I see people clamoring everywhere for better terrain rules and I often feel I'm in the minority that likes the current simplified and streamlined terrain rules and I hate the idea of clogging up the game and slowing it down further with complex terrain rules. I especially don't miss arguing and checking for individual models being in cover or line of sight to their body.
I would like to know exactly what proponents of better terrain rules mean when they say that.
I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between #3 and #4, but I went with #4.
Tetsu0 wrote: I hate the idea of clogging up the game and slowing it down further with complex terrain rules.
Personally, I don't think it needs to clog up the game at all. 'I'm in cover that provides obscurement. You hit at -1 and I get +1 to my save.'
My issue with terrain rules at the moment is twofold: TLOS makes it too hard to actually block line of sight, and the effects of cover are very limited and disproportionally benefit units with 3+ saves rather than units with 5+ or 6+ saves, which seems the opposite of how it should be.
Cities of Death and Kill Team have the good mechanic of cover that actually conceals you reducing the chance to hit. Apocalypse has cover provide an invuln save (like how it used to work in previous editions of 40K). Both are good alternatives.
Regarding speed of play, I think this does relate to your other concern:
Tetsu0 wrote: I especially don't miss arguing and checking for individual models being in cover or line of sight to their body.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
My group has started using area terrain rules. For an area of woods (with a clear base to show where it is), units can shoot into or out of it but not through it (IE, it blocks LOS). If a unit is inside the woods, it gets cover. Simple, no arguments, easy to check LOS from a bird's-eye view.
I think more impactful cover rules, coupled with making it easier to block LOS without needing ITC-esque houserules, would substantially improve the game.
And then to touch on another issue: This is contingent on players actually deploying enough terrain. Most tables I see, especially at tournaments, don't have nearly enough.
We have a Kill Team board next to the game table. The kill team board is an indoor environment.
When a unit is on their own in a building usual rules apply.
But when an enemy unit is in the same building. We then go and have a simple game of kill team with those units. (i know not all units are in kill team but we adapt where necessary).
The result of the kill team game is what happens in that building and counts to main board. If the opponent wants to "run away" and moves their unit out the building for whatever reason then they have simply "fallen back" on the big table with whatever damage was sustained during kill team.
The terrain rules need to move away from true line of sight and bring back area terrain rules that allow a unit to claim cover for occupying a defined area (wouldn't be bad if they also brought back the old "if its deeper than X" it blocks line of sight to anything behind it" rule).
The current terrain rules may seem "streamlined" from the approach of how they are written, but in practice they probably result in more arguments than anything else I've seen in this or other games.
A simple set of effective terrain rules would basically boil down to:
1. If you have a clear and unimpeded line of sight to any model in a target unit and that target unit is not occupying a piece of area terrain, then there is no impact (i.e. no bonuses or penalties, etc.).
2. If you only have obstructed line of sight to all models in a target unit or that target unit is occupying a piece of area terrain, then *insert appropriate penalty, etc. here)
3. If line of sight is fully obstructed/blocked then you can't shoot at it.
I would say that enemy units should not provide cover to other enemy units because you drew line of sight through them - the general assumption/abstraction is that these models are themselves hugging the ground or making themselves as small as possible to avoid being hit rather than standing out in the open, but I would say that *FRIENDLY* units should provide cover to enemy units if any line you can draw between a firing unit and a target unit would pass over a friendly model - on the basis that in real world terms you would generally try to avoid putting hate and discord downrange over the heads of your own troops, so if theres an intervening unit between you and your target you take a shooting penalty or whatever as your troops aim their shots so as to avoid putting friendlies in harms way.
In any case its a pretty simple and streamlined set of instructions to follow and one which doesn't lead to arguments as its taken an all or nothing approach - either the target is fully obstructed or it isn't, either its fully in cover or it isn't, etc. No more figuring out if 50% of the unit or model is obstructed or in cover, etc. All or nothing. Very simple. The bonus here is that it will mean that model placement/positioning will actually matter for once, which is an area where gameplay is currently (and has been for quite a few editions) critically lacking.
I would also consider an additional stipulation that if a unit is claiming cover from a piece of area terrain, then it needs to be declared as a step of the movement phase otherwise it doesn't get any benefit. I.E. Unit X is going to occupy this piece of area terrain and I will market with this token so that its clear that they are in cover. This will help cut down on arguments and hopefully catch any potential issues upfront at a point where it can be addressed rather than at a point where one party claims that the other doesn't get the benefit of cover because a models base is partially outside of the area terrain footprint because it got knocked over by accident earlier on in the turn, etc.
I think the game needs a level of abstraction when it comes to drawing line of sight that it currently doesn't have. The biggest failing of the current system is a unit on one side of a building can fire through a window at a tiny chunk of one model's leg and they fire at exactly the same effectiveness as if the two units were just standing in an open field.
That with the ENORMOUS weapon ranges 40k has relative to the board size leads to a game where to compete with gunlines melee units basically have to appear 2" away and just start smacking your face. It's an unhealthy escalation that starts with the deadliness of shooting.
I would like stronger more granular rules for terrain. I'd also like the ability to do things like set a building/brush on fire - blow up building with HE cannons. Cut down forests with assault cannons. Suppress enemy shooting. Lets get real - a heavy stubber is str 4 and is comparable to a .50 machine gun. .50 cal machine guns obliterate building walls and kill the guys behind them today. You want real terrain rules you can make terrain immune to damage.
Terrain should impede movement a lot more than it does right now though and most obviously men should not be able to walk through walls.
How many of you has actually played with the current terrain rules on a diverse table?
Tank traps/Tangle wire, ruins, rubble/craters, Pipes, Sectors, barricades, forests, etc.. B.c once you play with a good amount of terrain (not everything LoS blocking, and magic boxes) and using objectives like in CA, the terrain instantly actually does stuff and changes the game completely. There is actually a few terrain pieces that grants cover for just being behind.
So before you answer, ask yourself if you have actually played with GW terrain rules and not a half assed version of those rules?
Now for IMO, I like to add that Cities of death gives even more and better rules, Apoc is way to streamline for me for a normal 40k game for terrain (but i love how Apoc plays more than 40k in general).
Only thing I would want would be that units not within line of sight gain the benefit of cover even if not in it. This would mean that infantry units that take some casualties on a unit just barely in vision gain a defensive boost at the cost of giving up potentially important models.
So, for example, say you are almost fully behind a building, but each model from an enemy unit can only see 1 model of yours. Normally, they shoot, and you're entire unit can end up getting smashed. Lots of people don't like it. So, make it that if you're making saves but you can't be seen, you automatically have cover. You still get to finish your shooting, and it's still simple, but now the last models from a unit are harder to kill. Also reduces the strength of No LoS shooting, which I think is nice.
'True line of sight' isn't as the models as static not moving as they would to fit cover.
Honestly the Epic Armageddon system was the best. Simple area terrain rules for ruins, woods, built up areas, etc. Virtually all of it was in this handy table.
(They also had a great crossfire mechanic: if you could draw a line from a firing model to a friendly model within 45cm and that line crossed the enemy unit - so a model from it or the space between two models - you got an extra -1 to your save.)
I don't know which to pick for no more true line of sight. IMO terrain and models should have sizes and block LoS according to that, so people don't get punished because they decided to give their hero a dynamic pose or a back banner. Or better yet GW decide to give a model such a pose.
Stuff in terrain should be visible, but get cover, stuff behind woods, ruins or buildings should not , unless they are really big, but then they still get cover for being, for example, a knight standing behind a forest or bunker.
the_scotsman wrote: I think the game needs a level of abstraction when it comes to drawing line of sight that it currently doesn't have. The biggest failing of the current system is a unit on one side of a building can fire through a window at a tiny chunk of one model's leg and they fire at exactly the same effectiveness as if the two units were just standing in an open field.
That with the ENORMOUS weapon ranges 40k has relative to the board size leads to a game where to compete with gunlines melee units basically have to appear 2" away and just start smacking your face. It's an unhealthy escalation that starts with the deadliness of shooting.
I think this is one of the only cases where I could tolerate more complex terrain rules. To specifically help melee units in this game and get better balance.
Though one of the things I hated about the terrain rules of 7th was how badly it could screw over your melee units and charges.
The rules are fine with the right kind of terrain. Large solid structures surrounded by a rubble base to provide cover when near. The main issue is just that the terrain GW sells doesn't interact well with the rules. Tons of gaps make them irrelevant for LOS blocking and the lack of large rubble bases around them makes them not function correctly as cover.
catbarf wrote: I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between #3 and #4, but I went with #4.
Tetsu0 wrote: I hate the idea of clogging up the game and slowing it down further with complex terrain rules.
Personally, I don't think it needs to clog up the game at all. 'I'm in cover that provides obscurement. You hit at -1 and I get +1 to my save.'
My issue with terrain rules at the moment is twofold: TLOS makes it too hard to actually block line of sight, and the effects of cover are very limited and disproportionally benefit units with 3+ saves rather than units with 5+ or 6+ saves, which seems the opposite of how it should be.
Cities of Death and Kill Team have the good mechanic of cover that actually conceals you reducing the chance to hit. Apocalypse has cover provide an invuln save (like how it used to work in previous editions of 40K). Both are good alternatives.
Regarding speed of play, I think this does relate to your other concern:
Tetsu0 wrote: I especially don't miss arguing and checking for individual models being in cover or line of sight to their body.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
My group has started using area terrain rules. For an area of woods (with a clear base to show where it is), units can shoot into or out of it but not through it (IE, it blocks LOS). If a unit is inside the woods, it gets cover. Simple, no arguments, easy to check LOS from a bird's-eye view.
I think more impactful cover rules, coupled with making it easier to block LOS without needing ITC-esque houserules, would substantially improve the game.
And then to touch on another issue: This is contingent on players actually deploying enough terrain. Most tables I see, especially at tournaments, don't have nearly enough.
Catbarf I do agree that terrain rules could shuffle a bit to provide a more balanced benefit to units in cover with crappy armor or have invuls like demons and harlequins.
How many of you has actually played with the current terrain rules on a diverse table?
Tank traps/Tangle wire, ruins, rubble/craters, Pipes, Sectors, barricades, forests, etc.. B.c once you play with a good amount of terrain (not everything LoS blocking, and magic boxes) and using objectives like in CA, the terrain instantly actually does stuff and changes the game completely. There is actually a few terrain pieces that grants cover for just being behind.
So before you answer, ask yourself if you have actually played with GW terrain rules and not a half assed version of those rules?
Now for IMO, I like to add that Cities of death gives even more and better rules, Apoc is way to streamline for me for a normal 40k game for terrain (but i love how Apoc plays more than 40k in general).
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
TLOS was added to 40k in 1987. It has always been there.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
TLOS was added to 40k in 1987. It has always been there.
There was a brief period during 4e when it wasn't.
I have three issues with the current "terrain rules".
1) They provide next to no protection against shooting unless it's a solid wall completely blocking LoS and you have a small and compact unit able to hide behind. Perfect for marines. Forget about it with monsters and larger squads.
Many times a terrain can feel like an obstacle course for close combat/close range armies, while the enemy rains fire from distance without any penalty or restriction.
2) The rules for close combat pretend there is no terrain and no height (except one weird exception for barricades). GW writers simply gave up writing the 8th edition rules when getting to the terrain part.
Where the terrain rules support shooting in the most abstract and generous manner imaginable, it's absolutely unforgivable in deciding what can charge and fight when there are things in the way. And GW doubled down on this, instead of finishing their own rules.
3) TLoS involving the entirety of the model, antennas, wings, tentacles, gun barrels, tips of swords.
Cities of Death from CA18 looked good (as far as shooting and mobility went, no help with CC), but I've never managed to get anyone play with them
AnomanderRake wrote: We don't need more fiddly granularity in terrain, we just need speed penalties to come back.
Not just speed penalties. That would just make fly keyword even more powerful. We would need some kind of draw back for fly keyword like they used to have like on a 1 a model is slain for landing in difficult terrain.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
TLOS was added to 40k in 1987. It has always been there.
There was a brief period during 4e when it wasn't.
4th still used TLOS, it was only the separate rules for area terrain, which was its own thing with size categories that was different (which was also in 3rd, minus the size categories). Everything else used TLOS. It's just people got lazy in categorizing terrain and just said "feth it! Everything's area terrain" when setting up a game.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
okey, but this means you have to build specific terrain for w40k. high flat walls with no windows or doors, because if there are any the terrain may as well not exist. Also the I see that guy thing is very fun when your dudes come with big banners, or you decided to put your smash captin swooping down, instead of laying down belly flat on his base. All ancients in my area are called , what could be translated as, dirt gathers , because all their banners are pointed flat down, and out of all people that do use them, I can think of only one guy who really did resculpt the mode to make it look good. everyone else just fliped the arm of the ancient by 160 degree.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
TLOS was added to 40k in 1987. It has always been there.
There was a brief period during 4e when it wasn't.
4th still used TLOS, it was only the separate rules for area terrain, which was its own thing with size categories that was different (which was also in 3rd, minus the size categories). Everything else used TLOS. It's just people got lazy in categorizing terrain and just said "feth it! Everything's area terrain" when setting up a game.
It's a huuuuge distinction though. For example, you could see into a forest, but not through a forest. This immediately gave a table a lot more LOS blocking terrain.
5th Edition onward, if you could see it, you could shoot it. (barf)
How many of you has actually played with the current terrain rules on a diverse table?
Tank traps/Tangle wire, ruins, rubble/craters, Pipes, Sectors, barricades, forests, etc.. B.c once you play with a good amount of terrain (not everything LoS blocking, and magic boxes) and using objectives like in CA, the terrain instantly actually does stuff and changes the game completely. There is actually a few terrain pieces that grants cover for just being behind.
So before you answer, ask yourself if you have actually played with GW terrain rules and not a half assed version of those rules?
Now for IMO, I like to add that Cities of death gives even more and better rules, Apoc is way to streamline for me for a normal 40k game for terrain (but i love how Apoc plays more than 40k in general).
Yeah, I've pretty extensively used all the terrain rules GW has on offer.
I've found that in terms of functionality the best terrain rules have been "statuary" (unit entirely within 3" and obscured 25% = cover) and "Ruins" for items that have inbuilt bases.
I dislike "Barricade" and related rules because getting a unit entirely within 1" in order for the terrain to have any effect at all is very poor. I also greatly prefer adding the "Obscurement" rule from Cities of Death but without the associated other rules of hard cover and height advantage.
Infantry-only terrain like Craters and Forests is...fine, but ideally I don't want to put anything on my table that doesn't have any effect on what's really moving thru it.
Traps and associated terrain I've used several times and never seen them have any effect.
It's a huuuuge distinction though. For example, you could see into a forest, but not through a forest. This immediately gave a table a lot more LOS blocking terrain.
5th Edition onward, if you could see it, you could shoot it. (barf)
2nd had the same rules as 5th
2nd ed. rulebook page 26- "However in some cases it will be difficult to tell if a LOS is blocked or not, and players must stoop over the table for a model's eye view. This is always the best way to determine if LOS exists- some players even use small periscopes or mirrors to check the views from their models!..."
