6". Which means that they can never overheat the Ion Cannons as 1+1=2 and so they never 'rolled' a 1 for the purposes of overcharging?
Is that right?
Cheers
Andrew
Rolling a 1 is still a failure, this is stated in the rules.
So they might miss but overheating isn't triggered by missing but by rolling 1. However it's not on natural roll of 1 because nightfight doubles your chance to blow up. If - affects chance to blow up why not +?
So they might miss but overheating isn't triggered by missing but by rolling 1. However it's not on natural roll of 1 because nightfight doubles your chance to blow up. If - affects chance to blow up why not +?
Yes. Overheating isn't triggered by the rules .
Funny thing is what happens with special abilities that trigger on a '6'. The rules state, dice rolls modified 'below 1' still count as 1, thus the increased chance of overcharged plasma blowing up when you fire at Harlequins, fight at night, try to shoot Lictors, etc.. (thankfully they fixed 3-4+ Darkshrouds stacking).
But dice rolls can be modified above 6. Thus if you have one of those fancy weapons that, say, cause a mortal wound on a 6 and you modify it up to become a 'counts as 7', does it lose its special 6 ability?
So they might miss but overheating isn't triggered by missing but by rolling 1. However it's not on natural roll of 1 because nightfight doubles your chance to blow up. If - affects chance to blow up why not +?
Yes. Overheating isn't triggered by the rules .
Funny thing is what happens with special abilities that trigger on a '6'. The rules state, dice rolls modified 'below 1' still count as 1, thus the increased chance of overcharged plasma blowing up when you fire at Harlequins, fight at night, try to shoot Lictors, etc.. (thankfully they fixed 3-4+ Darkshrouds stacking).
But dice rolls can be modified above 6. Thus if you have one of those fancy weapons that, say, cause a mortal wound on a 6 and you modify it up to become a 'counts as 7', does it lose its special 6 ability?
Any such rule I remember reading worked on a 6+ rather than a plain 6, which fixes that issue. If you happen to have a rule that requires exactly a 6, well, you have to hope for an errata to fix that or else enjoy your wonderfully bespoke rule...
If the rules may state that "model's eye view" is sacrosanct one moment and irrelevant the next, but that doesn't make the rules good or logically coherent. You're never going to convince me that rules which treat a model shooting a tank that's almost completely visible and a model shooting a tank where the firer can only see a single link at the very tippy-end front of the track as the exact same scenario are good rules.
IMO they are the best rules you can have without doing something like Advanced Squad Leader, which has fantastic terrain rules, but it uses a hex grid and the rules for each type of hex (and therer are A LOT of different hex types... one of them is "hut made out of bamboo") are about as long as the current complete rule set for 40k.
Because you usually don't get cover and can shoot everything, it reduces the amount of argument on firing angles and LOS to a minimum. And the current bare bones rules set is the result of endless and pointless arguments about firing angles and LOS from the tip of your whatevercannon and its ability to svivel enough....
And if youimagine that a combat turn in reality is not I move, I shoot, you move, you shoot, but in reality every unit on both sides simultaneously moving and shooting, with movement in the movement phase just representing a special dedication to movement during that period in the battle, and being stationary just dedicating to shooting with minum movement, the rules also make sense, but I admit that the level of abstraction is pretty high.
If the rules may state that "model's eye view" is sacrosanct one moment and irrelevant the next, but that doesn't make the rules good or logically coherent. You're never going to convince me that rules which treat a model shooting a tank that's almost completely visible and a model shooting a tank where the firer can only see a single link at the very tippy-end front of the track as the exact same scenario are good rules.
IMO they are the best rules you can have without doing something like Advanced Squad Leader, which has fantastic terrain rules, but it uses a hex grid and the rules for each type of hex (and therer are A LOT of different hex types... one of them is "hut made out of bamboo") are about as long as the current complete rule set for 40k. (ok not every hex type, but some of them are)
Because you usually don't get cover and can shoot everything, it reduces the amount of argument on firing angles and LOS to a minimum. And the current bare bones rules set is the result of endless and pointless arguments about firing angles and LOS from the tip of your whatevercannon and its ability to svivel enough....
