There are the four types we're used to - Hill, Obstacles, Area Terrain and Buildings.
There is Light, Heavy, and Dense cover. Dense is not defined in the stream or the article (I presume -1 to hit a unit in or behind it). Light gives +1 armor versus shooting. This certainly helps marines more than hordes.
Heavy gives +1 armor versus melee, but not against chargers. So charging Orks get a 5+ t-shirt and marines get their 3+. A piece of terrain can be both light and heavy.
GW have adopted a version of the ITC LOS though - terrain that is at least 5" (from the highest point) cannot be seen through, but you CAN see into it so a unit occupying the building is visible. Aircraft and W18+ models do not benefit.
There are also lots of undefined keywords for terrain - scaleable, defensible, breachable, exposed
Well, with cover remaining the current +1 to saves, I'm inclined to say that light infantry hordes are probably dead. Small units will have an easier time hiding, but big units of Boyz or Cultists are going to get nuked.
The only relevant change is that it's applied on a model basis (thank god), but it's for practical implications the same as House Ruled 8TH Cover system
No more true LoS, that's an improvement that is going to speed games up significantly. No more magic boxes either, you can shoot into terrain but not through it.
My only concern is that this isn't the shot in the arm that light infantry needed, and they are in a precarious potion with cost increases, and blast weapons.
Overall I like the sound of what they've done with terrain (especially now that we have some more detail from the WarCom article).
It doesn't solve the issues with TLOS, but I feel much better about terrain having a codified set of Universal Special Rules (y'know, like everything should have) rather than worthless "bespoke" rules and special cases/exceptions.
Means you can take anything (official GW kit or scratch built) and apply a simple set of universal rules to them.
This gives you a great deal of flexibility for changing the way games are played even over the same terrain. For example, you're playing a campaign and want to represent a once-robust city slowly being turned to ash as the fighting wears off, defensible heavy/light dense terrain can slowly just turn to light, or even unstable over time (or both!) and it means that you can apply them easily to new terrain pieces (and introduce new ones that can be used on existing pieces of terrain).
Imagine expanding this out to the way CityFight used to have tokens for different types of building (ammo dump, medical supplies, comm tower, etc.) and melding those into this system.
catbarf wrote: Well, with cover remaining the current +1 to saves, I'm inclined to say that light infantry hordes are probably dead. Small units will have an easier time hiding, but big units of Boyz or Cultists are going to get nuked.
Still a lot to determine before that coffin is nailed shut.
I get the idea but Magnus and Morty being the cut off point for Obscured is a bit of a joke. Hope all you choas players have your bash bro's ready for 9th.
Maybe someone in this thread can help me understand. I am having trouble understanding what this even means:
Another important point to note is that, even though Obscuring terrain blocks line of sight from one side to the other, a unit that’s INSIDE the terrain can still be freely targeted (though they will receive the benefit of cover if the terrain also has the Light Cover trait) and can give fire in return. However, the days of drawing line of sight through a gap in the wall and three consecutive windows to a unit on the opposite side of a huge building are over!
This seems to be saying that if you're in the middle of the ruined cathedral, the enemy can fire at you, but if you're on the far side of the ruined cathedral, it can't? In other words, people can see through one set of walls, but not two?
If so, this is a dramatic change from the ITC rules, that, far from increasing LOS blocking, dramatically reduces LOS blocking.
How does this interact with L-shaped terrain? If you are right behind the wall, are you now visible? Or are you invisible because there's only one set of walls and therefore you're not in the terrain any more, but behind it? How do we determine the footprint of three-walled terrain - is it square, or is it triangular, or is it just the shape of the three walls and standing inside the three walls isn't actually standing inside the three walls?
Another really unclearly worded rule for people to fight over. "No, you're not behind the obscuring terrain L, you're inside it! No, I'm behind it! No, to be behind it, you'd have had to have been another 1mm back!" Yay.
Also, why oh why did they have to set it so you can still shoot at the Triumph even on the far side of a cathedral, even though it's just a bunch of infantry models carrying banners?
Finally, it seems bizarre that all these rules are just based on the principle of "agree with your opponent" with no framework for resolving any disagreements. Ultimately, any rule is "agree with your opponent," but we don't say "agree with your opponent on how many CP you start with," or "agree with your opponent on who goes first," or "agree with your opponent on what your model's armor save is." Why not provide some base rule to use when you and your opponent have trouble agreeing because he has a shooty army and wants an empty table and you don't think that's reasonable?
Insectum7 wrote: Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).
Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!
Insectum7 wrote: Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).
Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!