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
okey, but this means you have to build specific terrain for w40k. high flat walls with no windows or doors, because if there are any the terrain may as well not exist. Also the I see that guy thing is very fun when your dudes come with big banners, or you decided to put your smash captin swooping down, instead of laying down belly flat on his base. All ancients in my area are called , what could be translated as, dirt gathers , because all their banners are pointed flat down, and out of all people that do use them, I can think of only one guy who really did resculpt the mode to make it look good. everyone else just fliped the arm of the ancient by 160 degree.
Yes this. Just because the tip of a model's sword can see the top of another model's topknot shouldn't make it target able. At the least you should get a minus to hit in that situation. Same goes for shooting through windows. The way you model a unit shouldn't offer an advantage or disadvantage.
How many of you has actually played with the current terrain rules on a diverse table?
Tank traps/Tangle wire, ruins, rubble/craters, Pipes, Sectors, barricades, forests, etc.. B.c once you play with a good amount of terrain (not everything LoS blocking, and magic boxes) and using objectives like in CA, the terrain instantly actually does stuff and changes the game completely. There is actually a few terrain pieces that grants cover for just being behind.
So before you answer, ask yourself if you have actually played with GW terrain rules and not a half assed version of those rules?
I have. My experience was:
-Very little actually blocks LOS, because no matter how thick you pack your trees, or even if I'm three feet away with a building in the way, all you need is to spot one exposed hand through a tiny crack in the foliage or through a window, and then the terrain might as well not exist. If you want a LOS blocker you have to make a very 'gamey' solid wall of terrain with no windows or cracks whatsoever.
-There's not much point in me actually taking cover, because when playing as Guard with a 5+ save, going up against AP-2 bolt rifles, all it gets me is a 6+ save instead of no save. Meanwhile the Space Marine player has lots of incentive to take cover, because against AP0 it doubles his survivability. This is literally the opposite of how it used to work and how I logically expect it to work. Barricades and the like requiring you to have every single model in the squad within 1" doesn't help matters.
-A unit in the woods gets cover. A unit on the other side of the woods, on the other hand, can be targeted without any penalty whatsoever. A unit inside a building gets cover, a unit on the other side of the building only visible through a window and which could escape LOS entirely if the model were capable of ducking doesn't get cover (and then, because the one guy was visible, the whole squad gets wiped).
And lastly, most frustratingly:
-How I've posed a model is suddenly vitally important to determining its line of sight and vulnerability. How I convert a model can be red-flagged as 'modeling for advantage'. I am incentivized to leave my arm-raised Sergeant at home because he's trivially easy to spot over intervening objects. I hate this mechanic- it completely destroys my immersion in the game to imagine Captain Tetanus scooting around the field unable to get his arm down, with the enemy's bullets lethally ricocheting off of it to kill the entire squad in one round of shooting. Meanwhile my Krieg heavy weapon teams can't see over barricades because they're modeled as crouching, never mind that the gun carriage has a very obvious elevation mechanism in the sculpt. It's fething stupid.
The current cover/LOS rules are my #1 gripe with 8th Ed. I like that GW has shown willingness to iterate, as seen in Cities of Death, Kill Team, and Apoc.
I "like" the present rules how they stand because other alternatives seem to make play "worse".
It all boils down to in real life either the intervening object obscures you from the shooter (harder to hit) and/or it provides a means to block or reduce the effectiveness of the shot (armor = bullet resistance).
The next complication is how a "unit" is treated of one model or many and that what can happen to one model in the unit makes all the rest of them fair game to a certain extent (it is representative, they are in that "area" not specifically that model).
Units must be treated very much as "one" model and the various guys being little more than wounds, war-gear and varying how it takes up space like an amoeba.
"Is your base wholly within the area terrain?"
I personally like the "wholly within" rules for area terrain to get cover or we get into those splitting up hits in a unit with those in cover and out of cover.
I keep hearing we need realism until my Ork player friend is trying to fit 30 Orks into a 6" wooded area and hiding the rest behind it.
The alternate "Cities of Death" rules in Chapter approved is a good choice to pick and choose from I would suggest for that mentioned "granular" approach.
If ANYONE has a really simple rule for intervening units I would be very happy to hear it. Intervening units providing cover had been an old pain and prone to abuse.
It all boils down to taking a "cheap" screening unit and it somehow is a bullet-catcher for the ravening hordes behind them.
There have been no real good rules for this unless the unit in front is treated similar to a "wall".
There is still addressing the say 10-man unit providing cover for a 30 man unit.
We can play with the number of wounds of screening unit vs the other, physical model size being at least half the height of the unit to be covered, only models of the same base size or bigger able to screen covered unit.
Not great.
I find the part that makes some of my friends "upset" when they play is that everything happens with the entirety of the model: "what do you mean you can shoot all your weapons from the back corner of my tank?!?!"
OR "What do you mean I do not get any bonuses for shooting the back corner of your tank?!?!".
It really has to be "stupid" simple. As soon as we discuss "closest to______" it starts bogging hard.
Talizvar wrote: If ANYONE has a really simple rule for intervening units I would be very happy to hear it. Intervening units providing cover had been an old pain and prone to abuse.
It all boils down to taking a "cheap" screening unit and it somehow is a bullet-catcher for the ravening hordes behind them.
There have been no real good rules for this unless the unit in front is treated similar to a "wall".
There is still addressing the say 10-man unit providing cover for a 30 man unit.
We can play with the number of wounds of screening unit vs the other, physical model size being at least half the height of the unit to be covered, only models of the same base size or bigger able to screen covered unit.
Not great.
I always liked target priority tests as a mechanic, letting high-Ld elites more effectively pick their targets than low-Ld hordes.
But failing that, I think rather than giving the screened unit cover, it would be better to say 'if you roll exactly your BS, you hit the closest intervening unit instead'. Or mathematically identically, -1 to hit and on a roll of 1 you hit the intervening unit. Make it so that the intervening unit actually absorbs the bullets, rather than having them vanish into the ether.
Designate all terrain as either terrain or scatter.
Draw the shortest possible line between shooting unit and target unit. If the line passes through 1 terrain piece or model with the VEHICLE or MONSTER keyword, add 1 to the units Sv rolls against the attack. If it passes through 2 such obstructions subtract 1 from the hit roll.
Units with the FLYER or TITANIC keyword can never claim the benefit of cover.
Tetsu0 wrote: I see people clamoring everywhere for better terrain rules and I often feel I'm in the minority that likes the current simplified and streamlined terrain rules and I hate the idea of clogging up the game and slowing it down further with complex terrain rules. I especially don't miss arguing and checking for individual models being in cover or line of sight to their body.
I would like to know exactly what proponents of better terrain rules mean when they say that.
I think most of the current rules are fine, but...
I wish that intervening terrain gave cover, not just being on it.
I like terrain to matter, because otherwise it is only there as decoration and adds nothing to the tactical aspects of the game.
I think no ediiton of 40K has had particularly good rules for terrain. "cover saves" were a bit of a weird mechanic, but at least they did not advantage marines too much.
I think negative to hit modifiers make the most sense for cover. So once you have that mechanic the question just becomes when to apply it. Ideally, I think it should be if a squad is inside area terrain, standing within a certain distance of a linear feature with the feature between them and the enemy. TLOS should not matter in these cases, it should just be cover if you are in those positions as you should assume your dudes are hugging the ground and trying to make use of the cover.
Finally, areas of ruins or forest should block line of sight if you are behind them, regardless of gaps in the trees or windows.
I also like some movement effects from terrain to make it a risk-reward situation so I would bring that in, but I would not make it too punishing.
Now for IMO, I like to add that Cities of death gives even more and better rules, Apoc is way to streamline for me for a normal 40k game for terrain (but i love how Apoc plays more than 40k in general).
CoD rules practically demand FLY keyword, so no. Any rulesets that heavily favor one particular unit keyword is bad. This is precisely why current terrain rule set is bad because only INFANTRY and FLY units truly benefit from any terrain rules. That 50% obscured rule is the cause of 90% of all arguments during game play.
It's a huuuuge distinction though. For example, you could see into a forest, but not through a forest. This immediately gave a table a lot more LOS blocking terrain.
5th Edition onward, if you could see it, you could shoot it. (barf)
2nd had the same rules as 5th
2nd ed. rulebook page 26- "However in some cases it will be difficult to tell if a LOS is blocked or not, and players must stoop over the table for a model's eye view. This is always the best way to determine if LOS exists- some players even use small periscopes or mirrors to check the views from their models!..."
Might be true, but in 2nd Ed I'm pretty sure a unit beyond intervening terrain still got a cover bonus. (Can't check atm)
Besides, I still think the 3rd and 4th edition way (of seeing into but not through) was better.
The 8th ed super simple terrain rules work really good for one thing-when I play 40K epic scale with 8th ed rules (halving all ranges and movement) it makes the game fast, fun and manageable-
when I am playing anything else it is terrible.
I love and still like to use the 5th edition terrain cover rules and occasionally I like to toss in the 6th ed mysterious terrain chart as well. one big thing it did was reduce the effect of 1st turn alpha strikes because of hard cover saves. even fences gave a 6+ save so at least it was something for non MEQ armies.
I also love the difficult and dangerous terrain rules.
Infinity uses cover rules that are far more realistic-the shots have to travel in a direction that moves through the cover (no area terrain) and the model must be actively seeking to use it as cover. IE standing behind a wall but 5" away from it does not grant cover but being up against it does.
the happy medium I found is with DUST it harkens back to 3rd ed 40K the mechanics work a bit different in the game since it is a symbol dice d6 system with 2 faces of the dice being a cover symbol as such many things provide cover but only infantry get a semi hard save(only negated by a few specific weapons) on the 2 faces of army symbol. it is true LOS outside of area terrain like ruins and trees that provide LOS blocking area terrain where you must be inside it and within 4" of an edge to shoot out or be shot at.
The game itself uses limited range reaction and alternating unit activation so alpha strikes turn 1 are never a thing to begin with ( far better mechanics than 40KIMHO).
To be honest, one of the best ways to make terrain matter again might just be bringing back cover saves. +1 to your save just doesn't matter when 3 Caladius tanks decide to shoot you with 24 shots at -3 AP, or when space marines are rocking -4 AP lascannons.
Solution: Cut and paste 4th Ed terrain rules. Basically, you can shoot into but not through terrain. Jump troops, bikes etc take dangerous terrain tests.
I'd also be in favour of adding a higher level of interaction between units and terrain. Flamers should be able to set things on fire, making it dangerous for anyone to enter, for e.g.
But maybe it isn't so bad. If someone takes wrecks or ogryn to give cover to his dudes, or grots get some characterful bullter catcher rule it aint that bad. It only becomes a problem when 10 grots start tanking the shots for a stomp or mega dread.
Plus some rules should, maybe not for armies, but for models or units, give extra protection. IG transports for example, aren't used that often, but what if they had a synergy that all infantry or specific infantry get a +1 to save where near them. It could make less popular armies like scions a lot more fun to play.
A vindicator is a bad tank, but if it had some siege rule that lets marines take cover near it, it maybe could see play in casual games.
As many people have already mentioned, intervening terrain doing nothing is absolutely the biggest flaw in the current system. It is completely crazy and immersion breaking. You should absolutely gain the benefits of cover if the attacker has to draw LOS though terrain, even if you're not in that terrain. And some types of terrain should just prevent LOS being drawn through them altogether. It is bizarre that you can shoot a target through some tiny window that is between you and the target and neither of you are nowhere near it.
And this has already been pointed out, but the cover giving bonus to save is not a good way to do it. It means that cover benefits you much more if you're heavily armoured; it should be the exact opposite. Hit penalties or even cover saves would be better ways to handle it.
Hit penalties would mean cover was most useful against heavy bombardment, which makes sense to me. If I went back to older editions of 40K like 3rd and 4th, that would be a change I would try out.
Weird that they have chosen this other system, as it just does not "feel" good.
The current terrain rules are fairly counter-intuitive on who gets cover and what blocks movement, and true LoS is dumb, but I'm not of the opinion that the terrain rules and LoS need to be highly complicated. Maybe something like this:
LoS must be drawn to and from the base of a model. Models without a base use the hull. A model may only select an enemy unit as a target for shooting or charging if it has LoS. * When a unit is selected as a target for shooting, determine how many models are within LoS of the firing unit; the result is the maximum number of casualties that can be inflicted on the target.
Some weapons may ignore LoS when selecting a target. Such models suffer a -1 to hit if they cannot draw LoS to the target.
Area of Effect terrain: This comprises woods, ruins, craters, and anything else with a base.
- A model is in AoE terrain if it's base/hull overlaps the base of the terrain. A Unit is in AoE terrain if every model is in the terrain feature. A unit in AoE terrain is -1 to be hit. **
- A unit is partially behind AoE cover if any line can be drawn between the firing model and the target unit that crosses the terrain feature. A unit in or partially behind AoE terrain is -1 to be hit.
-A unit is entirely behind an AoE terrain feature if no line can be drawn between the firing model and the target unit that doesn't cross the feature. A unit entirely behind an AoE feature may not be targetted by the firing model.
- AIRCRAFT and TITANIC units do not gain any defensive bonuses from AoE terrain.
Obstructions: This comprises solid features like hills, boulders, and solid buildings. Obstructions with steeply angled top surfaces or that are too small/thin to balance a model on are considered Impassible. LoS may be drawn over an Obstruction but not through it regardless of actual construction.
- A model suffers a penalty to it's movement equal to the height of the obstruction for climbing onto or off of the obstruction. Units with FLY suffer half this penalty. If a model does not have enough movement to reach the top it may not move onto the feature. If an Obstruction is Impassible then a unit without FLY may not move onto it at all and a unit with FLY my cross an Obstruction if it has enough movement to pay the height penalty to go up and down and still reach the other side. AIRCRAFT may ignore the movement penalty but do not gain any defensive bonuses from Obstructions. TITANIC units do not gain any defensive bonuses from Obstructions.
- A model is behind an obstruction if any line can be drawn between the firing model and any model in the target unit that crosses the obstruction. A unit is behind an Obstruction if every model is behind the Obstruction. A unit behind an Obstruction is -1 to be hit and gains +1 to it's armor save.
Trenchworks and bunkers may be treated as Obstructions for the purposes of movement and firing into them, but not for firing out of them.
Difficult Terrain: AoE terrain features and the top surfaces of Obstructions may also be considered Difficult.
- Models move at 1/2 speed while in Difficult terrain. Models with FLY suffer half this penalty. AIRCRAFT and TITANIC may move over Difficult terrain without penalty.
...ok, maybe that came out a bit more complicated than I expected.
* - Units being able to charge models they can't see is one of the most unintuitive things in this game.
** - Note that as worded this would mean that the penalty for cover is applied on a firing model by firing model basis instead of the target not getting cover if a single eligible shooter wouldn't be subject to the penalty.
*** - I'm on the fence about it mechanically, but I think Cover should be a -1 to hit instead of a bonus to armor save. It's the more intuitive bonus.