And if youimagine that a combat turn in reality is not I move, I shoot, you move, you shoot, but in reality every unit on both sides simultaneously moving and shooting, with movement in the movement phase just representing a special dedication to movement during that period in the battle, and being stationary just dedicating to shooting with minum movement, the rules also make sense, but I admit that the level of abstraction is pretty high.
Tarrell wrote: What I want to know does the Necron Destroyers hardwired for hatred stack with targeting relay?
I dont think it does, but neither does is say it doesn't unlike Master Techronmancer vs Techronmancer which are exactly the same which is odd, you would think either he would get a +2 to Reanimation or extend his range to 6"
They are not exactly the same. One is dynasty specific, the other works on all necrons.
They don't stack either.
The rules don't treat the models as a static entity frozen in time. The same abstraction that lets a tank shoot every weapon, because it assumes that a tank can race out from behind the building and shoot you and race back behind the building is the same abstraction that lets you shoot that tank while it's not in cover because it's racing out to shoot at you. They don't fight battles like it's the 18th century, my army doesn't shoot your army while you are standing still waiting to be shot, and then I stand still while you move around to shoot me. Both armies are shooting at the same time. Your tank is doing a 360 to shoot all its weapons at my unit, and at the same time I'm shooting at your tank that now has a single T value rather than armor values for different facings, because it's constantly moving around and shooting while being shot at. Your tank benefits from the rule when it comes to shooting, and it suffers when it comes to being shot at.
Sorry but this abstraction has limits... and this bother me :
this is a land raider (yeah ascii art... with mandatory dots for alignment, leading spaces don't work!)
This land raider can shoot all around, regardless of it orientation. This is an acceptable abstraction.
This is the same land raider behind a wall (front of tracks poking from the wall!) :
It can come out, shoot every weapon and go back into hiding...
but this one (yes, it's there, behind the wall):
can't do anything. it can't come out and shoot a weapon, it can't be targeted, and well, the level of abstraction break...
So you can do anything during you turn like moving a lot, shoot in any direction, and go back into hiding, as long as you let the enemy fight back, otherwise, it's not fair play...
That is why I think the abstraction of shooting from any part of the vehicle is a bad one...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, but, why do Plasma Guns explode more at night?
the machine spirits are afraid of the dark
And they're afraid of aircraft as well.
And during an night-time air raid? They just can't even!!!
Bull0 wrote: Am I having a fething stroke or what?
You're not. Some people are concerned, to put it mildly, that the LOS rules creates situations similar to my Banerock, where that tank is not getting the benefits of cover despite the fact that you can only see a tiny bit of it, because it is neither in nor on the cover.
Many here see it as incongruent as you need TLOS to see if you can fire at the target, but that's it. Everything after that is abstracted.
It amuses me that in most cases a Bane/super heavy will "move" further in its shooting phase than it can in its movement phase.
There is nothing wrong with abstraction or detail specific rules but as usual GW's design is an incoherent mess and they try mashing both styles together poorly.
Same as all the streamlining done "to speed up the game" which they follow by making all re rolls be made one at a time.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, but, why do Plasma Guns explode more at night?
the machine spirits are afraid of the dark
And they're afraid of aircraft as well.
And during an night-time air raid? They just can't even!!!
Bull0 wrote: Am I having a fething stroke or what?
You're not. Some people are concerned, to put it mildly, that the LOS rules creates situations similar to my Banerock, where that tank is not getting the benefits of cover despite the fact that you can only see a tiny bit of it, because it is neither in nor on the cover.
Many here see it as incongruent as you need TLOS to see if you can fire at the target, but that's it. Everything after that is abstracted.
It amuses me that in most cases a Bane/super heavy will "move" further in its shooting phase than it can in its movement phase.
There is nothing wrong with abstraction or detail specific rules but as usual GW's design is an incoherent mess and they try mashing both styles together poorly.
Same as all the streamlining done "to speed up the game" which they follow by making all re rolls be made one at a time.
can't do anything. it can't come out and shoot a weapon, it can't be targeted, and well, the level of abstraction break...