GW wrote:Another important point to note is that, even though Obscuring terrain blocks line of sight from one side to the other, a unit that’s INSIDE the terrain can still be freely targeted (though they will receive the benefit of cover if the terrain also has the Light Cover trait) and can give fire in return. However, the days of drawing line of sight through a gap in the wall and three consecutive windows to a unit on the opposite side of a huge building are over!
Do you see any nuance about checking from a models eye view if you can see the opponent? They also specify the procedure for seeing if something is out of LoS:
GW wrote:This means that one model is not visible to another if you can not draw a straight line, 1mm in thickness, between them without it passing over any part of this terrain feature.
Again no model eye view, break out your laser from x-wing and done. Given the parameters that are provided, can you think of a time where you would use a models eye view?
Insectum7 wrote: Obscuration does what is meant by no TLOS. You might be able to see the model through the terrain, but you dont count as drawing LOS to it.
If you can still target units by seeing gun barrels, tops of banner poles, antennae, the tips of wings and so on, then the Obscure rule won't mean much.
catbarf wrote: Well, with cover remaining the current +1 to saves, I'm inclined to say that light infantry hordes are probably dead. Small units will have an easier time hiding, but big units of Boyz or Cultists are going to get nuked.
Still a lot to determine before that coffin is nailed shut.
I don't want to be all doom-and-gloom, but unless there's some new mechanic really out of left field I don't see how infantry will survive. For big units, it's basically the same as 8th, except now with Blast.
There is, I suppose, the slight change that it looks like a player will be allowed to take hits on individual models that are in cover, so the 'wholly within' requirement at least appears to be gone.
catbarf wrote: Well, with cover remaining the current +1 to saves, I'm inclined to say that light infantry hordes are probably dead. Small units will have an easier time hiding, but big units of Boyz or Cultists are going to get nuked.
Still a lot to determine before that coffin is nailed shut.
I don't want to be all doom-and-gloom, but unless there's some new mechanic really out of left field I don't see how infantry will survive. For big units, it's basically the same as 8th, except now with Blast.
There is, I suppose, the slight change that it looks like a player will be allowed to take hits on individual models that are in cover, so the 'wholly within' requirement at least appears to be gone.
Cost of blast weapons, whether or not only visible models can be removed, reserves, unit size bonuses or unit size cost decreases (like AOS), etc.
Insectum7 wrote: Obscuration does what is meant by no TLOS. You might be able to see the model through the terrain, but you dont count as drawing LOS to it.
If you can still target units by seeing gun barrels, tops of banner poles, antennae, the tips of wings and so on, then the Obscure rule won't mean much.
I don't see why you are saying that. It doesn't matter if you can see the model by eye. If you are have to draw your LOS over any part of the Obscuring terrain to do it, it's hidden from view. You could have a banner pole that's 20" high and it wouldn't matter.
Insectum7 wrote: Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).
Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!
It's fine. It's not only fine, IT'S GREAT!
Look at that ruin in the picture, on the lower left, right above the space marine tank.
What are the dimensions of that ruin? Is it rectangular? There's no back wall. Does this mean that if your model is 1mm behind the imaginary non-existent line of where the back wall would have been if it was there but isn't, you block LOS completely, but if it takes 1mm step inside the imaginary wall that isn't there, it can be shot at from the other side? In other words: we have a wall that blocks line of sight if you're more than X inches back from it, but not if you'r within X inches of it?
Grimgold wrote: Again no model eye view, break out your laser from x-wing and done. Given the parameters that are provided, can you think of a time where you would use a models eye view?
You're drawing a lot of conclusions from very little text.
Take a look at this image:
This assumes the building has the Obscured rule. See that red circle? That's the tiniest bit of a spike on a wing from a Hive Tyrant. If we pretend that the building in front of it is a complete solid slab with no holes (ie. kinda like the new Obscured rule) the HT is still a valid target because of that tiny wing spike tip.
If the same applies to 9th, then all the "Obscured" rules in the world won't help it.
Insectum7 wrote: Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).
Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!
Think of it like this. If a squad is occupying a house, it makes sense that they can shoot out of the house at the enemy, yes? If the enemy is being engaged by a unit from inside a house, it makes perfect sense that the enemy can shoot back at them. If a squad is behind a house, nobody can see anything, so nobody engages. That's how this terrain works.
The older rule (4th Edition) held that models were obscured in a forest if they were some distance into the forest from the attacker, (2" or 6" or something, I forget), which makes more sense logically, but is more of a pain in the butt on the tabletop, since it can involve careful measuring, especially when squads start flanking each other. The Obscuring rule is written as it is to avoid argument and keep things snappy.