I like the idea of terrain cover providing a hit modifier as it evens the playing field for the various potential units utilizing cover. I think the all or nothing targeting system for shooting is fine as it is, because it really does make it simple and avoid a lot of arguements.
Crimson wrote: cover giving bonus to save is not a good way to do it. It means that cover benefits you much more if you're heavily armoured
Exactly?
Rounds lose momentum as they go through more stuff. The effect is cumulative. That's how physics work. A Space Marine would and should be gaining a cumulatively better protection from his bunker than a guardsman, because if the halved momentum of the round does make it through the bunker, the armour of the Space Marine is still better than the paper of the guardsman.
Crimson wrote: cover giving bonus to save is not a good way to do it. It means that cover benefits you much more if you're heavily armoured
Exactly?
Rounds lose momentum as they go through more stuff. The effect is cumulative. That's how physics work. A Space Marine would and should be gaining a cumulatively better protection from his bunker than a guardsman, because if the halved momentum of the round does make it through the bunker, the armour of the Space Marine is still better than the paper of the guardsman.
Thematically it feels wrong. The whole fething point of power armour is that you don't need to hide behind rocks, you can charge towards the enemy wearing your brightly coloured portable cover. It is the normal humans of IG who should be hiding behind barricades.
The Newman wrote: The current terrain rules are fairly counter-intuitive on who gets cover and what blocks movement, and true LoS is dumb, but I'm not of the opinion that the terrain rules and LoS need to be highly complicated. Maybe something like this:
LoS must be drawn to and from the base of a model. Models without a base use the hull. A model may only select an enemy unit as a target for shooting or charging if it has LoS. * When a unit is selected as a target for shooting, determine how many models are within LoS of the firing unit; the result is the maximum number of casualties that can be inflicted on the target.
The reason why you don't draw line of sight from the base:
* Classic pointing Space Marine Sergeant and class pointing Eldar Farseer are facing off against each other. The models are practically touching. But there is a 2" long, 1/4" tall wall piece positioned between the two models, meaning that the two model's bases are mutually obstructed.
* Take the same situation, but now one of those models is behind the 1/4" tall wall, and the other one is across the table. It's still impossible to draw an unobstructed line from one model's base to the other, but the models are otherwise completely in the open.
1/4" tall walls are why the 40k line of sight rules have in previous editions used the model's "eyes" (and gun barrels for vehicles) and in the more recent edition(s), just threw up their hands and said to draw line of sight from anything.
Lance845 wrote: So this was originaly part of the Beyond the Gate of 40k project (Located here https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/733472.page ). I have had a few games that have utilized this recently and it works great so it should also work well in normal 40k. A lot of this is ripped from Beyond the Gates of Antares and then adapted to fit within the context of 8th 40k.
Line of Sight Rules
You can trace Line of Sight from any part of your model to any part of the target unit. For the purpose of targeting I recommend using 7ths targeting rules (I.E. wings, antennae, banners) do not count as a part of the model, meaning you cannot draw los from or too these bits. That is just my personal preference, do what you want.
Targeting Occupied Terrain Occupied Terrain is any terrain that has a unit within the terrain feature. Units that occupy a Terrain feature can see and be seen through it. Units that Occupy Terrain gain Cover from the terrain. A unit is considered to be occupying the terrain if all of it's models bases are at least partially within the terrain or meet it's other requirements. Models that do not have a base must be at least 50% within the terrain to be considered to Occupy it.
Intervening Terrain Intervening terrain is any terrain that sits between you and the target unit but is not occupied by the target unit. You can trace LoS over a single piece of Light terrain. A second piece of Light terrain and/or Dense terrain will block LoS normally. Targeting a unit over intervening Terrain confers a -1 to hit penalty.
High Ground If your unit is on a piece of raised terrain they may have high ground. A unit with high ground can ignore all terrain and los blocking terrain features when targeting units on a lower level so long as they can still actually trace line of sight to the unit. To repeat, you still need to be able to trace line of sight, but the target unit would gain no benefit from any intervening terrain. I personally use a lot of the Mantic Battlezones. So each layer up in my terrain is 3". So we use that 3" marker to determine height. Again, do what you want.
Intervening Units If you cannot trace LoS to your target unit without tracing a line through an enemy unit the intervening unit counts as Light Terrain. That means if your target unit is behind both an enemy unit and a piece of Light terrain that unit is untargetable because your LoS is blocked (just like 2 pieces of light terrain). For this you are counting the entire unit and the spaces between models as 1 object. You cannot trace LoS between models in the same unit to get around this. You would need to actually be able to trace LoS around the entire unit to not be effected by the unit.
Monsters, Vehicles, and Titanic When targeting any unit with the MONSTER or VEHICLE Keyword you ignore any intervening units when tracing Line of Sight treating them as Open Ground. When targeting any unit with the TITANIC keyword you ignore all intervening units and Light Terrain treating them as Open Ground. In addition treat all Dense Terrain as Light Terrain for the purpose of tracing LoS on TITANIC units.
Flier Units with the Flier battlefield role can be targeted freely treating all terrain and intervening units as Open Ground so long as you can still trace Line of Sight. Do the same for any LoW with the FLY Keyword.
Terrain
All terrain has 3 features.
1) Line of Sight
2) Cover
3) Difficulty
1] Line of Sight
There are 3 degrees of effect terrain has on LoS.
-Open Ground: No effect on LoS. This terrain piece can be shot over as though it was not there. Example: A water pool or river.
-Light: Blocks LoS to some extent. You can draw Line of Sight over a single piece of light terrain. A unit cannot draw LoS over 2 pieces of light terrain. Barricades, grassy hills, light copse of trees, smaller ruins/
-Dense: Dense Terrain blocks LoS entirely. Dense cops of trees, ruined whole buildings.
2) Cover
All terrain has a cover value that is a bonus to your Sv roll (Ex. +1). This bonus is granted to any unit entirely within or meets the requirements of the terrain feature.
3) Difficulty
All terrain has a difficulty value. This value is a penalty to the Movement Value of any unit that enters or attempts to move through the terrain. It is possible the Difficulty of the terrain is a 0 meaning it does not impact movement at all. They may also have special considerations such as "Impassible to VEHICLES".
So for example, the baricades that make of a Aegis Defense Line and thus AGLs themselves would be
LoS: Light
Cover: +1 - The unit must be within 1" or within 1" of a model from their unit that is within 1" of the terrain to occupy the terrain. This unit only gains the benefit of cover from units targeting them from the opposite side of the terrain.
Difficulty: 1
Thus tracing LoS over these baracades would impose a -1 to hit to any unit that is not occupying it. Provides a +1 Sv bonus to any unit that is occupying it, and eat up 1" of Movement to cross over it.
Ruined Building could be.
LoS: Dense
Cover: +1
Difficulty: 1 non-INFANTRY
You could not target units on the other side of the building even if you could trace LoS. Units that occupy the terrain gain a +1 SV bonus and any noninfantry would loose 1" of movement by entering or trying to pass through the terrain. Driving some bikes over the rough surface of the ruins is hard on them and the ruins make navigating the landscape difficult for anything that is too big and/or lacking the dexterity that Infantry have.
In addition. I propose that Character Targeting is changed to make it so a character cannot be targeted with shooting if the character is not the closest visible unit and within 3" of another friendly unit. This way they need to maintain a semi unit coherency to keep their protection AND a closer unit behind some LoS blocking terrain won't save them.
Any unit with Sniper Weapon/rules will also ignore intervening units when tracing LoS.
Crimson wrote: cover giving bonus to save is not a good way to do it. It means that cover benefits you much more if you're heavily armoured
Exactly?
Rounds lose momentum as they go through more stuff. The effect is cumulative. That's how physics work. A Space Marine would and should be gaining a cumulatively better protection from his bunker than a guardsman, because if the halved momentum of the round does make it through the bunker, the armour of the Space Marine is still better than the paper of the guardsman.
Thematically it feels wrong. The whole fething point of power armour is that you don't need to hide behind rocks, you can charge towards the enemy wearing your brightly coloured portable cover. It is the normal humans of IG who should be hiding behind barricades.
So all marines should just change their enemies screaming "for the Emperor " or "blood for the blood god "? Works for Black Templars and World Eaters I guess but I'd imagine most other legions/chapters use more sensible tactics.
Last I checked modern soldiers in modern body armor still don't charge machine gun nests. Terrain is even used for advantage in tank battles.
Base to base LOS creates more game/common sense disconnects than some form of tlos. I prefer Infinity's system of having size ratings that translate to "hit boxes" that you can put down in front of a figure to help resolve disputes.
That said id rather have base to base los and melee or tlos and true melee range instead of what we have now. Base to base melee and true los is such a feels bad combo.
The Newman wrote: The current terrain rules are fairly counter-intuitive on who gets cover and what blocks movement, and true LoS is dumb, but I'm not of the opinion that the terrain rules and LoS need to be highly complicated. Maybe something like this:
LoS must be drawn to and from the base of a model. Models without a base use the hull. A model may only select an enemy unit as a target for shooting or charging if it has LoS. * When a unit is selected as a target for shooting, determine how many models are within LoS of the firing unit; the result is the maximum number of casualties that can be inflicted on the target.
The reason why you don't draw line of sight from the base:
* Classic pointing Space Marine Sergeant and class pointing Eldar Farseer are facing off against each other. The models are practically touching. But there is a 2" long, 1/4" tall wall piece positioned between the two models, meaning that the two model's bases are mutually obstructed.
* Take the same situation, but now one of those models is behind the 1/4" tall wall, and the other one is across the table. It's still impossible to draw an unobstructed line from one model's base to the other, but the models are otherwise completely in the open.
1/4" tall walls are why the 40k line of sight rules have in previous editions used the model's "eyes" (and gun barrels for vehicles) and in the more recent edition(s), just threw up their hands and said to draw line of sight from anything.
You clearly didn't read the rest of the rules. AoE terrain would act the way you're describing, but a 1/4" wall would be an Obstruction and LoS can be drawn over an Obstruction if it's short enough. "From the base/hull" is to eliminate any ambiguity about whether a line can be drawn that crosses a terrain feature.
cover can do two things in effect, the first makes something harder to hit but provides no protection - e.g. smoke, fog and similar. The second makes things harder to hurt, but doesn't make them harder to hit as such - low walls, shallow trenches etc.
then you have items which can combine these effects.
the former effect is best represented by a to hit modifier, the second by the cover modifier adding to the models save.
easy to do case by case, I would also like intervening terrain to provide a partial effect. e.g. a strong wall may provide a -1 to hit for units within 1" of it and on the other side, as well as providing a +1 cover modifier. models further away may only get the -1 to hit - they are harder to see but far enough away if you can hit them they cannot duck behind the wall.
I would see intervening units as providing a -1 to hit, with each unit providing -1 so shooting through two is -2. would also prohibit firing through friendly units totally (with the sole exception being snipers)
would suggest an intervening unit needs at least half as many models as the target or it provides no benefit (so ten grots can't screen 30 boyz, but a ten man infantry squad can screen a four man command squad). Would also suggest this is combined with "a natural six is always a hit.
would also suggest for ruins you can fire in, out but not through regardless of TLoS, ditto other "area terrain" such as woods.
beyond that the cites of death stuff helps, AP boost for firing from above etc.
I want terrain to actually matter, doesn't need to be overly complicated by terrain should matter, where units are placed should matter
Power armor is not modern body armor. Marines are not modern soldiers.
True but the weapons they face (plasma, las, bolters, fusion blasters, etc) also aren't modern. They would still seek cover when under fire, not just stand out in the open. The +1 save for cover mechanic makes sense. It's the fact that intervening terrain doesn't cause penalties to hit that doesn't.
Tetsu0 wrote:I like the idea of terrain cover providing a hit modifier as it evens the playing field for the various potential units utilizing cover. I think the all or nothing targeting system for shooting is fine as it is, because it really does make it simple and avoid a lot of arguements.
Keep in mind that a hit modifier hurts low-accuracy units more, so it's not completely even. Things that are BS4+ or 5+ suffer more from a -1 than things that are BS2+. But thematically, I think it makes a lot of sense- the more accurate you are to start with, the less partial obscurement impacts your shooting.
LoftyS wrote:Exactly?
Rounds lose momentum as they go through more stuff. The effect is cumulative. That's how physics work. A Space Marine would and should be gaining a cumulatively better protection from his bunker than a guardsman, because if the halved momentum of the round does make it through the bunker, the armour of the Space Marine is still better than the paper of the guardsman.
Gadzilla666 wrote:So all marines should just change their enemies screaming "for the Emperor " or "blood for the blood god "? Works for Black Templars and World Eaters I guess but I'd imagine most other legions/chapters use more sensible tactics.
Last I checked modern soldiers in modern body armor still don't charge machine gun nests. Terrain is even used for advantage in tank battles.
Here's the thing: Modern soldiers in modern body armor, when engaged by 25mm autocannons that can blow through intervening trees and render their body armor completely pointless, still take cover. The main point of cover is to not present a target in the first place, and if a rifle round goes through a tree and is stopped by your ceramic plate due to reduced velocity, that's a one-in-a-million lucky hit that you chalk up as a secondary benefit. Cover is vital on the modern battlefield even if you have no armor whatsoever. Realistically, it should be the halfway point between 'standing in the open' and 'LOS completely blocked', where you can still take fire but it is less likely to connect.
In 8th Ed, since it only affects armor rather than chance to hit, if you have poor armor (or no armor) you have little reason to take cover at all. Most things either ignore it entirely or mitigate it to the point that it isn't tactically advantageous to use.
Just wondering, did you play 40K back in earlier editions, where cover was treated as an invulnerable save? Because units like Space Marines did make use of cover; but it was for protection against lascannons, missile launchers, and other things that could ignore their normal save, not lasguns. It fit the background and theme of the game perfectly- power-armored demigods striding unhindered through basic rifle fire, but when something really big and scary shows up, then they take cover and play it smart.
In 8th, it's the opposite. You're incentivized to take cover against lasguns to go from a 3+ to a 2+, outright doubling your survivability. But if a meltagun gets a bead on you, well, you just go from no save to a 6+, so why bother?
As a game mechanic it's simple, elegant, and completely counterintuitive in its effects. Cities of Death at least attempts to address this by having cover provide a -1 to hit, but the differentiation between concealment and cover in CoD, with different grades, starts to get a little more complex in implementation.
I see a lot of arguing of semantics and thematics when all that matters in a rule set in this context is its representation of the laws of physics and thus the immersion it creates for a fun game.
The wrong abstraction in the wrong place is infuriating and makes you want to pack up and go home before round 2.
That's why we have our house rules, because GW is utterly incompetent at the most basic of rules writing.
LoftyS wrote: I see a lot of arguing of semantics and thematics when all that matters in a rule set in this context is its representation of the laws of physics and thus the immersion it creates for a fun game.
The wrong abstraction in the wrong place is infuriating and makes you want to pack up and go home before round 2.
That's why we have our house rules, because GW is utterly incompetent at the most basic of rules writing.