No it does not break the abstraction, this IS the abstraction. If your vehicle is visible to the enemy at the end of your movement phase it has maneuvered itself into a firing position, if it is not it maneuvered itself into a position where it is not visible to the enemy.
A very complicated and convulted debate has been reduced to a simple 1/0 thing.
It amuses me that in most cases a Bane/super heavy will "move" further in its shooting phase than it can in its movement phase.
it does not "move" further. The model just is a representation of the area where the tank operates in. It will seldom move in a straight line, tries to avoid enemy fire etc, therefore during your movement phase you can just move the area of operation by a certain bit. But after you moved it enough for a part of the model being visible to the enemy, it is possible for the Baneblade to successfully engage the enemy but to fire all its weapons it also has to expose itself to be fired at.
P.S.: Otherwise vehicles would have to have a move of 40+ and flyers a move of 200+ if their "move" characteristic would actually represent their true ability to "move" in a straight line. That's why it is "move" and not "speed"
P.P.S: It is difficult for me to understand that people had no problems accepting the abstraction of movement to a point that a bike can only "move" 10mph max in 40k (if you would literally say move = speed), and now they are all irritated about extending that abstraction a little further...
Exactly, a LR with just the end poking out from cover represents a LR that is prepared to move out of the cover to shoot, at which time it can also be shot back at (which would occur simutaneously in the real world).
A LR totally out of LOS represents one which is hiding from enemy sight and giving up its chance to fire to prevent enemy counter-fire.
Remember a whole battle would be equivalent to about 5 minutes of real life combat.
Luke_Prowler wrote: As another example: Kustom Mega Blastas (and their divergences). despite their differences, they are ork plasma guns, if you could only fire one shot, can't choose to not overcharge it, fired by a BS5+ ork, and has random damage. It's one saving grace is that on a 1 it only does one mortal wound rather than slaying the wielder outright. But lets say it was changed to ""On a 1 the wielder is slain". It would make it all but useless, because the benefit is completely out weighted by the drawback. But now it's "more in line" with other plasma guns.
While I get your argument, the KMB is all but useless. It's almost as likely to wound the user instead of the target. There is absolutely no benefit to it unless it is the cheapest weapon option on a suicide unit. The change would have little impact if any.
UncleThomson wrote: [
No it does not break the abstraction, this IS the abstraction. If your vehicle is visible to the enemy at the end of your movement phase it has maneuvered itself into a firing position, if it is not it maneuvered itself into a position where it is not visible to the enemy.
A very complicated and convulted debate has been reduced to a simple 1/0 thing.
No, because we have now Schrödinger vehicules, that should be in one place but no, they can move, shoot, and get back in hiding, while being totally still to the squad next to the one that got shot!
This level of abstraction work on infantry, because they are small target, and could lean to get LoS, but not on vehicles... the equivalent for an infantry squad would be : "as long as one member get LoS, every one can shoot the target, even if they don't get LoS themselves. This is because they take turn to shoot at the corner of the wall."
To get back to the topic, I'm happy that GW finally give us FAQs... but it sad to see that most of the problems should have been seen in the playtest phase.
Even if I would never play with RAW, this is not the quality I expect from the company that claim to be the leader in miniature wargaming...
Loopstah wrote: Exactly, a LR with just the end poking out from cover represents a LR that is prepared to move out of the cover to shoot, at which time it can also be shot back at (which would occur simutaneously in the real world).
A LR totally out of LOS represents one which is hiding from enemy sight and giving up its chance to fire to prevent enemy counter-fire.
Remember a whole battle would be equivalent to about 5 minutes of real life combat.
Why you talk about simultaneously when 40k clearly doens't work with idea of representing simultaneous fighting? 40k works with the assumption guys work at the battlefield exactly as in tabletop. Move to location, then shoot. One army at a time. Not simultaneous. If game is presumably simulating simultaneous activity there would be way too many rules that make zero sense. Only way rules make sense is if you assume the action in the battlefield is NOT simultaneous.