Insectum7 wrote: Obscuration does what is meant by no TLOS. You might be able to see the model through the terrain, but you dont count as drawing LOS to it.
If you can still target units by seeing gun barrels, tops of banner poles, antennae, the tips of wings and so on, then the Obscure rule won't mean much.
I don't see why you are saying that. It doesn't matter if you can see the model by eye. If you are have to draw your LOS over any part of the Obscuring terrain to do it, it's hidden from view. You could have a banner pole that's 20" high and it wouldn't matter.
Yeah. But if you can draw a LOS to some spear hanging off the side, you could shoot at it just fine. It's only if the spear is directly above that it would be blocked.
I have a problem with Heavy cover.
Heavy cover to me is 100% counter intuitive to how that should work. A unit that is bunker down and preparing for the charge gets not benefits, but the unit Parkouring into cover gets you double the benefits.
For my my quins and DE with invuls or low to no saves vs armies like SoB/BA/WS/SW you are better off out of Heavy cover if they are going to melee you. I can easily sit behind cover and no in it to now give them double benefits.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS I like everything i see other than Heavy cover so far.
Funny enough we do have a barricade with a confederate banner sticking out of it, which would obscure the view to units behind it, because it is way above 5" tall at the banner point.
I hope TLOS is gone, or at least gone in some way.
The cover to everyone in melee after turn 1 is going to make for some hilarious marine on marine fights without high AP melee weapons.
Also rules aside, that GW table is horrible or what?
Insectum7 wrote: Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).
Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!
It's fine. It's not only fine, IT'S GREAT!
Look at that ruin in the picture, on the lower left, right above the space marine tank.
What are the dimensions of that ruin? Is it rectangular? There's no back wall. Does this mean that if your model is 1mm behind the imaginary non-existent line of where the back wall would have been if it was there but isn't, you block LOS completely, but if it takes 1mm step inside the imaginary wall that isn't there, it can be shot at from the other side? In other words: we have a wall that blocks line of sight if you're more than X inches back from it, but not if you'r within X inches of it?
Talk to your opponent and agree on the definitions ahead of time. In 4th edition I had a bunch of trees on circular bases. We would place a group of trees and then define the terrain as being as if the outermost edge of the bases were wrapped in a taught string, drawing straight lines from base to base. It was really easy.
Insectum7 wrote: Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).
Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!
Think of it like this. If a squad is occupying a house, it makes sense that they can shoot out of the house at the enemy, yes? If the enemy is being engaged by a unit from inside a house, it makes perfect sense that the enemy can shoot back at them. If a squad is behind a house, nobody can see anything, so nobody engages. That's how this terrain works.
The older rule (4th Edition) held that models were obscured in a forest if they were some distance into the forest from the attacker, (2" or 6" or something, I forget), which makes more sense logically, but is more of a pain in the butt on the tabletop, since it can involve careful measuring, especially when squads start flanking each other. The Obscuring rule is written as it is to avoid argument and keep things snappy.
I get what the rule says. It's just a massive, massive change from the standard in current 40k tournaments, and a massive DECREASE in the los-blocking of terrain.
It means the whole thing about not having to board up your ruins isn't actually true. If you want a LOS-blocking piece of terrain in the middle of the table, it has to actually be LOS-blocking, whether it has "obscure" or not, because otherwise you have to actually be on the far side of it to block LOS, which is a dramatic change from the current tournament rule that even one wall blocks LOS.
I suspect it will mean that ruins will simply not be used in tournaments at all, and will be totally replaced with walls, in order to avoid arguments about the precise dimensions of when you are "in" a ruin vs "on the far side of" a ruin.
Insectum7 wrote: Obscuration does what is meant by no TLOS. You might be able to see the model through the terrain, but you dont count as drawing LOS to it.
If you can still target units by seeing gun barrels, tops of banner poles, antennae, the tips of wings and so on, then the Obscure rule won't mean much.
I don't see why you are saying that. It doesn't matter if you can see the model by eye. If you are have to draw your LOS over any part of the Obscuring terrain to do it, it's hidden from view. You could have a banner pole that's 20" high and it wouldn't matter.
Yeah. But if you can draw a LOS to some spear hanging off the side, you could shoot at it just fine. It's only if the spear is directly above that it would be blocked.
They might rule that out, they might not, either way it's a vast fething improvement.
Have to find out what all those groovy little keywords mean- Defensible might be the one that allows Infantry to embark in the terrain as if it was a vehicle.
It will be complicated though, since every piece of terrain will be assigned keywords, you almost need a map to track what's what.