I agree occasionally that an abstraction in itself can be frustrating bit I am more often frustrated by simulation-style rules that can be abused by powergaming.
Part of the core disconnect between 40k and its current playerbase (or the online segment anyway) is that 40k was originally designed in the simulation wargame era. The rules were designed less to create a balanced game and more to create a sense of excitement as the players see what happened.
Vehicles randomly losing guns, exploding, becoming immobilized or whatever when hit is objectively less balanced than them having a fixed number of hit points before they get removed from the table as if they disappeared in a puff of smoke.
Similarly stooping down and trying to "see" what the model shoyls be able to spot is a simulation mechanic still left in a game where much of the play has been turned into a more mechanical game. Abstraction brings clarity but it also can create situations where a model feels as though it should be anle to take a shot but by the rules it cant.
I deffenitly want better rules. true line of sight has to go unless there are changes. In a recent game tlos and terrain rules had the opponent able to shoot at the spears of my custodians where they are 1 & 1/2 inches from the actual place but now the tip of a spear is gonna injure the model because it is shoot sure that makes lots of sense. in the same game had a unit behind a building that was about 10 inches side to side but though a window then another window could be seen and rules as written i would not only be shot but would not get a cover save because i was not in the terrain but behind it.
OK. Think we can agree the rules need work, shame GW can’t write rules, but there you go.
The increase in shooting range, shots and cover giving advantage to the well armoured leads to static games if you want to take advantage of these (our house rule is that each obstruction a shot goes through gives -1 to hit. Three obstructions, -3).
To avoid dice modifiers, you could go back to Stone Age technology.
Back in the Dim Distant Past, before GW existed (yes, there was a time - the Grandfathers still remember it), if a target had Soft Cover, eg bushes, obscurement, Hits were halved. Four Hits became two. If a target had Hard Cover, eg walls, protection, Hits were quartered. Four Hits became one. You could round up, or roll for fractions, as desired.
So, no modifiers, and low Save models get a chance to survive.
GW could also finally make some real narrative/matched rules for terrain. Abstract, balanced and streamlined rules for matched play and more complex but realistic rules for narrative.
Working terrain rules would be sweet.
A code sheet included in the mission paperwork and codes on the bottom of the terrain pieces would be cool.
Terrain piece-
Flat land
S- +1
O- 0
H- 0
R- 0
Barricade
S- +1
O- 0
H- 1
R- 3’
Saplings
S- 0
O- -1
H- 1
R- 0
Trees
S- +1
O- -1
H- 2
R- 3’
S= Save - Units completely on or within Range of this terrain adds this bonus to its armour save value.
O= Obscure - Units targeting a unit on or within Range and behind this piece suffer a -1 to their to hit rolls (to determine if a model gains the benefit of being behind this piece measure the terrain at its widest points and round up to the nearest inch then measure a direct line between the closest point of the targeting unit and the closest point of the targeted unit then apply the terrain’s measurement to the closest point of the targeted unit with 50% on either side of the direction line. If more than 50% of the targeted unit falls within the measurement it gains the benefit of this terrain piece and the unit targeting it suffers the penalty).
H= Height - Units can sometimes be too big to gain the benefit of this terrain unless standing directly on it.
1- Infantry+Swarm
2- Units already listed+Cavalry+Beast
3- All units with the exception of units bearing the Titanic keyword and units with a minimum move value above zero can claim effects caused by this terrain piece.
R= Range - Only units wholly within range of this terrain piece or targeting a unit wholly within range of this terrain piece are effected while being targeted.
It could probably do with some refining - feel free.
I do miss the ruins and buildings 4+ and area terrain 5+ somethign akin to that I would also assist in makign it so some of the top armies were nerfed a bit. a space marine in ceramite armor standing behind a shin height wall suddenly being a 2+ is difficult to deal with. but by that same token even they woudl get the 4+ if beign hit by ap-2 weapons. take a cover save or armor save pick the best. lasgun fire? why would they take cover. incoming missile hit the deck.
but cos ap is now a "-2" etc. i think play testing the old terrain system of 4+ building 5+ crater would prove difficult and not yield results you expect.
could be wrong but i can see it making it so nothing ever leaves terrain ever if you brought that back.
but cos ap is now a "-2" etc. i think play testing the old terrain system of 4+ building 5+ crater would prove difficult and not yield results you expect.
could be wrong but i can see it making it so nothing ever leaves terrain ever if you brought that back.
Back in old hammer AP was all or nothing, it neither broke it or it didn't and coven was that middle ground, you new if you needed it or now.
In 8th it would fit the same style, if you always got a 4+ or a 5+ (maybe larger units like tanks/mc are -1 to that save for a 5+/6+) and it ignored AP, it would still work about the same, and IMO players would like it even better.
Right now Marines are 3+, but ap -2 effectively makes their high cost stats pointless, hence why no one takes them, as soom as you are 100% guaranteed to have a 4+ save, that might make them more playable, not saying thats why they are not playable as Primaris are straight up just better, but its 1 example.
Or take Gants, something have has 0 save right no against 90% of all guns, them always having a 5+ save running across the table would make them much more enjoyable to play, i could now actually live a turn or 2 with some of my units instead of just removing them without and dice being rolled on my side. Removing your models without interaction is just bad, cover could change that.
Not saying it would work but i see no downside to it with the power level of shooting 8th has.
Lance845 wrote: 1) fitting 30 gants into terrain with the current rules is nigh impossible. They will never get that bonus.
2) Jorm gets them a 5+ save as is.
No one said they have to be 30 mans, and not all cover you have to be "wholly in" many of it is actually "within" meaning you just need your base touching. Which is a lot easier than it looks to fit 30 gants "within" terrain. For example Woods are wholly within, Ruins and craters are On or Within.
Once you start to see its within a ruin can easily fit 30.
Lance845 wrote: 1) fitting 30 gants into terrain with the current rules is nigh impossible. They will never get that bonus.
2) Jorm gets them a 5+ save as is.
No one said they have to be 30 mans, and not all cover you have to be "wholly in" many of it is actually "within" meaning you just need your base touching. Which is a lot easier than it looks to fit 30 gants "within" terrain. For example Woods are wholly within, Ruins and craters are On or Within.
Once you start to see its within a ruin can easily fit 30.
It will be 30 man units. They get a bonus at 20 models and if you don't want that bonus to go away as soon as the enemy fires one unit at you you need that 10 man buffer. Spreading out the unit to surround a piece of terrain to get the bonus will slow them down for running up the board to do their thing. At which point, why are you using them again? A 5+ save isn't going to get any more of them into effective range if they are being crippled by these drawbacks.
The point I am making is that 40k has inherent issues in the way terrain works. Not just what benefit it gives but the way in which that benefit is gained. Hormagaunts and termagants are negatively impacted by terrain on every level from having to manipulate the way they move to get the bonuses to the not great benefit of trying to accommodate that stuff.
but cos ap is now a "-2" etc. i think play testing the old terrain system of 4+ building 5+ crater would prove difficult and not yield results you expect.
could be wrong but i can see it making it so nothing ever leaves terrain ever if you brought that back.
Back in old hammer AP was all or nothing, it neither broke it or it didn't and coven was that middle ground, you new if you needed it or now.
In 8th it would fit the same style, if you always got a 4+ or a 5+ (maybe larger units like tanks/mc are -1 to that save for a 5+/6+) and it ignored AP, it would still work about the same, and IMO players would like it even better.
Right now Marines are 3+, but ap -2 effectively makes their high cost stats pointless, hence why no one takes them, as soom as you are 100% guaranteed to have a 4+ save, that might make them more playable, not saying thats why they are not playable as Primaris are straight up just better, but its 1 example.
Or take Gants, something have has 0 save right no against 90% of all guns, them always having a 5+ save running across the table would make them much more enjoyable to play, i could now actually live a turn or 2 with some of my units instead of just removing them without and dice being rolled on my side. Removing your models without interaction is just bad, cover could change that.
Not saying it would work but i see no downside to it with the power level of shooting 8th has.
Remember, AP-2 guns used to be AP3 [by and large]. Marines currently get a 5+ against things they used to just die period too.
The only weapon they experience a weaker resilience against is AP4/AP-1, where they would have had a 3+ but now have a 4+. And of course there's the wound table, which also favors marines compared with previous editions, as there's basically nothing that wounds marines easier now but weapons S6 and S7 wound less easily. A modern marine is actually more resilient versus a plasmagun than his pre-8 counterpart would have been, being wounded on a 3 instead of a 2 and having a 6+ instead of no save.
I think my complaint for cover is that there's no "partial cover" and that being behind a building doesn't protect you if you're not in the building. For resolving the partial cover situation, I think the matter wouldn't be difficult: models have cover instead of units, and the defender chooses which model the hit is allocated to among eligible targets before rolling saves, with hidden models being unable to be allocated hits.
Being behind a building for cover has the issue of arguing whether the tank is 50% obscured or what have you, and I don't see a way to do it elegantly, but it can be done inelegantly.
As a further note, there needs to be a clause that states that aerials, tank commanders, decorations, gun barrels, etc. don't count for drawing LoS to and from vehicles. Some of them are just illogical, like shooting at or from the aerial to damage the tank, and some create the interesting situation of "I point the gun out from behind the building when I want to fire, and then slewing the turret back around so it doesn't stick out against when it comes time for the enemy to shoot."
But back then there was so limited AP 3 or 2, it was basically missile weapons and plasma type weapons (and then it wasn't insanely spammed). You had Marines running on the table and it was a threat. Thats laughable now.
Amishprn86 wrote: But back then there was so limited AP 3 or 2, it was basically missile weapons and plasma type weapons (and then it wasn't insanely spammed). You had Marines running on the table and it was a threat. Thats laughable now.
??? So limited?
This is not congruent with my experience.
At the very least, it's not like it's drastically more available than it used to be [sort of, Space Marines themselves notwithstanding thanks to Doctrines]. There's like 1 new high special weapon density unit for 8e [Hellblasters] total, and a couple of tanks that are comparable with other existing tanks of the class and performance.
Almost all existing and suggested terrain rules favor shooting units over CC units though.
Reduced movement, movement blocking, rules for charging up in ruins, for fighting stuff above you and area terrain all favor shooting units.
In my experience terrain only ever helps ranged armies, never those focused on getting into melee.
psipso wrote: I think that 40K has become a bit too lethal. Better terrain rules could bring the game towards a less-lethal scenario.
Aso it could help to balance a bit the balance between CC and shooting.
Doesn't it have to be that way, because of how many models armies have right now? If the basic game is 2000pts, and even elite armies are running around with the number of models being 50+, the shoting has to be leathal, because otherwise horde win everything and for everyone else the game turns in to a gigantic mosh pit.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
okey, but this means you have to build specific terrain for w40k. high flat walls with no windows or doors, because if there are any the terrain may as well not exist. Also the I see that guy thing is very fun when your dudes come with big banners, or you decided to put your smash captin swooping down, instead of laying down belly flat on his base. All ancients in my area are called , what could be translated as, dirt gathers , because all their banners are pointed flat down, and out of all people that do use them, I can think of only one guy who really did resculpt the mode to make it look good. everyone else just fliped the arm of the ancient by 160 degree.
Yes this. Just because the tip of a model's sword can see the top of another model's topknot shouldn't make it target able. At the least you should get a minus to hit in that situation. Same goes for shooting through windows. The way you model a unit shouldn't offer an advantage or disadvantage.
psipso wrote: I think that 40K has become a bit too lethal. Better terrain rules could bring the game towards a less-lethal scenario.
Aso it could help to balance a bit the balance between CC and shooting.
Doesn't it have to be that way, because of how many models armies have right now? If the basic game is 2000pts, and even elite armies are running around with the number of models being 50+, the shoting has to be leathal, because otherwise horde win everything and for everyone else the game turns in to a gigantic mosh pit.
Try playing a game necrons vs death guard - 1500 points of models left on the board when the game ends
psipso wrote: I think that 40K has become a bit too lethal. Better terrain rules could bring the game towards a less-lethal scenario.
Aso it could help to balance a bit the balance between CC and shooting.
Doesn't it have to be that way, because of how many models armies have right now? If the basic game is 2000pts, and even elite armies are running around with the number of models being 50+, the shoting has to be leathal, because otherwise horde win everything and for everyone else the game turns in to a gigantic mosh pit.
Try playing a game necrons vs death guard - 1500 points of models left on the board when the game ends
I don't have to try, I saw an orc mirror being rolled off, at a moment when both players started to stop to identify whose models where whose. So yeah, maybe the sensible thing to do would be to play 1000 or 1500pts games. But the problem with this is that people who have knights or have powerful high cost units or models. A G-man re-rolling for a dread and two or three units isn't as scary , as one that re-rolls a whole stadium of units. Aura in w40k do not scale very well, specialy comparing to one unit or even one model buffs. The chaplain self buff is laughable comparing to all the re-roll auras, to compare it would have to double the strenght of the chaplain and make him do +1 or even +2 wounds.
Jidmah wrote:Almost all existing and suggested terrain rules favor shooting units over CC units though.
Reduced movement, movement blocking, rules for charging up in ruins, for fighting stuff above you and area terrain all favor shooting units.
In my experience terrain only ever helps ranged armies, never those focused on getting into melee.
I play on some terrain-heavy tables, using area terrain which incurs a -2 to charge rolls, and haven't felt like my melee army is penalized. On the contrary, being able to avoid LOS, and position units to take advantage of cover as they move up the board, has increased their lethality. I find getting an extra 2" is easier to come by than avoiding the wounds I'd otherwise take, but I also play a mobility-heavy subfaction, so YMMV.
Karol wrote:
psipso wrote: I think that 40K has become a bit too lethal. Better terrain rules could bring the game towards a less-lethal scenario.
Aso it could help to balance a bit the balance between CC and shooting.
Doesn't it have to be that way, because of how many models armies have right now? If the basic game is 2000pts, and even elite armies are running around with the number of models being 50+, the shoting has to be leathal, because otherwise horde win everything and for everyone else the game turns in to a gigantic mosh pit.
No? The issue is proportionality, it doesn't matter how many models are on the table. A 2000pt army right now can conceivably kill 1000pts of enemies in a single turn, or a 500pt army can conceivably kill 250pts, it's the same issue either way. I often see games decided by the end of turn 2 and that points to excessive lethality.
Jidmah wrote:Almost all existing and suggested terrain rules favor shooting units over CC units though.
Reduced movement, movement blocking, rules for charging up in ruins, for fighting stuff above you and area terrain all favor shooting units.
In my experience terrain only ever helps ranged armies, never those focused on getting into melee.
I play on some terrain-heavy tables, using area terrain which incurs a -2 to charge rolls, and haven't felt like my melee army is penalized. On the contrary, being able to avoid LOS, and position units to take advantage of cover as they move up the board, has increased their lethality. I find getting an extra 2" is easier to come by than avoiding the wounds I'd otherwise take, but I also play a mobility-heavy subfaction, so YMMV.