Why you talk about simultaneously when 40k clearly doens't work with idea of representing simultaneous fighting? 40k works with the assumption guys work at the battlefield exactly as in tabletop. Move to location, then shoot. One army at a time. Not simultaneous. If game is presumably simulating simultaneous activity there would be way too many rules that make zero sense. Only way rules make sense is if you assume the action in the battlefield is NOT simultaneous.
So you're saying that the assault phase is where one side all takes a precise number of swings at the enemy, then pauses to let the other side take their precise number of swings, and they alternate doing so in perfect synchronization?
I thought the terrain rules are quite simple. The following does not take into account barricades or other special terrain features.
Infantry gets cover if each model at least touches a terrain feature
Other unit types get cover if each model at least touches a terrain feature and is also obscured by 50%.
So if the rock in front of the baneblade isn't impassable you can move (and announce) that the baneblade is now touching the terrain feature and thus gets a cover if obscured by 50%.
On another note as an Inquisition player I'm really sad to see the acolytes nerfed almost to the point of unplayable. I suppose jokaeros aren't so alone in that category anymore.
I'm fine with Baneblades not getting cover to be honest. They're massive. A fraction showing is the same as a man-sized target and should be as easy to hit. People are mostly getting worked up as it's a change. It plays fine in practise, plus you can fire back. You just don't get the benefits of hiding and free firing. If you can see and shoot you can be seen and shot.
Sometimes touching is the same as being on terrain. In 7th you needed to make a difficult terrain test even if the slightest part of your model entered difficult terrain after which it benefited from cover
If your model can't physically get on (due to having a flying base or raised hull in the front you can refer refer to the wobbly model syndrome so you declare it is on the terrain
Imagine the hormagaunt was even closer to the edge of the base of the terrain. As in extremely close, so close it's a matter of declaring rather than seeing (especially because the opponent will probably assume it is not in cover). Then replace the hormagaunt with a baneblade. The model is ON the terrain piece.
Q. Can you clarify what the difference is between ‘wholly within’
and ‘within’ for rules purposes?
A. If a rule says it affects units/models that are ‘wholly
within’ then it only applies if the entire unit/model is
within. If it just says ‘within’, however, then it applies so
long as any part of the unit/model is within.
For example, units gain the benefit of cover if every
model in the unit is either on or within terrain. So long
as all the models in that unit are either on or partially
within the terrain, they gain the benefit of cover.
This makes the difference. Really makes things easier and even 7th edition like.
JohnnyHell wrote: I'm fine with Baneblades not getting cover to be honest.
You realise you can replicate the example I used with every vehicle in the game. Substitute the Baneblade in that pic with a bit of a Russ peeking out, or a Land Raider, or a Trukk, or a Hammerhead, or a Dinobot, or whatever.
The problem isn't the Baneblade not getting cover. The problem is that in that example, regardless of vehicle it is, the vehicle has 0% cover despite the fact that you can hardly see it.
JohnnyHell wrote: Got it. Still, "outside but touching" is not on or within.
Touching becomes "on" when you use the wobbly model syndrome rule to nudge your model 0,01" onto or into the terrain and just declare it is on it even though it physically can't be.
JohnnyHell wrote: I'm fine with Baneblades not getting cover to be honest.
You realise you can replicate the example I used with every vehicle in the game. Substitute the Baneblade in that pic with a bit of a Russ peeking out, or a Land Raider, or a Trukk, or a Hammerhead, or a Dinobot, or whatever.
The problem isn't the Baneblade not getting cover. The problem is that in that example, regardless of vehicle it is, the vehicle has 0% cover despite the fact that you can hardly see it.
Yes I "do realise" thanks. I'm fine with it. Go play some games - I am. And it's fine.
JohnnyHell wrote: I'm fine with Baneblades not getting cover to be honest.
You realise you can replicate the example I used with every vehicle in the game. Substitute the Baneblade in that pic with a bit of a Russ peeking out, or a Land Raider, or a Trukk, or a Hammerhead, or a Dinobot, or whatever.
The problem isn't the Baneblade not getting cover. The problem is that in that example, regardless of vehicle it is, the vehicle has 0% cover despite the fact that you can hardly see it.
And if it was an infantry model standing behind that rock peeking out, it would get cover?