This building is heavy + light + obscuring + defensible; that building is light + obscuring + scalable, etc.
Once we see the rules in full, there might be common templates of keywords that are ready to use with standard scenery pieces that make the tracking piece easier.
I like it though. Really liked H.B.M.C's point about how terrain characteristics can change over the course of a campaign or even a single battle. Good eye for campaign perks!
catbarf wrote: Well, with cover remaining the current +1 to saves, I'm inclined to say that light infantry hordes are probably dead. Small units will have an easier time hiding, but big units of Boyz or Cultists are going to get nuked.
Still a lot to determine before that coffin is nailed shut.
I don't want to be all doom-and-gloom, but unless there's some new mechanic really out of left field I don't see how infantry will survive. For big units, it's basically the same as 8th, except now with Blast.
There is, I suppose, the slight change that it looks like a player will be allowed to take hits on individual models that are in cover, so the 'wholly within' requirement at least appears to be gone.
Cost of blast weapons, whether or not only visible models can be removed, reserves, unit size bonuses or unit size cost decreases (like AOS), etc.
I had a thought on the plight of light infantry, in a world with bolter discipline, hurricane bolters, and CC units rocking 40+ attacks are a few extra shots from blast weapons really going to matter? Against a unit of 10 the new blast rules work out to be an extra shot per attack on average, when you look at how bad light infantry have it now, perhaps we've been a little hyperbolic about a world with the blast rule.
Insectum7 wrote: Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).
Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!
Think of it like this. If a squad is occupying a house, it makes sense that they can shoot out of the house at the enemy, yes? If the enemy is being engaged by a unit from inside a house, it makes perfect sense that the enemy can shoot back at them. If a squad is behind a house, nobody can see anything, so nobody engages. That's how this terrain works.
The older rule (4th Edition) held that models were obscured in a forest if they were some distance into the forest from the attacker, (2" or 6" or something, I forget), which makes more sense logically, but is more of a pain in the butt on the tabletop, since it can involve careful measuring, especially when squads start flanking each other. The Obscuring rule is written as it is to avoid argument and keep things snappy.
I get what the rule says. It's just a massive, massive change from the standard in current 40k tournaments, and a massive DECREASE in the los-blocking of terrain.
It means the whole thing about not having to board up your ruins isn't actually true. If you want a LOS-blocking piece of terrain in the middle of the table, it has to actually be LOS-blocking, whether it has "obscure" or not, because otherwise you have to actually be on the far side of it to block LOS, which is a dramatic change from the current tournament rule that even one wall blocks LOS.
I suspect it will mean that ruins will simply not be used in tournaments at all, and will be totally replaced with walls, in order to avoid arguments about the precise dimensions of when you are "in" a ruin vs "on the far side of" a ruin.
Insectum7 wrote: They might rule that out, they might not, either way it's a vast fething improvement.
Not if you can still target antennae, banner tops, etc. That's the chief problem with LOS in 40K. Adding obscured rules doesn't make that problem go away any more than that useless MW melee stratagem solves the issues with Falling Back from combat.
Insectum7 wrote: Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).
Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!
Think of it like this. If a squad is occupying a house, it makes sense that they can shoot out of the house at the enemy, yes? If the enemy is being engaged by a unit from inside a house, it makes perfect sense that the enemy can shoot back at them. If a squad is behind a house, nobody can see anything, so nobody engages. That's how this terrain works.
The older rule (4th Edition) held that models were obscured in a forest if they were some distance into the forest from the attacker, (2" or 6" or something, I forget), which makes more sense logically, but is more of a pain in the butt on the tabletop, since it can involve careful measuring, especially when squads start flanking each other. The Obscuring rule is written as it is to avoid argument and keep things snappy.
Remember that terrain can have multiple traits as well. Obscuring may not help you when you're inside a forest, but Soft Cover will.
Insectum7 wrote: Obscuration does what is meant by no TLOS. You might be able to see the model through the terrain, but you dont count as drawing LOS to it.
If you can still target units by seeing gun barrels, tops of banner poles, antennae, the tips of wings and so on, then the Obscure rule won't mean much.
I don't see why you are saying that. It doesn't matter if you can see the model by eye. If you are have to draw your LOS over any part of the Obscuring terrain to do it, it's hidden from view. You could have a banner pole that's 20" high and it wouldn't matter.
Yeah. But if you can draw a LOS to some spear hanging off the side, you could shoot at it just fine. It's only if the spear is directly above that it would be blocked.