Every LOS blocking piece of terrain increased the amount of ground you need to cover. Each LOS blocking piece of terrain also means that less units can get the charge on something, they create choke points which can be held by minimal amount of models and force you to move out of cover to get to your opponent.
If you have something like jump troops or jetbikes, this doesn't matter. For your average dread, monster, demon engine, vehicle, biker, or any other close combat unit that has to cross no-mans land on foot, terrain just hinders them while they get blasted from a safe distance. Twice the fun if the thing blasting you doesn't even need to see you and halves your movement.
Jidmah wrote: Almost all existing and suggested terrain rules favor shooting units over CC units though.
Reduced movement, movement blocking, rules for charging up in ruins, for fighting stuff above you and area terrain all favor shooting units.
In my experience terrain only ever helps ranged armies, never those focused on getting into melee.
it was a tradeoff. liek in 5th if mr orks could not be under a kff i would terrain hop to keep that 4+ or 5+ save. It did slow me down, but ultimately if i knew i could not make a charge that turn it helped them survive a shooting phase... then once 6th came about and GW released thier worst codex ever killing orks for 2 editions terrain stopped mattering to my orks because they would auto lose every match due to being rotting roadkill in a gutter bad
Jidmah wrote: That ork codex was released during 7th, it only felt like two editions...
6th reduced cover to 5+ (including the KFF) and made a bunch of other changes to screw over orks though.
i keep forgetting that the 6th v7th. both were rough for orks but... yea that codex was so bad i am still unconvinced who looked at orks and thier doign terrible already and said... you knwo what lets nerf em. for gaks i played a edlar vs orks game with the new codex after realizign how bad it was and we agreed to 3k orks vs 1500 elar... i still lost. we traded armies and the other player (who also played both armies) lost with orks
too.
Jidmah wrote: Every LOS blocking piece of terrain increased the amount of ground you need to cover.
Well, a lot of terrain we use is house-ruled LOS-blocking area terrain (jungles, forests) which units can move through but not see through. LOS-blocking = movement-blocking is only a thing with the default (bare-bones) terrain rules, since the only way to actually block LOS is with a wall. Even ITC's houserule for first floor ruins allows units to move unhindered through ruins that they can't shoot through.
So yeah, I'd say better terrain rules could help melee armies, by giving them ways to avoid shooting that don't simultaneously represent funnels and chokepoints.
Option #4 for me.
Definitely need better/stronger terrain rules (one of my absolute 8th pet hates) but wouldnt want to go back to 2nd ed granularity for example.
Jidmah wrote: Every LOS blocking piece of terrain increased the amount of ground you need to cover.
Well, a lot of terrain we use is house-ruled LOS-blocking area terrain (jungles, forests) which units can move through but not see through. LOS-blocking = movement-blocking is only a thing with the default (bare-bones) terrain rules, since the only way to actually block LOS is with a wall. Even ITC's houserule for first floor ruins allows units to move unhindered through ruins that they can't shoot through.
Only infantry can move through ruins and only during their movement phase. For ork bikes, walkers or deff rolla wagons, a ruin is a piece of terrain that blocks their charges and movement, makes units on them invincible to melee and allows them to get shot anyways.
So yeah, I'd say better terrain rules could help melee armies, by giving them ways to avoid shooting that don't simultaneously represent funnels and chokepoints.
Agree, but the vast majority of posters in this thread seems to think the opposite.
Allowing your units to run and extra X" if they don't shoot when moving out of cover could really help melee armies if that is what you want. If you want a fluff perspective as to why they get a bonus move, well they are hiding so harder to notice what they are doing and setting up for a good move while they have cover fire.
Honestly i would rather have a more activated system that rewarded better movements and cover fire with pin down rules, etc.. but that would be a whole other game lol
It will be 30 man units. They get a bonus at 20 models and if you don't want that bonus to go away as soon as the enemy fires one unit at you you need that 10 man buffer.
Have you ever heard of the concept of a "design trade-off"? In game design terms it actually helps keep things interesting and results in more considerations and tough choices that need to be made. In any case, its silly to say "that terrain rule is no good because I can't take full advantage of it with my max size squad". If thats your argument then my counter is that Chimeras need a larger transport capacity because I can't fit a full size conscript blob inside of it.
Almost all existing and suggested terrain rules favor shooting units over CC units though.
Reduced movement, movement blocking, rules for charging up in ruins, for fighting stuff above you and area terrain all favor shooting units.
In my experience terrain only ever helps ranged armies, never those focused on getting into melee.
Thats a very twisted perspective, one that I don't think the vast majority of players would agree with. Generally speaking, terrain HELPS melee units, which tend to be more vulnerable to ranged attack, by increasing their survivability as they approach their targets and by hampering the effectiveness of ranged attacks in general by obscuring line of sight or providing their targets with benefits which make the lethality of ranged attacks less effective.
Beyond that, any benefit that ranged armies would derive from terrain was historically counterbalanced by the fact that CC was significantly more lethal than shooting.
There's already too many negs to hit, invluns and 2+ units in the game for cover interact with a d6 system in any way that doesn't end up a broken mess. That design space is gone.
There are too many units/armies that straight up ignore cover modifiers for it to impact the game at the level it should. IF artillery armies might as well be playing on planet bowling ball.
GW dropped the ball in 8th edition on so many levels. I like the old fantasy ruling where you can shoot into and out of forests but not through. Shooting through/over terrain should give some sort of penalty to hit or bonus to defense but it just won't work the way the game is currently constructed.
True LOS is a pox on the game as seeing the banner of my bike means you can shoot the whole unit without penalty. I know it's supposed to be an abstraction but model to body of model would be a much better way of handling it IMHO. Also, no modifying a models profile during the game should be a rule (no swinging turrets, no raising/lowering arms, no opening/closing doors).
There's so much cool stuff GW could have done with terrain in this game and they chose the absolute laziest way to go about it. ITC tried to fix their mess but has opened up Pandora's box and now we have magic boxes and entire armies hiding in ruins.
Being able to destroy a building would be awesome and thematic. Taking penalties for shooting through your own army makes a lot of sense (probably not your own unit though). Successive modifiers for shooting through your army, through a window of a ruin and through a wall would add much needed tactical depth to the game. Having to model doorways so that models can get into/out of buildings and create choke points would make the game so much more strategic and immersive.
But GW has hamstrung itself with it's poor game design, the limitation of the d6 system (only so many modifiers you can stack on it) and greed. If the marketing department was half the size and the game design unit was twice the size the game would be much more enjoyable but adverts of a simple, most playtest game turns out to sell more units than an actually well balanced game.
At this point 9th can't come fast enough for me. Hopefully GW has learned some lessons from this beta version but I honestly think that is a pipe dream given the financial success of 8th. Why spend more creating a better game when the same gak sandwich sells...
Make it so you can shoot into but not through terrain.
Give models a "Size" stat and have silhouettes associated with each size (like infinity does), when checking LoS, use the silhouettes to see if the models see each other. This stat would also determine base size so there would be an official dataset on that.
these two changes would be a good start to making the games less lethal. At least in my opinion.
I am aware of design trade off. My degree is in game design. In order for design trade off to be in effect there has to be some positives with the negatives to balance the choices. Hormagaunts and termagants need their rerolling 1s to make use of their midling to crap bs/ws/str. Which is why anyone who does take them takes them in groups of 30. Loosing that so they can sit in terrain and still die because their 6+ save might be a 5+ save is an over all negative because they will still loose any ability to have any positive impact on the field while still dying fast. Except now they have restrictions in how they can move and how they have to spread out in order to get the "benefit" of terrain.
The thing you think would happen wont because your sacrificing your positive benefit for multiple negatives and the potential for a possitive that is not as good as the one you lost.
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm gonna throw something out here, because a lot of these proposals don't even begin to help daemons.
Cover should provide a -1 to hit modifier that is not stackable (you can still stack other negatives as you wish).
Because -1 hit modifiers worked so well in this edition? Sorry, not a fan of halving some army's shooting gutted while other basically don't care because high BS and re-rolls everywhere.
But I get what you are trying to say, whoever daemons not being affected by cover (or reality in general) has kind of always been their thing.
Almost all existing and suggested terrain rules favor shooting units over CC units though.
Reduced movement, movement blocking, rules for charging up in ruins, for fighting stuff above you and area terrain all favor shooting units.
In my experience terrain only ever helps ranged armies, never those focused on getting into melee.
Thats a very twisted perspective, one that I don't think the vast majority of players would agree with.
It's not twisted, it's experience. The vast majority of players also isn't running melee units that don't fly or just appear next to their opponents.
It's a fact that a unit sitting on the top level of a ruin is immune to close combat from any non-infantry unit and protected from infantry since they increase the charge distance and reduce the number of models that can fight.
It's also a matter of fact that a unit must go around any LOS blocker they want to benefit from and thus lose movement. For any unit that does not have 12"+ movement speed, this will cost them a turn or more of movement. It's also very much within your opponent's power to force you to cross some terrain without cover, while most shooting units can just sit in cover all game long.
Generally speaking, terrain HELPS melee units, which tend to be more vulnerable to ranged attack, by increasing their survivability as they approach their targets and by hampering the effectiveness of ranged attacks in general by obscuring line of sight or providing their targets with benefits which make the lethality of ranged attacks less effective.
That's how it should be. However, the increasing surviveability part is not working, or at lest not well enough, and obscuring a target doesn't do anything right now unless you are completely hidden out of sight.
Beyond that, any benefit that ranged armies would derive from terrain was historically counterbalanced by the fact that CC was significantly more lethal than shooting.
If you arm a unit like assault terminators, nobz or wraithguard to the teeth and charge them into a shooting unit of equal points, you'll find that close combat isn't very lethal at all. Getting to fight once or twice per game while taking damage back rarely, if ever, compares to just shooting stuff with similar number of attacks, strength and damage from 24"-48" away.
Mostly melee units suck because units can just step out of melee with little or no penalty to the army they belong to.
Melee units go through a turn or two of hellfire to get to the enemy then either single shot them and can't consolidate far enough to tag another unit leaving them stuck out in the middle of nowhere or they fail to kill the enemy and knowing damned well they'll be dead the next turn the enemy is simply pulled back before the shooting phase leaving the melee unit stuck out in the middle of nowhere.
There should be a response to units wussing out of combat.
Because -1 hit modifiers worked so well in this edition? Sorry, not a fan of halving some army's shooting gutted while other basically don't care because high BS and re-rolls everywhere.
But I get what you are trying to say, whoever daemons not being affected by cover (or reality in general) has kind of always been their thing.
We kind of want to gut shooting don't we? Forests used to give -1 to hit. It was pretty common. Sure, Orks suffer most, but they also benefit to a point where they can lean on melee or use their fast units to get around to the side of cover.
The armies best at shooting suffer least. You just made all marines even better at gunning down melee units, because it's even harder to remove their shooting units from cover.
Jidmah wrote: The armies best at shooting suffer least. You just made all marines even better at gunning down melee units, because it's even harder to remove their shooting units from cover.
They get "better" if fewer of them die, sure. Say you kill two previously, but kill half as many now.
Are Orks pulling Intercessors out of cover with shooting now? I doubt it (barring smasha spam with no other targets). Even 10 TBs would struggle to kill 3. Better to charge and put a BC or Klaw on them and take fewer casualties going in on top of getting benefit on top of the KFF.
Also re-introduce different interactions such as take cover or go to ground. After movement a player may declare such at which point interaction changes. For instance LoS isnt important so long as bases are fully behind relevant terrain. Here we may prescribe levels of terrain perhaps but no need to walk around with standard silouhettes for different models.
I would like to see other interactions reintroduced such as overwatch and others... plus templates actually or at least an option to use more fine grained rules as standard but optional...
I would also like to see ranges halved and movement stat returned with marines and orks moving 4, eldar 6 and crons from 2 to 5 ... nids from 3 to 7, etc...
There should be a response to units wussing out of combat.
Absolutely. For symmetry's sake Overwatch's melee equivalent should exist. Attack of Opportunity, you get to strike the fleeing unit but only hit on sixes. It's not much, but it would be something.
There should be a response to units wussing out of combat.
Absolutely. For symmetry's sake Overwatch's melee equivalent should exist. Attack of Opportunity, you get to strike the fleeing unit but only hit on sixes. It's not much, but it would be something.
I'm a firm believe in this and been asking for it, but with no melee on both players turns, and more limitations to falling back.
There should be a response to units wussing out of combat.
Absolutely. For symmetry's sake Overwatch's melee equivalent should exist. Attack of Opportunity, you get to strike the fleeing unit but only hit on sixes. It's not much, but it would be something.
If symmetry is what you want then after a unit shoots in the shooting phase the opponent should be able to pick a unit to shoot back. Overwatch is a crap thing that mostly does nothing. I get that melee units wish there was something to prevent falling back but "melee overwatch" won't stop anything.
Honestly, there is something to prevent falling back: 3-cornering.
Also, like a melee unit succeeded even if the enemy unit falls back, as long as it survives the backswing on the turn it charged then the falling-back units are basically out of the fight for a bit.
I feel like melee is really powerful this edition.
Overwatch fulfills a function, discouraging you from multicharging literally everything within 12" to see what you can reach, but I'd like to see a more elegant and faster method of achieving that. Overwatch rarely actually kills a meaningful value of models, which the exception of a few outliers like Repentia with a 7+ armor save, so I'd like to either see something fast and easy to replace it, like -1 to charge for each declared charge target after the first.
Alternatively, it would need to be powerful option like Flames of War's "if you pin or bail the enemy in defensive fire, the charge fails."
The melee overwatch on fall back thing has been suggested a few times which in way could offer something, but a couple of successful hits that is likely to do anything meaningful is usually just a slow down to the game flow.
Would be good if there were other consequences to falling back that the other player can respond to, such as if a unit falls back than the unit it fell back from can make a free consolidate move (whether fixed range or random like a D6 potentially even catching the unit that fell back and keeping them in combat)
Even something like 1 mortal wound per 5 models, at least that way the player pays some sort of price for opening the enemy unit to shooting at them.
Melee in 8th outside a few scenarios is very much a secondary facet of a game dominated by the shooting phase.
NurglesR0T wrote: The melee overwatch on fall back thing has been suggested a few times which in way could offer something, but a couple of successful hits that is likely to do anything meaningful is usually just a slow down to the game flow.
Would be good if there were other consequences to falling back that the other player can respond to, such as if a unit falls back than the unit it fell back from can make a free consolidate move (whether fixed range or random like a D6 potentially even catching the unit that fell back and keeping them in combat)
Even something like 1 mortal wound per 5 models, at least that way the player pays some sort of price for opening the enemy unit to shooting at them.
Melee in 8th outside a few scenarios is very much a secondary facet of a game dominated by the shooting phase.
You would at the same time make melee as strong as shooting b.c there is no double combats anymore. You shouldn't be hitting on 6's at all, make it your "WS and higher with no mods or rerolls to hit" as they turned their back and running. This will make melee stronger without having to change all the numbers of everyone, if you stand and fight they don't get that free hit against you, if you run you might die.