There is no "it's obscured therefore it gets cover" rule in 8th, so people need to stop complaining about a non-existing rule somehow not applying to vehicles. Standing behind terrain being obscured by whatever percentage doesn't do anything for any model in the game. It doesn't matter if you are a gretchin or a titan.
JohnnyHell wrote: Got it. Still, "outside but touching" is not on or within.
Touching becomes "on" when you use the wobbly model syndrome rule to nudge your model 0,01" onto or into the terrain and just declare it is on it even though it physically can't be.
It also becomes on if you put everything on a cardboard base.
And if it was an infantry model standing behind that rock peeking out, it would get cover?
There is no "it's obscured therefore it gets cover" rule in 8th, so people need to stop complaining about a non-existing rule somehow not applying to vehicles. Standing behind terrain being obscured by whatever percentage doesn't do anything for any model in the game. It doesn't matter if you are a gretchin or a titan.
Exactly, this is why as long as you can see one trooper in a squad you can hit all of them even if the other 9 are stood behind a wall and none of them get a cover save for being out of LoS. Nothing gets a cover save for being out of LoS, it just stops you shooting some things.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, but, why do Plasma Guns explode more at night?
I've seen this so many times lately, I feel like I finally need to chime in.
We know plasma weapons "backfire" because they overheat, due to rapid, intense firing. When you roll your attack, you're not necessarily making one shot - unless you think, for example that each turn a marine only pulls the trigger twice on his automatic bolter or the nearby guardsman is only taking two shots with his flashlight water gun. When you're attacking a target at night, or in cover, you're possibly having to take a lot more shots than if that opponent was in the clear to get one to connect. The increased chance of a vent/meltdown is from all that extra shooting, that frankly, just missed and overloaded the weapon.
Stormonu wrote: I've seen this so many times lately, I feel like I finally need to chime in.
Probably would'a been easier just to say "It's an unintended consequence of a badly written rule that would be easily fixed by changing Plasma Guns to 'overheats on a natural 1'.", but whatever; you do you.
If it overheated on a natural one, wouldn't that make abilities that reroll ones really powerful? You can get a few of those now. With modifiers being applied, those sort of abilities aren't as powerful.
If it overheated on a natural one, and you had access to rerolls, there is no reason not to overcharge. Since modifiers are applied, you still have to make that decision.
Stormonu wrote: I've seen this so many times lately, I feel like I finally need to chime in.
Probably would'a been easier just to say "It's an unintended consequence of a badly written rule that would be easily fixed by changing Plasma Guns to 'overheats on a natural 1'.", but whatever; you do you.
The easiest way would be to simply accept that an abstract game does not mirror fluff in every single corner case.
The rule is only considered badly written by most because it affects one of the most popular weapons of the Imperium in a negative way.
If there were more positive modifiers preventing overheating instead negative modifiers increasing the chance of overheating no one would give a damn.
If the rule would only affect tau or orks or nids (or all of them) the very same people arguing about terrible, unfair and unfluffy rule would instead claim natural superiority of Imperium technology as justification.
And then there is a tiny chance of intentionally connecting modifiers and results. I don't think there is any rule checking for natural results except re-rolls. Consistency means less checking the rules which is more important for rules quality than making overcharged plasma guns better when negative modifiers are applied.
Stormonu wrote: I've seen this so many times lately, I feel like I finally need to chime in.
Probably would'a been easier just to say "It's an unintended consequence of a badly written rule that would be easily fixed by changing Plasma Guns to 'overheats on a natural 1'.", but whatever; you do you.
And based on your posting history, you could save a lot of time by keeping a notepad file of the following:
"This thing I like doesn't work the way I think it should and therefor it is stupid!"
Just copy-paste that into the little box and the bottom of the screen. There. Just saved you a lot of time, bud.
Stormonu wrote: I've seen this so many times lately, I feel like I finally need to chime in.
Probably would'a been easier just to say "It's an unintended consequence of a badly written rule that would be easily fixed by changing Plasma Guns to 'overheats on a natural 1'.", but whatever; you do you.
And based on your posting history, you could save a lot of time by keeping a notepad file of the following:
"This thing I like doesn't work the way I think it should and therefor it is stupid!"