Doesn't seem to work that way. In fact you could take a dread put it behind a wall, only with a dreadnought size hole in the middle, and if the wall is high enough you wouldn't be able to draw LoS to the dread as long as it doesn't touch the area terrain. Forests are like that too. Stand behind them and you are invisible, step 0,1" in to the forest and you are practicaly in the open.
Right now you have two big L-shaped ruins in the middle of a standard tournament board. These both totally block LOS - whether you're inside them or on the far side of them.
New GW rules: being inside doesn't block LOS any more. If you want to block LOS, you have to be on the far side of the terrain piece instead.
This is a massive change, unless we simply decide that all ruins have no dimensions and that being 1mm on the far side of the wall means you're on the far side of the terrain piece, not inside it.
Yeah I just realized that the wording of Heavy Cover is totally counterintuitive.
It's not saying 'you get +1 to your save by being in cover, unless you charged, then you don't benefit'.
It's saying 'you get +1 to your save by being in cover, unless you got charged, then you don't benefit'.
A horde of Orks swarming into a bunker will get the cover bonus for being in the bunker, while whatever they charged won't get the bonus in the first round of combat. In any subsequent rounds, both sides get cover.
catbarf wrote: Well, with cover remaining the current +1 to saves, I'm inclined to say that light infantry hordes are probably dead. Small units will have an easier time hiding, but big units of Boyz or Cultists are going to get nuked.
Still a lot to determine before that coffin is nailed shut.
I don't want to be all doom-and-gloom, but unless there's some new mechanic really out of left field I don't see how infantry will survive. For big units, it's basically the same as 8th, except now with Blast.
There is, I suppose, the slight change that it looks like a player will be allowed to take hits on individual models that are in cover, so the 'wholly within' requirement at least appears to be gone.
There isn't. 9th is killing light infantry just as gw planned.
Good news is obscured is even better than original itc rule.
Bad news terrain still favours elites more than hordes. No surprlse.
I had a thought on the plight of light infantry, in a world with bolter discipline, hurricane bolters, and CC units rocking 40+ attacks are a few extra shots from blast weapons really going to matter? Against a unit of 10 the new blast rules work out to be an extra shot per attack on average, when you look at how bad light infantry have it now, perhaps we've been a little hyperbolic about a world with the blast rule.
Yes, I would agree. A 2D6 weapon goes from an average of 7 to about 8. There's just a lot less swing. What really gets people is depending on how they interpret the rule to apply to a 4D3 weapon or its likeness.
Yeah. But if you can draw a LOS to some spear hanging off the side, you could shoot at it just fine. It's only if the spear is directly above that it would be blocked.
Doesn't seem to work that way.
No, that is what it says. Read it carefully: if you can draw a straight line from your model to any part of their model without hitting the building, you can shoot at it. So if there's a spear or a gun or something hanging off the side, you can fire at them even if 99% of their model is obscured by the sillhouette. It's only if the spear/rifle etc is pushing up over the top that obscuring blocks it.
Right now you have two big L-shaped ruins in the middle of a standard tournament board. These both totally block LOS - whether you're inside them or on the far side of them.
New GW rules: being inside doesn't block LOS any more. If you want to block LOS, you have to be on the far side of the terrain piece instead.
This is a massive change, unless we simply decide that all ruins have no dimensions and that being 1mm on the far side of the wall means you're on the far side of the terrain piece, not inside it.
An L-shaped ruins with no base can be a 'Obscuring, Light Cover, Obstacle' rather than 'Area Terrain'.
Right now you have two big L-shaped ruins in the middle of a standard tournament board. These both totally block LOS - whether you're inside them or on the far side of them.
New GW rules: being inside doesn't block LOS any more. If you want to block LOS, you have to be on the far side of the terrain piece instead.
This is a massive change, unless we simply decide that all ruins have no dimensions and that being 1mm on the far side of the wall means you're on the far side of the terrain piece, not inside it.
It matters because more than Ruins can completely block LOS. Ruins blocking LOS isn't even an official rule, but an ITC add-on.
It is a massive change, but it's a good one. More features being able to block LOS means it's easier to have terrain in your collection that will block LOS, as opposed to just ruins. There's more opportunities to channel fire, and therefore maneuvering becomes more important.
Good news is obscured is even better than original itc rule.
No, it blocks dramatically less, because now you need to be on the far side of a terrain piece to block LOS, not just on the far side of one wall.
If you've got a ruin, it's now open season on you if you're inside the ruin - you have to step backwards to be "on the far side of the ruin," whatever that means.
This is a big nerf to melee, because it means you're going to have to be a lot further behind a terrain piece to get LOS blocking, meaning your threat range coming out from that piece of terrain behind LOS protection is dramatically reduced.