It should be dangerous to fallback, as it is dangerous to stand in front of a unit shooting you.
Also, like a melee unit succeeded even if the enemy unit falls back, as long as it survives the backswing on the turn it charged then the falling-back units are basically out of the fight for a bit.
I feel like melee is really powerful this edition.
Overwatch fulfills a function, discouraging you from multicharging literally everything within 12" to see what you can reach, but I'd like to see a more elegant and faster method of achieving that. Overwatch rarely actually kills a meaningful value of models, which the exception of a few outliers like Repentia with a 7+ armor save, so I'd like to either see something fast and easy to replace it, like -1 to charge for each declared charge target after the first.
Alternatively, it would need to be powerful option like Flames of War's "if you pin or bail the enemy in defensive fire, the charge fails."
Three-pointing is one of those "invisible mechanics" that makes melee so broken currently. I hate that part of the power budget of melee is 6" of extremely wonky movement, the ability to three-point and totally turn off falling back, and shooting immunity if you successfully three-point.
For starters, many people just..don't know those mechanics exist, as they're not really upfront with them in the rules and they feel "power gamey". And when they are successfully employed, they WILDLY swing the power of melee - basically, if your opponent can't fall back, you deal double damage to them (attacking in the opponent's turn) and you grant yourself total immunity to shooting. Thats an enormous power spike.
Apocalypse's melee system is just flatly superior in nearly every way. The only flaw it has in my eyes is making the shooting weapons melee units are equipped with just pointless.
For starters, unit coherency is greatly reduced. 0.5" from model to model, and if your unit is over 5 members you must be within 0.5" of at least two other models in the unit. That greatly reduces the power of screens and the power of melee tie-up blobs.
Then, overwatch is gone. No longer necessary if you can't blob up and tie up an entire enemy army with a speculative charge.
Then, attacking in the opponent's turn is gone. Staying in combat means your opponent attacks you with CC attacks, you don't get swings in their turn, they don't get swings in yours. Of course, models take saves and die at the end of the batle round, too, so that doesn't create crazy alpha strike situations either.
Then, pile in and consolidate is gone, as are random charge moves. Your charge move is your move stat X2, and you don't get to attack with any shooting weapons. Charging no longer offers weird amounts of free movement to super-slow models, and super-fast models can no longer roll a 2 4" away from enemy units. One model in contact with the enemy means the unit gets to fight. Simple, clean, you no longer have to move every model in an assault unit 4 separate times in a turn to use them.
Fall back preventing shooting unless you fly is still a thing. Enemy units can either choose to punch you back, or they can fall back and you can shoot them with the rest of your army.
Easy. Simple. Reliable. no longer has crazy reward spikes for pulling off little gamey micro maneuvers. Deep strike assault units no longer need 200 points+4CP of support to do their job.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Overwatch fulfills a function, discouraging you from multicharging literally everything within 12" to see what you can reach
I've yet to hear a compelling explanation for why this is a problem. We already have the very game-y mechanic of piling into/consolidating into additional units, so it's already not that hard to tie up additional units while avoiding Overwatch. Would it really break things if players tried for that 1-in-12 chance of making an 11" charge more often?
3 pointing is an example of whats called emergent gameplay. Its not a mechanic written into the rules. Its a emergent element that occurs naturally because of the mechanics that exist. 3 pointing may or may not be an intentional effect of their design.
CP farming is another example.
That being said some of the best elements in games are emergent game play that is designed for that enhances the experience. Something that elevates the gameplay to being more than the sum of it parts. I wouldnt say 40k pulls that off anywhere.
bananathug wrote: There's already too many negs to hit, invluns and 2+ units in the game for cover interact with a d6 system in any way that doesn't end up a broken mess.
Epic I believe limited it to a max -2. Could be an idea now.
What if cover gave -1 to wound or all wound rolls of 1&2 fail (maybe even 1,2, & 3). I think the -1 to wound would be too much for some armies, while wound auto fail numbers would work like the cover saves, but would still allow for saves or work when attacked with large AP attacks
Amishprn86 wrote: It also dones't stop all units, anything with fly is immune to "3 pointing" and good play play on both sides makes it very hard to do anyways.
I always hear the shooting player just say "but 3-pointing exists so melee is super powerful". It doesnt work against fly, knights(or other units that can walk out of combat) or units that can fight back and you are also not allowed to hit the unit your are trying to 3 point in most cases since killing even 1 model can stop it all together. You also need a large unit since 1-2 models cant surround a model either so melee characters, monsters and walkers cant do it. And even if you 3 point something you still need to be able to kill it in their melee phase or your unit, that is most likely very expensive since all good melee units are, will be stuck and not do anything either. The melee unit is still open to a countercharge even if they are stuck in combat so they arent invulnerable. Most armies do have some good melee units that work well for this.
And to stop a 3point you just put your screens closer together, preferably next to terrain or another unit to prevent being wrapped. Sure you might lose an extra 30-60pt unit against the charging melee unit but they cant 3point and be safe in your shooting phase and now they are right in the open in front of your guns.
Might be easier for armies like orks to stop shooting since they can get charges off with 30man units that dont really care about loosing a few models to overwatch and can just spread out and touch as many units as possible. But for armies like BA its harder than you think. Had a game recently in which my opponent screened and deployed really badly so in turn 1 I killed 4 of his characters 1 knight and left another at 2wounds, But since BA models are expensive I lost about 600pts in my own turn 1 due to overwatch, return hits and explosions and had 0 CP left. Even in optimal situations I had to spend so many resources to do that amount of damage against someone that misplayed. A gunline list wouldnt have lost a model in that situation and would have most of their CP left. Half the time for a melee army its mutual destruction even if we get there. Its not like my 1000pts of BA can kill 2000pts of the enemy as soon as I get over in to their lines, melee are a bit more deadly point for point than range but except for smash captains fueled by CP not as much as people think,
Less deadly shooting, better terrain and los rules and a bit slower movement, even for melee units and the game would be so much better. Shooting is so deadly that if your melee unit is getting caught in the open for 1 turn its dead so you either need ton of LOS blocking terrain, that also gives cover(or you will die to artillery instead) or the ability to charge out of deepstrike/turn 1 so they dont even get the chance to shoot first. Preferably with an ignore overwatch ability since some units elite armies cant even charge. An IH leviathan dread kills every unit in my army except for my 300pt sanguinary guard unit with a 64pt support character with a relic banner on overwatch and it still kills almost 150pts of them and I still need to roll high enough to make that charge. Everything is so extreme right now. You see a banner through 3 buildings and can kill the whole unit. Units move and charge ridiculous distances and you can have 100pt characters turn 1 solo 700pt knights and single model can smoke half an army on overwatch alone. Some entire armies are easier to kill than any 1 out of 4 dreads in an IH list. Easiest fix that effects all armies are to make changes to the terrain/los rules to make it more gradient and impactful and then GW can fix the other broken stuff.
Three pointing always seemed to me like a gamey exploit. It shouldn't exist and the normal rules for fleeing from combat should be more restrictive instead.
Crimson wrote: Three pointing always seemed to me like a gamey exploit. It shouldn't exist and the normal rules for fleeing from combat should be more restrictive instead.
Agree. For what I care, if I get to attack once more when you leave combat, feel free to move through my models to do so. I also really like the idea that charges are 2x movement instead of random dice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SeanDavid1991 wrote: Personally I'm aboard the Cover should be negatives to hit not positives to save.
Negative to hit to a max of a 6+ needed. Then depending on the terrain depends on the negative to hit.
Ruins -2. Shrubs/forrest and craters -1 so on so fourth.
I'd rather introduce another layer of saves for cover, for example rolling a 4+ to ignore a hit for ruins, 5+ for craters. While it takes more time, I don't see why a ruin should be more efficient at blocking a plasma gun fired by a guardsman than one fired by a veteran or space marine.
So an IH warlord dread would roll his save, his FnP, his terrain cover and then redirect any wounds to an intercessor, who would then roll his FnP and cover? that is a lot of saves.
SeanDavid1991 wrote: Personally I'm aboard the Cover should be negatives to hit not positives to save.
Negative to hit to a max of a 6+ needed. Then depending on the terrain depends on the negative to hit.
Ruins -2. Shrubs/forrest and craters -1 so on so fourth.
I'd rather introduce another layer of saves for cover, for example rolling a 4+ to ignore a hit for ruins, 5+ for craters. While it takes more time, I don't see why a ruin should be more efficient at blocking a plasma gun fired by a guardsman than one fired by a veteran or space marine.
But that would add wayyy too many dice IMO. If you do negatives to hit that just simplifies things. You could even bring back old battlefield conditions with ease. Fighting on a swamp world, -1 to hit over 15" because of mist. Doing negatives to hit then doesn't cause annoying scenarios such as scouts getting 3/2+ saves and being nigh invincible in a terrain piece.
Yeah it may be harder to hit them, but when you do hit them that doesn;t change the fact they don't wear much armour.
Only this greatly buffs armies that can stack those mods, which is mostly eldar. If rangers could get -1 for mist, -1 for being in terrain, -1 for being alaitoc and anothe -1 for being rangers or from stratagems, then we are looking at models that sometimes are being hit on a +6 by space marines, and other armies can't hit them with shoting at all.
And saying just use melee units, won't work, when all other armies beat melee armies easily. It would just be creating a situaiton that favours one specific eldar build again. We already had that in 8th.
SeanDavid1991 wrote: But that would add wayyy too many dice IMO. If you do negatives to hit that just simplifies things. You could even bring back old battlefield conditions with ease. Fighting on a swamp world, -1 to hit over 15" because of mist. Doing negatives to hit then doesn't cause annoying scenarios such as scouts getting 3/2+ saves and being nigh invincible in a terrain piece.
Yeah it may be harder to hit them, but when you do hit them that doesn;t change the fact they don't wear much armour.
Negatives to hit are an inherently flawed mechanic, all the -1 to hit army traits have proven that. 1000 points of ork shooting loses 500 points of worth from -1 to hit. 1000 points of space marine or eldar shooting lose just 250 points worth of shooting.
Cover as a game-wide mechanic must either reduces everyone's shooting equally or it has to affect armies with higher BS more than those with lower. Otherwise you just make armies with great shooting even more powerful, the very opposite of what cover is trying to archive.
specially in a setting where shoting is more powerful, then melee. -1 to hit for an army with full re-rolls hiting on +3 isn't as detrimental as to a +4 or +5 hiting one without them.
It would force armies like orcs in to a melee game play, and the orc players in to praying for a really good melee build.
Karol wrote: Only this greatly buffs armies that can stack those mods, which is mostly eldar. If rangers could get -1 for mist, -1 for being in terrain, -1 for being alaitoc and anothe -1 for being rangers or from stratagems, then we are looking at models that sometimes are being hit on a +6 by space marines, and other armies can't hit them with shoting at all.
And saying just use melee units, won't work, when all other armies beat melee armies easily. It would just be creating a situaiton that favours one specific eldar build again. We already had that in 8th.
So set it so it can only be done to a maximum of 6+.
But to be fair Eldar suck at armour saves and their range isn;t fantastic apart from the odd gun or tank. Or quite simply a FAQ that stops so many of the same effects taking stance (like they already have done with certian similar aura's or datahseets from different codices being counted as the same).
Not saying it's flawless, but it;s much better to reduce the hit than it is to increase the save.
SeanDavid1991 wrote: Not saying it's flawless, but it;s much better to reduce the hit than it is to increase the save.
Actually, I'd rather have useless terrain rules than ones that improve shooting even more.
-1 to hit is a terrible mechanic to put on more than a few select units, that's why I suggested the extra roll for cover - everyone loses the same amount of shooting.
Then as rules adapt bring out balance items. So if your basic guard is shooting a super stealthy elite hidey hole eldar sat in a terrain piece. Yes quite rightly they should be a 6+ to hit.
But Guard also have the volume over units.
Also as the game adapts you just simply have special units for specific jobs. Balance your army. This unit has the ability to equip visors that ignore benefits of cover. Or "emergency drop" 2CP the unit request an airdrop of special reflex scopes that ignore the benefits of cover until the end of the phase.
The game is now a living game, it is no longer 8th ed thats it. 9th ed thats it so on so forth.
The live environment means rules adapt. Whichever way it's spread negative to hits is much more manageable and fairer to a majority of armies that increases the armour is.
Might as well change terrain rules so units in cover can only be hit on 6+, that would be just as fair to marines and eldar as the -1 to hit is to other armies.
Might as well change terrain rules so units in cover can only be hit on 6+, that would be just as fair to marines and eldar as the -1 to hit is to other armies.
The game isn't fair though. Meta's change, balances move. There is literally no reason why a rule effects one army in the same manner it effects another. Adapt your lists, write balance lists. You want a fair game go play chess.
But adding dice rolls will put more people off. The amount of dice rolls is already annoying people as it is. Especially with the amount of units that can throw out 50+ shots as per normal.
Could you imagine adding a whole additional round of rolling if you shot with a unit of 6 aggressors? That's roughly 100+ dice with average rolling that your adding a whole new rolling phase to.
SeanDavid1991 wrote: Then as rules adapt bring out balance items. So if your basic guard is shooting a super stealthy elite hidey hole eldar sat in a terrain piece. Yes quite rightly they should be a 6+ to hit.
But Guard also have the volume over units.
Also as the game adapts you just simply have special units for specific jobs. Balance your army. This unit has the ability to equip visors that ignore benefits of cover. Or "emergency drop" 2CP the unit request an airdrop of special reflex scopes that ignore the benefits of cover until the end of the phase.
The game is now a living game, it is no longer 8th ed thats it. 9th ed thats it so on so forth.
The live environment means rules adapt. Whichever way it's spread negative to hits is much more manageable and fairer to a majority of armies that increases the armour is.
okey, but no one is going to use new balanced relics or rules, if the old ones are powerful. GK just got new warlord traits, GK are still going to use the re-roll charge one most of the time. And if the reverse happens and you get balanced relics in the initial batch of rules, then people are just not going to use them, as it won't be worth to pay a CP to get a halabard or armour or a bit better stormbolter on an HQ.
SeanDavid1991 wrote: Then as rules adapt bring out balance items. So if your basic guard is shooting a super stealthy elite hidey hole eldar sat in a terrain piece. Yes quite rightly they should be a 6+ to hit.
But Guard also have the volume over units.
Also as the game adapts you just simply have special units for specific jobs. Balance your army. This unit has the ability to equip visors that ignore benefits of cover. Or "emergency drop" 2CP the unit request an airdrop of special reflex scopes that ignore the benefits of cover until the end of the phase.
The game is now a living game, it is no longer 8th ed thats it. 9th ed thats it so on so forth.
The live environment means rules adapt. Whichever way it's spread negative to hits is much more manageable and fairer to a majority of armies that increases the armour is.
okey, but no one is going to use new balanced relics or rules, if the old ones are powerful. GK just got new warlord traits, GK are still going to use the re-roll charge one most of the time. And if the reverse happens and you get balanced relics in the initial batch of rules, then people are just not going to use them, as it won't be worth to pay a CP to get a halabard or armour or a bit better stormbolter on an HQ.