Just copy-paste that into the little box and the bottom of the screen. There. Just saved you a lot of time, bud.
I think you just summarized Dakka Dakka perfectly.
JohnnyHell wrote: My understanding is if it's not fully on, it isn't on. No toeing in. May be wrong, but that's how it reads to me.
Terrain rule says within, not 'wholly within'. As long as the entire unit is touching cover it gets cover, same with vehicles except they also have to be obscured.
JohnnyHell wrote: My understanding is if it's not fully on, it isn't on. No toeing in. May be wrong, but that's how it reads to me.
Terrain rule says within, not 'wholly within'. As long as the entire unit is touching cover it gets cover, same with vehicles except they also have to be obscured.
Thanks, if you read on past the quote you posted you'd see others and I had discussed further.
No, because we have now Schrödinger vehicules, that should be in one place but no, they can move, shoot, and get back in hiding, while being totally still to the squad next to the one that got shot!
This level of abstraction work on infantry, because they are small target, and could lean to get LoS, but not on vehicles... the equivalent for an infantry squad would be : "as long as one member get LoS, every one can shoot the target, even if they don't get LoS themselves. This is because they take turn to shoot at the corner of the wall."
I love Schrödinger vehicles
By the way, have you seen how agile modern combat vehicles are? They are way more agile than animals and yes, even humans. So if the abstraction works for infantry, it should also work for tanks.
Eh, I think it would have been better if they said for a vehicle to fire los has to be drawn from the firing weapon rather than any part of the vehicle. It would still be strange in places but much less so, and account for stuff like side-mounted guns (such as those on a land raider) in a simple manner.
As for plasma, I also feel it should be a natural 1 that causes overheat. Or better yet make it a natural 1 or 2 but make the effect a mortal wound instead of instant death (on all units instead of just characters).
As for plasma, I also feel it should be a natural 1 that causes overheat. Or better yet make it a natural 1 or 2 but make the effect a mortal wound instead of instant death (on all units instead of just characters).
Mathematically plasma guns are one of the most efficient weapons currently. I'm somewhat ok with the un/intended consequence for now, but I don't run PG so hard for me to really say with confidence.
Point being again the whole reason I went digital was to print what I needed and have the most updated version of the information.
Still waiting
And 3 pages of LoS discussion - Good God the Internets have heard you. Move on.
I said the physical one has t7. I was not saying your digital version wasn't messed up. I get your butt hurt over spending the money for a crappy index. Everyone feels the same with all their indexes being screwed up.
Seems the Emperor's Children can field a Sonic Dreadnought. We'll need an Errata for a FAQ, though. Model-wise, the Sonic Dreadnought might wield a twin Sonic Blaster or a Blastmaster, not a twin Blastmaster. Whoops.
SarisKhan wrote: Seems the Emperor's Children can field a Sonic Dreadnought. We'll need an Errata for a FAQ, though. Model-wise, the Sonic Dreadnought might wield a twin Sonic Blaster or a Blastmaster, not a twin Blastmaster. Whoops.
There is no Sonic Dreadnaught model anymore.
The new rules say it can replace its Multi Melta with two Blastrmasters and also take a Doom Siren.
SarisKhan wrote: Seems the Emperor's Children can field a Sonic Dreadnought. We'll need an Errata for a FAQ, though. Model-wise, the Sonic Dreadnought might wield a twin Sonic Blaster or a Blastmaster, not a twin Blastmaster. Whoops.
There is no Sonic Dreadnaught model anymore.
The new rules say it can replace its Multi Melta with two Blastrmasters and also take a Doom Siren.
Gotta convert your own.
Well, I can think of a place where to put the second Blastmaster
The FWFAQ update doesn’t include an option for a Twin Sonic Blaster because it wouldn't makes sense. Since the alt mode of the Blastmaster better than the Sonic Blasters would be. The Twin Blastmaster’s alt mode averages 7 shot with S4/AP-1, vs 6 shots at S4/AP-.
If you have the original model you can just say it fires twice just like it did last edition. Or if you have the Twin Sonic Blaster just count the as Blastmasters. No ones going to call you on it.