Right now you have two big L-shaped ruins in the middle of a standard tournament board. These both totally block LOS - whether you're inside them or on the far side of them.
New GW rules: being inside doesn't block LOS any more. If you want to block LOS, you have to be on the far side of the terrain piece instead.
This is a massive change, unless we simply decide that all ruins have no dimensions and that being 1mm on the far side of the wall means you're on the far side of the terrain piece, not inside it.
It matters because more than Ruins can completely block LOS. Ruins blocking LOS isn't even an official rule, but an ITC add-on.
It is a massive change, but it's a good one. More features being able to block LOS means it's easier to have terrain in your collection that will block LOS, as opposed to just ruins. There's more opportunities to channel fire, and therefore maneuvering becomes more important.
But again: compared to the ITC rule, this emphatically does not result in more LOS blocking. ITC rule was that the first floor of ruins blocked LOS, period. Not just for stuff on the far side of the ruin, but for stuff inside the ruin too.
This is far less restrictive than that. It used to be in ITC you could stand right behind a wall of a ruin and be protected. Now you'll have to be 4 or 5 inches further back to get LOS protection if it's a ruin as opposed to just a wall, dramatically changing how much of the board you can threaten.
catbarf wrote: Yeah I just realized that the wording of Heavy Cover is totally counterintuitive.
It's not saying 'you get +1 to your save by being in cover, unless you charged, then you don't benefit'.
It's saying 'you get +1 to your save by being in cover, unless you got charged, then you don't benefit'.
A horde of Orks swarming into a bunker will get the cover bonus for being in the bunker, while whatever they charged won't get the bonus in the first round of combat. In any subsequent rounds, both sides get cover.
That's just bizarre.
I honestly don't see how you'r reading it that way. It says you get the save bonus unless you charged. Not the OPs post, which is worded weird, but the actual bit on WarCom.
Grimgold wrote: Again no model eye view, break out your laser from x-wing and done. Given the parameters that are provided, can you think of a time where you would use a models eye view?
You're drawing a lot of conclusions from very little text.
Take a look at this image:
Spoiler:
This assumes the building has the Obscured rule. See that red circle? That's the tiniest bit of a spike on a wing from a Hive Tyrant. If we pretend that the building in front of it is a complete solid slab with no holes (ie. kinda like the new Obscured rule) the HT is still a valid target because of that tiny wing spike tip.
If the same applies to 9th, then all the "Obscured" rules in the world won't help it.
No need to check models eye view, just grab a laser pointer from a top down view, if you can draw a straight line between the two 1 MM thick (which is where I think this example will fail, but I'll go with the spirit of the example), you can shoot it. The only time you'd have to check LoS from a models eye view is for terrain less than 5" tall, like hills, and I assume TOs will do their round best to avoid using terrain like that because judges hate LoS arguments.
Right now you have two big L-shaped ruins in the middle of a standard tournament board. These both totally block LOS - whether you're inside them or on the far side of them.
New GW rules: being inside doesn't block LOS any more. If you want to block LOS, you have to be on the far side of the terrain piece instead.
This is a massive change, unless we simply decide that all ruins have no dimensions and that being 1mm on the far side of the wall means you're on the far side of the terrain piece, not inside it.
It matters because more than Ruins can completely block LOS. Ruins blocking LOS isn't even an official rule, but an ITC add-on.
It is a massive change, but it's a good one. More features being able to block LOS means it's easier to have terrain in your collection that will block LOS, as opposed to just ruins. There's more opportunities to channel fire, and therefore maneuvering becomes more important.
But again: compared to the ITC rule, this emphatically does not result in more LOS blocking. ITC rule was that the first floor of ruins blocked LOS, period. Not just for stuff on the far side of the ruin, but for stuff inside the ruin too.
This is far less restrictive than that. It used to be in ITC you could stand right behind a wall of a ruin and be protected. Now you'll have to be 4 or 5 inches further back to get LOS protection if it's a ruin as opposed to just a wall, dramatically changing how much of the board you can threaten.
ONLY RUINS did the ITC style blocking. So unless your collection was all ruins, you often had just a couple LOS blockers, and even those were just the first floor.
So obscurred made my thirsters viable in terms of table deployment, and possebilitys to hide for incoming fire, THIS IS SO AWSOME. But besides that, i feel the the guys who said "wAiT fOR teH teRRain rUleZ" are eating their words now... yeah....wait for what? +1 armor AND nerf to melee if in heavy cover? Hah..hahahaha
tulun wrote: Cover still seems to favour elite armies, and it appears to be even worse than 8th.