Forgive me if i'm wrong but isn;t that the design of a business? To encourage people to use the new stuff not the old?
The point of this thread however is desire of better terrain rules. If you want to debate live environments I am more than happy to discuss as I do this it's a point worth talking about. So PM me or raise a thread and I'll comment.
But for better terrain rules, you cannot just add extra rolls. That will annoy people, especially those with excessive rolls.
You either need to change the way the modifer works. (i'm on board the changing the hit side rather than save side)
Or you change the terrain rule itself, whether that be true LoS or different terrain does different things, or even ground floor magic bubbles.
Or you refresh the whole shooting mechanic.
In my experience the simplest solution is often the best. And the simplest solution is to change it from +1 save to -1 hit.
So, to sum up your arguments, you are saying that terrain rules should be unbalanced to sell more models?
Sorry, but the only reason to change terrain is to create a more fair game. Otherwise I stand with my suggestion that any terrain should reduce BS to 6+, for all armies. Let those shooting armies adapt to the game for once.
No, you really haven't. Negative hit modifiers are a mechanic that is proven to work terribly - which goes against the very idea of "better terrain rules".
SeanDavid1991 wrote: In my experience the simplest solution is often the best. And the simplest solution is to change it from +1 save to -1 hit.
Just to suggest an alternative -- how about cover grants a modest FNP type save? There'd be a question around whether it ought to stack with existing FNP saves, but I imagine it'd make cover saves more impactful than the current +1 to armour.
The main thing I'd like to see an improvement around is how terrain impacts LoS. Perhaps something along the lines of "units can see into but not through" the footprint of ruins, etc., but in a way that doesn't allow superheavies and whatnot to hide behind a tiny pile of rubble.
SeanDavid1991 wrote: In my experience the simplest solution is often the best. And the simplest solution is to change it from +1 save to -1 hit.
Just to suggest an alternative -- how about cover grants a modest FNP type save? There'd be a question around whether it ought to stack with existing FNP saves, but I imagine it'd make cover saves more impactful than the current +1 to armour.
The main thing I'd like to see an improvement around is how terrain impacts LoS. Perhaps something along the lines of "units can see into but not through" the footprint of ruins, etc., but in a way that doesn't allow superheavies and whatnot to hide behind a tiny pile of rubble.
uuuuuuuuuuuuugh. I would really really super rather not have to make yet another roll to do anything in this game. Objectively yes, this would be the most balanced way to add exactly 1/6 survivability to models in cover, in practice I hate it so much. hit roll wound roll save roll cover roll fnp roll: Please no.
Nurglitch wrote: Cover allowing stuff to survive mind-bullets isn't ideal. FNP is more of something about the target being able to ignore debilitating wounds.
Likewise, the problem with -1 to hit is that suddenly all those plasma weapons blow up more when the target is behind cover. That's weird too.
I i know not ideal but the whole plasma -1 hit blow up thing as a DA player. I had to make my peace with that ages ago. My head cannon is because it's harder to hit and they have to aim longer that means they're overcharging longer, which means more opportunity for the plasma core to go boom. Like cooking a grenade too long trying to figure out where to throw it.
Nurglitch wrote: Cover allowing stuff to survive mind-bullets isn't ideal. FNP is more of something about the target being able to ignore debilitating wounds.
Likewise, the problem with -1 to hit is that suddenly all those plasma weapons blow up more when the target is behind cover. That's weird too.
cranky voice
Back in my day psychic powers were allowed to represent more than just armor-penetrating super automatic wounds! We had lightning powers and explosion powers and fire powers that worked just like regular shooting attacks but you shot them from your brain! And we liked it! Uphill both ways!
Nurglitch wrote: Likewise, the problem with -1 to hit is that suddenly all those plasma weapons blow up more when the target is behind cover. That's weird too.
IMO that's not an issue with -1 to hit mechanics, that's an issue with plasma rules. A lot of abilities triggering on 1s or 6s rather than unmodified 1s or 6s causes a lot of odd or unintended interactions.
Maybe +1 Toughness could work? People use heavier weapons against squishy targets behind cover in warfare all the time. Weak things are more likely to slam into cover and stop while heavier weaponry simply powers through the cover.
DominayTrix wrote: Maybe +1 Toughness could work? People use heavier weapons against squishy targets behind cover in warfare all the time. Weak things are more likely to slam into cover and stop while heavier weaponry simply powers through the cover.
Not bad TBF. The type of cover depends on the toughness bonus. The save and hits stay the same cos thats skill and armour. When it hits it's still your armour. The extra toughness just comes from the extra terrain feature.
I'd give that a whirl. Craters give +1 toughness if you "hit the deck" or something.
Ruins and tree's give +1 normal.
Fortified buildings that aren't quite models with a datasheet maybe get +2?
The negs to hit design space is such a mess that adding more interactions to that broken rule set isn't a step towards making better terrain rules.
Stop infantry from moving through ruins (need more doors and actual ruined buildings). Makes battlefields more dynamic. The less straight line movement the better.
Require LOS to be drawn to the "body" of the model (no weapons, flags, wings, hands, tentacles, wheels, whatever). Would require some guidelines for what the body of a model was (plane wings? backpacks? legs?) but should be fairly easy to legislate.
cannot shoot through more than 1 piece of terrain regardless of classification. Shoot through one window, sure, two of them...no. 2 walls of one ruin would count as 2 pieces.
no shooting though woods. Into and out of, not through. If you wanted to get more detailed have a w/in 4" of intervening edge but no through but yes out/in would be plenty.
penalties for moving up hill/vertical and bonus for moving down hill/down. Limit it to charges if you want but the more you have to think about where to move and positions having impact on the battlefield the better (IMHO).
No advancing over/through intervening terrain. Give units "agile" to allow them to ignore this.
General strat. 1 CP any infantry unit wholly within a terrain feature can give up it's movement that turn to increase it's save bonus from cover.
Get rid of the ignore cover rules handed out like candy. Already have enough trouble making terrain count, stop shooting yourselves in the foot GW.
I'd like more rules like, give up movement and get a +1 to overwatch (better if units that moved couldn't fire overwatch to begin with but whatever) and give up shooting to roll 2d6 and pick highest for advance or 3d6 pick highest two for charges.
Anything to make the terrain on the battle field matter more. Too many straight line charges/movements not enough flanking and tactical movements because terrain just doesn't matter to most armies.
Don't get me started on plasma and it blowing up 45ish point plasma interceptors with 3 wounds the same way it blows up 8 point scions. 1 MW on a natural 1 and move on.
Shooting at a unit in cover +1 to their save, same as now. Additionally:
Shooting at a unit through intervening cover, and 12"+ away: -1 to hit, this modifier is not cumulative with any other negative to hit modifiers.
Hard to hit units are still hard to hit, but not harder, normal units get a benefit for being behind terrain and/or obscured, but only if farther away than 12". Allows you to move up behind cover without being completely out of LOS and still gain some benefit, until you're right up close.
Crimson wrote: Three pointing always seemed to me like a gamey exploit. It shouldn't exist and the normal rules for fleeing from combat should be more restrictive instead.
Yeah its an exploit, in the same way putting a unit of snipers high on a building is an exploit.
okey, but no one is going to use new balanced relics or rules, if the old ones are powerful. GK just got new warlord traits, GK are still going to use the re-roll charge one most of the time. And if the reverse happens and you get balanced relics in the initial batch of rules, then people are just not going to use them, as it won't be worth to pay a CP to get a halabard or armour or a bit better stormbolter on an HQ.
Forgive me if i'm wrong but isn;t that the design of a business? To encourage people to use the new stuff not the old?
The point of this thread however is desire of better terrain rules. If you want to debate live environments I am more than happy to discuss as I do this it's a point worth talking about. So PM me or raise a thread and I'll comment.
But for better terrain rules, you cannot just add extra rolls. That will annoy people, especially those with excessive rolls.
You either need to change the way the modifer works. (i'm on board the changing the hit side rather than save side)
Or you change the terrain rule itself, whether that be true LoS or different terrain does different things, or even ground floor magic bubbles.
Or you refresh the whole shooting mechanic.
In my experience the simplest solution is often the best. And the simplest solution is to change it from +1 save to -1 hit.
my faction got 1 new model in 8th ed, and I don't think they got any new models in 7th ed. other factions didn't get a lot of new models either, or the new models were replacment for already existing models. So the thing would only work for faction like marine primaris or custodes that get a new model line. For everyone else there isn't more entice to buy new stuff, because there is very little new stuff to buy.
and -1 to hit with its stacking already proved to be a bad mechanic in 8th ed. It just divided armies in to those that can stack it and those that can't.
Nurglitch wrote: Really? I thought everyone hates those 'regular shooting attacks but with all the risks of psychic powers' things. Novas were cool though.
I mean, I didn't. Just increase the relative power for the points in exchange for the risk, or replace the to-hit roll with the psychic test or something. I dunno. I'm really bored of mortal wound powers personally, they basically all have to be the same.
Crimson wrote: Three pointing always seemed to me like a gamey exploit. It shouldn't exist and the normal rules for fleeing from combat should be more restrictive instead.
Yeah its an exploit, in the same way putting a unit of snipers high on a building is an exploit.
I can think of what putting snipers on a tall building is supposed to represent in real-world equivalence.
I can't think of what putting exactly three guys around an enemy combatant and then deliberately not killing him so that his compatriots can't fall back is supposed to represent.
That's why it's 'gamey' and feels like an exploit- it's a strategy that arises purely from the rules, not from logical real-world tactics.
Negatives to hit are a problem on a D6 system, to me though this only applies where there is no system to counter it.
ideal would be adding a "Sz" stat to everything, "size" which is a basic to hit modifier. tanks could be something like +5, default infantry +0, larger infantry (custards, terminators etc) +1, maybe really small stuff known for hiding as -1
then provide a further +1 to hit a stationary target and similar
Automatically Appended Next Post: key to me though is cover needs to do something or may as well get rid of it
all it really can do is provide protection and get in the way
blocking shooting through area terrain totally makes sense and is simple enough, the ability for some cove to give a negative to hit (e.g. smoke, blind effects etc), which may or may not stack with other effects - personally I'd go with "cover" effects being "pick any one that applies"
so if you are behind a wall for -1 to hit, the fact you also have smoke for -1 to hit doesn't matter
then provide the AP bonus for actual protection - a wall being maybe a +1, smoke being zero
The real crazy thing is, in 8th you can add whatever terrain rules your playing group likes. Shocker! If you think one of the suggestions upthread is better than the BRB/CA? Use it instead!
Our group already uses:
- Touching counts as in (to speed up the Jenga Phase! No one needs to spend time balancing dudes)
- Barricades count as -2” movement to cross (to save measuring up and over each time - again a speed-up change)
- Lower levels of Ruins without doors/windows *can’t* be walked through by INFANTRY (to stop Fire and Fade silliness, and to match the terrain we have - walking through solid walls with no holes in breaks immersion)
In my experience, what you want terrain to do for your game (as well as the visual aspect) is to provide a benefit and/or provide or force manoeuvring opportunities. What you don’t want is nine layers of rules to remember or to disadvantage one army disproportionately. Keep it simple and focus on what terrain you use.
The bigger problem with terrain as GW sells it is that it doesn’t do much in the way of LOS or mobility blocking. Gaps everywhere, rules allowing guys to just wander through, weird 6” gantries on spindly legs. Homemade or MDF terrain options can provide very different tactical challenges than stock GW stuff. Bigger buildings you have to go over or around change things up so much, very glad I made some. The vertical dimension and the LOS-blocking are great. Try some hills with a few tiers too... so many entirely flat battlefields out there. Our Eldar player hates hills with a passion as they always seem to block his LOS at a crucial moment! And this from a guy who can largely fly or sprint over them!
Honestly, I just don’t get the constant “terrain rules suck” as the core of them is sound. It’s often the actual terrain you’re using that does nothing for 8th.
Nurglitch wrote: Really? I thought everyone hates those 'regular shooting attacks but with all the risks of psychic powers' things. Novas were cool though.
I mean, I didn't. Just increase the relative power for the points in exchange for the risk, or replace the to-hit roll with the psychic test or something. I dunno. I'm really bored of mortal wound powers personally, they basically all have to be the same.
I really enjoy mortal wounds, as I think it's important to have a way around invulnerable saves. I could do without special snowflake psychic powers though, as this game has so many rules now.
Crimson wrote: Three pointing always seemed to me like a gamey exploit. It shouldn't exist and the normal rules for fleeing from combat should be more restrictive instead.
It is a gamey exploit. But assault is so gakky in 8th that it's basically a mandatory skill.
Maybe three-pointing could be improved as a more deliberate mechanic, by going over the charge/pile-in/consolidate rules, along with morale casualties and cohesion.
The core concept isn't so bad. If you don't have an open path to retreat, you shouldn't be able to fall back. Getting overrun = lethal. The issue is the mechanics feel gamey, not the concept.
Quick thing, terrain adds character to the game. Making meaningful choices on deployment and movement and game pace. At least it should, the terrain as it is currently is too light and a little meh. I can get that you don't want to bog it down but a better system adds a lot for both the competitive player and the more narrative driven as it makes the game more robust in the playing and adds a certain nice element to it.
Terrain is a lot like the tapestry that you paint on during the game play. Making it better can only give a certain feel back to the game beside point and click which it increasingly feels like these days.
Nurglitch wrote:Cover allowing stuff to survive mind-bullets isn't ideal. FNP is more of something about the target being able to ignore debilitating wounds
You could phrase it so that the cover FNP doesn't apply to mortal wounds, between that and stuff that ignores cover bonuses "real" FNP would still stand apart as providing enhanced durability.
DominayTrix wrote:Maybe +1 Toughness could work? People use heavier weapons against squishy targets behind cover in warfare all the time. Weak things are more likely to slam into cover and stop while heavier weaponry simply powers through the cover.
Good potential in this idea, would it work the same for tanks (once they are X% concealed by the terrain)?
A Bonus to Toughness is just a problematic as a Bonus to Save. Some times that one point just doesn't matter. Adding 1 Toughness to a T3 model makes not difference against S 5 or S 8+ attacks, just like adding +1 Save to a 5+ Save model makes no difference against AP -3 or better.
I think a better rule, that doesn't have to deal with the already existing -1 Hit rules would be something like the following:
All units in or obscured by cover get +1 to their Save roll
A unit/model counts as obscured by Terrain if LOS to it's core components are partially hidden by the terrain. I would define the "core" as head, torso, legs, and hull (including fixed wings), turrets and wheels/tracks with exception on the data sheet.
Each type of terrain also provides an Invulnerable Save of varying level
When that Invulnerable Save is granted depends upon the type of terrain, which could not be negated by special rules. Sometimes you must be in the cover and a specific type of unit, such as Infantry in a crater. Other times, being obscured by the terrain is enough to grant the Invulnerable save, such as any unit obscured by Ruins
Other existing terrain rules remain.
The result would be a greater impact of terrain against shooting attacks as no unit benefitting from appropriate cover would ever be denied at the minimum an Invulnerable Save.