+1 save is a bad mechanic. There's too much AP for it to be relevant to light infantry, but Power armour or better becomes SO much stronger.
No need to check models eye view, just grab a laser pointer from a top down view, if you can draw a straight line between the two 1 MM thick (which is where I think this example will fail, but I'll go with the spirit of the example), you can shoot it. The only time you'd have to check LoS from a models eye view is for terrain less than 5" tall, like hills, and I assume TOs will do their round best to avoid using terrain like that because judges hate LoS arguments.
Yeah, this is a perfect explanation: obscuring means it isn't model's eye view, it's top down view. If you can use a ruler to get to some point on the model without touching the terrain - even an irrelevant overhanging spear or rifle or whatever - it's open season. If you gotta touch the terrain with the ruler, LOS is blocked.*
*But only if the model you'e drawing the line to is "on the far side of" the terrain, not "inside it."
Insectum7 wrote: ONLY RUINS did the ITC style blocking. So unless your collection was all ruins, you often had just a couple LOS blockers, and even those were just the first floor.
But basically everything counted as a ruin in ITC. Those L-shaped walls? Ruins. Buildings, as long as not totally enclosed? Ruins. Etc etc. ITC really didn't have any terrain that wasn't a ruin for rules purposes, except magic boxes, which were like ruins on steroids.
Ok, let's put it this way: this makes it a lot easier to shield your tanks and big models (which can't enter ruins anyway) from being shot at. It makes it much harder for melee infantry to hang out in a central ruin and threaten the board without being shot off it. And it makes it much easier for shooty infantry to draw LOS to a wide range of targets while getting the cover bonus.
This is another big buff to tanks and shooty infantry and another big nerf to melee infantry compared to how ITC used to work.
Karol wrote: I hope that flying stuff is excluded from taking cover. Even if it would be funny to see a 5" wall would break LoS to an airplane.
It's literally in the rule. Aircraft do not benefit.
thanks. I can't see any of the pictures on dakka, they don't load for me
Yea - you're right. 2+ marines in heavy cover when they get charged
from what people seem to be saying is that if you get charged you don't get the bonus save for heavy cover on the turn you got charged, only on the next turn, but then both units get it.
I honestly don't see how you'r reading it that way. It says you get the save bonus unless you charged.
Yea - you're right. 2+ marines in heavy cover when they get charged. So, its intuitive and brutal for Orks currently.
Who knows, maybe "Assault Grenades" are back. We can't say how it shakes out yet.
No, that's not what it says:
Orks charge space marines that are in cover:
Orks get +1 to their saving throws this combat round, space marines do not.
Next combat round, no falling back: everyone gets +1 to their saving throws.
When an attack made with a melee weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefit of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack unless the model making the attack made a charge move this turn (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).
It doesn't say "unless the model receiving the attack made a charge move this turn."
It gives chargers an advantage over people in cover for the first turn of combat.
Insectum7 wrote: ONLY RUINS did the ITC style blocking. So unless your collection was all ruins, you often had just a couple LOS blockers, and even those were just the first floor.
But basically everything counted as a ruin in ITC. Those L-shaped walls? Ruins. Buildings, as long as not totally enclosed? Ruins. Etc etc. ITC really didn't have any terrain that wasn't a ruin for rules purposes, except magic boxes, which were like ruins on steroids.
Ok, let's put it this way: this makes it a lot easier to shield your tanks and big models (which can't enter ruins anyway) from being shot at. It makes it much harder for melee infantry to hang out in a central ruin and threaten the board without being shot off it. And it makes it much easier for shooty infantry to draw LOS to a wide range of targets while getting the cover bonus.
This is another big buff to tanks and shooty infantry and another big nerf to melee infantry compared to how ITC used to work.
You really want invulnerable melee infantry sitting in the middle of the table? That's seems niche, weird and gamey. I know there's a really threatening unit in the building I can see with all my army but I can't shoot at it/them? That's goofy, man. I ought to be able to take my siege weaponry and start leveling that building on top of them.
We don't know all the rules yet. Maybe assaulting out of moving transports is a thing again.
When an attack made with a melee weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefit of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack unless the model making the attack made a charge move this turn (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).
It doesn't say "unless the model receiving the attack made a charge move this turn."
It gives chargers an advantage over people in cover for the first turn of combat.
Do you even english? It's right there, man! Bonus to save unless you charged.
When an attack made with a melee weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefit of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack unless the model making the attack made a charge move this turn (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).
It doesn't say "unless the model receiving the attack made a charge move this turn."