So if the rules for Ruins were the same as they currently are with the addition of "Infantry unit within and all units obsurced by Ruins gain a 5+ Invulnerable Save", the impact would be far reaching for many units, from vehicle and monster behind them to poor save units hiding in them.
What about different stuff getting different buffs. Infantry could get a cover save of some sort. Vehicles or monsters could get +1T. this way we could avoid vehicles with super resiliance, while infantry could get substential buffs, but in exchange for being glued to a terrain.
would also mean that cover ignoring rules wouldn't wreck terrain as a whole, because it would only be a boon vs infantry, while vehicles would still be getting their +1T.
I'm actually impressed by the constructive discussion going on here and some of the great ideas being thrown around.
The cover providing a bonus to toughness idea isn't bad. The hit or miss nature of the toughness bonus versus certain strengths is just part of life with the current wounding chart. It is still much more fair and even compared to +1 to armor save. I like this thematically too.
Feel no pain type cover save is also great. It already exists in the game, they already can't be stacked so I don't see much of a problem here either.
A FNP type cover is basically the same thing I proposed in another thread, albeit slightly differently :
"Right now cover favors heavy armoured units. Older systems favored lightly armored units. I think cover should favor all equally. How does it work ?
Light cover : "when a unit benefits from light cover (wooden fence, hedge, etc...), roll to hit as normal. Pick up all the successes and roll them again : discard any roll of 1. After that, proceed to wound as normal."
Heavy cover : ""when a unit benefits from heavy cover (ruin, barricade, etc...), roll to hit as normal. Pick up all the successes and roll them again : discard any roll of 1 and 2. After that, proceed to wound as normal."
This way, anyone benefiting from light cover gets -16.66% damage and anyone benefiting from heavy cover gets -33.33% damage."
Crimson wrote: Three pointing always seemed to me like a gamey exploit. It shouldn't exist and the normal rules for fleeing from combat should be more restrictive instead.
Yeah its an exploit, in the same way putting a unit of snipers high on a building is an exploit.
I can think of what putting snipers on a tall building is supposed to represent in real-world equivalence.
I can't think of what putting exactly three guys around an enemy combatant and then deliberately not killing him so that his compatriots can't fall back is supposed to represent.
That's why it's 'gamey' and feels like an exploit- it's a strategy that arises purely from the rules, not from logical real-world tactics.
So b.c you think being surrounded on all sides is not real world applicable for a game about aliens and psychic powers it must be gaming? Oh ok, gatcha. Especially if you are trying to run away from 3 guys when you have pistols and can fight! OFC you can't run, you are scared of 3 guys
alextroy wrote: A Bonus to Toughness is just a problematic as a Bonus to Save. Some times that one point just doesn't matter. Adding 1 Toughness to a T3 model makes not difference against S 5 or S 8+ attacks, just like adding +1 Save to a 5+ Save model makes no difference against AP -3 or better.
I think a better rule, that doesn't have to deal with the already existing -1 Hit rules would be something like the following:
All units in or obscured by cover get +1 to their Save roll
A unit/model counts as obscured by Terrain if LOS to it's core components are partially hidden by the terrain. I would define the "core" as head, torso, legs, and hull (including fixed wings), turrets and wheels/tracks with exception on the data sheet.
Each type of terrain also provides an Invulnerable Save of varying level
When that Invulnerable Save is granted depends upon the type of terrain, which could not be negated by special rules. Sometimes you must be in the cover and a specific type of unit, such as Infantry in a crater. Other times, being obscured by the terrain is enough to grant the Invulnerable save, such as any unit obscured by Ruins
Other existing terrain rules remain.
The result would be a greater impact of terrain against shooting attacks as no unit benefitting from appropriate cover would ever be denied at the minimum an Invulnerable Save.
So if the rules for Ruins were the same as they currently are with the addition of "Infantry unit within and all units obsurced by Ruins gain a 5+ Invulnerable Save", the impact would be far reaching for many units, from vehicle and monster behind them to poor save units hiding in them.
Honestly, that was kind of the intention.S5 shooting isn't effected by T3 units taking cover, which is a benefit for using a S5 gun against T3 infantry. They can take cover and it is just as good at killing them. Meanwhile, regular S4 bolters are effected so it is now worth it to take cover beyond "I'll get a slightly less awful save" for guardsmen against bolters. It gives the players choices that impact the game without having to use complicated rules. "Why are you taking cover Pvt. Dingus? That's a heavy bolter it will just shred us like the sandbags do nothing"
I do miss 7th edition cover saves though and your invuln suggestion is effectively an 8th port of cover saves. My main issue with improving the armor save or providing an alternate invuln save is that it makes cover effectively pointless for units that already have invulns. It's kind of silly that a harlequin has 0 clue how to make use of cover beyond "they can't see me so they can't shoot me." Although a combination of the two could work nicely. "Are you in cover?" +1 T "Are you 50% obscured?" You may take a 5++ invuln instead of your regular save if you wish. Prepared positions can even stay unchanged allowing a +1 armor save, but is no longer "counts as in cover." Not sure I would do all three, but there is plenty of space without -1 to hit modifiers which are consistently problematic for balance. Remember why stacking negative modifiers is competitive. "Haha you literally can't hit it or at best you have to go fishing for 6s" isn't very fun.
I think that Cover failing to have any effect on a common basis is a sign of a defective system. There should be an impact or it we should not waste time on it. While giving an Invulnerable save to a model that already has one can be a bit problematic, it also has the side effect of making terrain less useful for models that are already hard to kill.
DominayTrix wrote: Honestly, that was kind of the intention.S5 shooting isn't effected by T3 units taking cover, which is a benefit for using a S5 gun against T3 infantry. They can take cover and it is just as good at killing them. Meanwhile, regular S4 bolters are effected so it is now worth it to take cover beyond "I'll get a slightly less awful save" for guardsmen against bolters. It gives the players choices that impact the game without having to use complicated rules. "Why are you taking cover Pvt. Dingus? That's a heavy bolter it will just shred us like the sandbags do nothing"
I do miss 7th edition cover saves though and your invuln suggestion is effectively an 8th port of cover saves. My main issue with improving the armor save or providing an alternate invuln save is that it makes cover effectively pointless for units that already have invulns. It's kind of silly that a harlequin has 0 clue how to make use of cover beyond "they can't see me so they can't shoot me." Although a combination of the two could work nicely. "Are you in cover?" +1 T "Are you 50% obscured?" You may take a 5++ invuln instead of your regular save if you wish. Prepared positions can even stay unchanged allowing a +1 armor save, but is no longer "counts as in cover." Not sure I would do all three, but there is plenty of space without -1 to hit modifiers which are consistently problematic for balance. Remember why stacking negative modifiers is competitive. "Haha you literally can't hit it or at best you have to go fishing for 6s" isn't very fun.
How about a "pick one" rule? If a unit with the benefit of cover is hit by an enemy unit, you get a choice of a 5++ save (go to ground), +1 to toughness (take cover) or +1 to armor against(brace for impact) against all shots fired by that unit. That would put some reactive strategy to getting shot into the game.
DominayTrix wrote: Honestly, that was kind of the intention.S5 shooting isn't effected by T3 units taking cover, which is a benefit for using a S5 gun against T3 infantry. They can take cover and it is just as good at killing them. Meanwhile, regular S4 bolters are effected so it is now worth it to take cover beyond "I'll get a slightly less awful save" for guardsmen against bolters. It gives the players choices that impact the game without having to use complicated rules. "Why are you taking cover Pvt. Dingus? That's a heavy bolter it will just shred us like the sandbags do nothing"
I do miss 7th edition cover saves though and your invuln suggestion is effectively an 8th port of cover saves. My main issue with improving the armor save or providing an alternate invuln save is that it makes cover effectively pointless for units that already have invulns. It's kind of silly that a harlequin has 0 clue how to make use of cover beyond "they can't see me so they can't shoot me." Although a combination of the two could work nicely. "Are you in cover?" +1 T "Are you 50% obscured?" You may take a 5++ invuln instead of your regular save if you wish. Prepared positions can even stay unchanged allowing a +1 armor save, but is no longer "counts as in cover." Not sure I would do all three, but there is plenty of space without -1 to hit modifiers which are consistently problematic for balance. Remember why stacking negative modifiers is competitive. "Haha you literally can't hit it or at best you have to go fishing for 6s" isn't very fun.
How about a "pick one" rule?
If a unit with the benefit of cover is hit by an enemy unit, you get a choice of a 5++ save (go to ground), +1 to toughness (take cover) or +1 to armor against(brace for impact) against all shots fired by that unit. That would put some reactive strategy to getting shot into the game.
Hmmm you could even take this one step further. if you go to ground then that unit might not be able to move next turn as they are picking themselves up. if they take cover they suffer a halved movement. If they brace for impact no penalties?
DominayTrix wrote: Honestly, that was kind of the intention.S5 shooting isn't effected by T3 units taking cover, which is a benefit for using a S5 gun against T3 infantry. They can take cover and it is just as good at killing them. Meanwhile, regular S4 bolters are effected so it is now worth it to take cover beyond "I'll get a slightly less awful save" for guardsmen against bolters. It gives the players choices that impact the game without having to use complicated rules. "Why are you taking cover Pvt. Dingus? That's a heavy bolter it will just shred us like the sandbags do nothing"
I do miss 7th edition cover saves though and your invuln suggestion is effectively an 8th port of cover saves. My main issue with improving the armor save or providing an alternate invuln save is that it makes cover effectively pointless for units that already have invulns. It's kind of silly that a harlequin has 0 clue how to make use of cover beyond "they can't see me so they can't shoot me." Although a combination of the two could work nicely. "Are you in cover?" +1 T "Are you 50% obscured?" You may take a 5++ invuln instead of your regular save if you wish. Prepared positions can even stay unchanged allowing a +1 armor save, but is no longer "counts as in cover." Not sure I would do all three, but there is plenty of space without -1 to hit modifiers which are consistently problematic for balance. Remember why stacking negative modifiers is competitive. "Haha you literally can't hit it or at best you have to go fishing for 6s" isn't very fun.
How about a "pick one" rule?
If a unit with the benefit of cover is hit by an enemy unit, you get a choice of a 5++ save (go to ground), +1 to toughness (take cover) or +1 to armor against(brace for impact) against all shots fired by that unit. That would put some reactive strategy to getting shot into the game.
Hmmm you could even take this one step further. if you go to ground then that unit might not be able to move next turn as they are picking themselves up. if they take cover they suffer a halved movement. If they brace for impact no penalties?
tbh I think almost all the time you'd see units taking Brace for Impact unless they literally had no save stat like daemons and harlequins, and even then it'd be better to not have +1T than to have half movement, as almost all those units that rely on invulns happen to be melee units.
Think about it: you need to be firing AP-3 at guardsmen to make +1Sv not identical to +1T, and AP-2 to make a 5++sv better than +1Sv. Anything with 4+ armor or better would basically never use the rule, and the kinds of units that suffer from the current terrain system the most, i.e. melee-oriented units that can't squat on a piece of cover all game and really REALLY wish cover worked with intervening terrain like it used to, suffer disproportionally more from the movement penalties you propose.
The game does not need more rules that disincentivize movement. We already have a wargame where firing at your absolute maximum range through two ruins, a forest and over a rock is identical to firing at something 2" away standing out in the open, we don't need taking that cover to halve or remove your movement as well.
SeanDavid1991 wrote: Hmmm you could even take this one step further. if you go to ground then that unit might not be able to move next turn as they are picking themselves up. if they take cover they suffer a halved movement. If they brace for impact no penalties?
While I think that your suggestion is very flavorful, any reduction in movement automatically tips the scales in favor of long-range shooting, which is the very thing that cover is supposed to keep in check.
Even without any drawbacks, I think a blanket defensive buff for all units to reduce the lethality of the game would be good thing.
I really do miss the mechanic of giving up movement for defensive buffs though.
SeanDavid1991 wrote: Hmmm you could even take this one step further. if you go to ground then that unit might not be able to move next turn as they are picking themselves up. if they take cover they suffer a halved movement. If they brace for impact no penalties?
While I think that your suggestion is very flavorful, any reduction in movement automatically tips the scales in favor of long-range shooting, which is the very thing that cover is supposed to keep in check.
Even without any drawbacks, I think a blanket defensive buff for all units to reduce the lethality of the game would be good thing.
I really do miss the mechanic of giving up movement for defensive buffs though.
Oh It's more you could have a different outcome depending on the type of cover benefit you get. My "suggestions" were just an example of the kind of stuff to do. But make it so it's a tactical choice, the type of cover you take has a different outcome.
auticus wrote: Cover should grant defensive buffs, reduce line of sight so you can't be shot in some cases, and impede your movement.
agreed. I think it does one of those things exceedingly poorly right now, and two of them not very well. and the best way to fix that would be to move to an abstracted rather than a TLOS system allowing units to break line of sight more easily.
A few ideas that might make the situation better without dropping TLOS:
1) ranged attacks can only ever kill models in a unit that are within line of sight of the firer. After all models in a unit that can be seen are killed, remaining wounds are lost.
2) line of sight that crosses 2 or more pieces of intervening terrain (ignoring pieces that the firing unit is currently claiming cover from) grants automatic cover to the target.
3) Movement in the movement phase over area terrain types (Craters, Ruins, and Forests) is halved.
4) All weapons, banners, wings, and sculpted terrain on bases is illegal to draw line of sight from or to.
I don't see any any advantage of TLOS over just checking LOS from base to base, sizes or other abstract mechanisms. Close combat is already so abstract, I really see no reason why I'm having these "the tip of my staff can see your boot" discussions.
Draw the shortest possible line from firing unit to the target unit, if something is in on that line, apply that something's cover rules. Done.
The go to ground discussion gives me another idea to help some melee units. Movement bonuses in terrain? Something along the lines of "a unit on a road may add 1 to its move characteristic, advance rolls and charge rolls." A unit that moves and advances effectively gets 2 inches. The benefits are obvious, but it also has a drawback that you are more likely to be successfully charged on a road. So it would like something like this: Tactical marines march up the road moving 7", they are still on the road so they roll to advance and get 4 + 1 for still being on the road. They attempt to charge a unit of fire warriors along the road that is 8.1 inches away and roll a 7+1 so they finish their charge within 1 inch.
DominayTrix wrote: The go to ground discussion gives me another idea to help some melee units. Movement bonuses in terrain? Something along the lines of "a unit on a road may add 1 to its move characteristic, advance rolls and charge rolls." A unit that moves and advances effectively gets 2 inches. The benefits are obvious, but it also has a drawback that you are more likely to be successfully charged on a road. So it would like something like this: Tactical marines march up the road moving 7", they are still on the road so they roll to advance and get 4 + 1 for still being on the road. They attempt to charge a unit of fire warriors along the road that is 8.1 inches away and roll a 7+1 so they finish their charge within 1 inch.
My experience with "road" rules in older editions is that the vast majority of boards don't have roads or have roads that aren't leading in the direction you want to be going.