It gives chargers an advantage over people in cover for the first turn of combat.
Do you even english? It's right there, man! Bonus to save unless you charged.
Now I am not good at english, but to me this part "When an attack made with a melee weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefit of cover from this terrain feature" is a very bad writen, when a unit takes a melee wound. And then is followed by add +1 to the save. Under the limitation that saving throw can't be buffed if the wound happens from an attack done by a this turn charging model.
I assume it is writen like that, because on turn 2 onwards both units get the save.
How is this even a thing?!
why do you think the unit in cover should get a save buff. maybe this is the melee buff. that on the turn they charge they have better save then the units they are attacking. Although I wonder if this means a unit with heroic intervantion is going to be able to remove the +1 to save from a charging unit.
When an attack made with a melee weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefit of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack unless the model making the attack made a charge move this turn (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).
It doesn't say "unless the model receiving the attack made a charge move this turn."
It gives chargers an advantage over people in cover for the first turn of combat.
Do you even english? It's right there, man! Bonus to save unless you charged.
Brutallica wrote: So obscurred made my thirsters viable in terms of table deployment, and possebilitys to hide for incoming fire, THIS IS SO AWSOME. But besides that, i feel the the guys who said "wAiT fOR teH teRRain rUleZ" are eating their words now... yeah....wait for what? +1 armor AND nerf to melee if in heavy cover? Hah..hahahaha
tulun wrote: Cover still seems to favour elite armies, and it appears to be even worse than 8th.
+1 save is a bad mechanic. There's too much AP for it to be relevant to light infantry, but Power armour or better becomes SO much stronger.
Absolutely agreed
I'm an Ork player, and I am perfectly happy fielding a more elite army. And enough obscuring terrain might protect my boys hiding behind it.
But as a general rule, it seems odd to me that elite armies wanna hug cover and light infantry will largely not wanna sit inside it, because it makes no real difference in survivability. This seems to be a bad rule.
I guess we'll see what these other keywords do, but as it stands, elite infantry / armies seem to be what you want this edition.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh jesus now I'm reading it the other way. WTF is going on? This is like those reversible images or soemthing.
Lol, nice Daedalus.
Yea it is super easy to get turned around, because we're pretty wired to think it should work a certain way. It makes some sense that a charging unit has enough momentum to get into that heavy terrain and cancel the bonus. Then in a protracted combat both the units have settled into the terrain.
Insectum7 wrote: ONLY RUINS did the ITC style blocking. So unless your collection was all ruins, you often had just a couple LOS blockers, and even those were just the first floor.
But basically everything counted as a ruin in ITC. Those L-shaped walls? Ruins. Buildings, as long as not totally enclosed? Ruins. Etc etc. ITC really didn't have any terrain that wasn't a ruin for rules purposes, except magic boxes, which were like ruins on steroids.
Ok, let's put it this way: this makes it a lot easier to shield your tanks and big models (which can't enter ruins anyway) from being shot at. It makes it much harder for melee infantry to hang out in a central ruin and threaten the board without being shot off it. And it makes it much easier for shooty infantry to draw LOS to a wide range of targets while getting the cover bonus.
This is another big buff to tanks and shooty infantry and another big nerf to melee infantry compared to how ITC used to work.
You really want invulnerable melee infantry sitting in the middle of the table? That's seems niche, weird and gamey. I know there's a really threatening unit in the building I can see with all my army but I can't shoot at it/them? That's goofy, man. I ought to be able to take my siege weaponry and start leveling that building on top of them.
We don't know all the rules yet. Maybe assaulting out of moving transports is a thing again.
But it's not goofy that if they're 1mm on the far side of the ruin instead - even if there's no back wall, so literally they just stepped back 1mm - now you can't see them?
What you are calling goofy is how the ITC rule worked. Whether you think they're goofy or not, this represents a dramatic reduction of LOS-blocking for infantry models compared to the ITC rule. Compared to the ITC rule, it's a big buff for bigger models and shooting infantry, and a big nerf for melee infantry.
Insectum7 wrote: ONLY RUINS did the ITC style blocking. So unless your collection was all ruins, you often had just a couple LOS blockers, and even those were just the first floor.
But basically everything counted as a ruin in ITC. Those L-shaped walls? Ruins. Buildings, as long as not totally enclosed? Ruins. Etc etc. ITC really didn't have any terrain that wasn't a ruin for rules purposes, except magic boxes, which were like ruins on steroids.
Ok, let's put it this way: this makes it a lot easier to shield your tanks and big models (which can't enter ruins anyway) from being shot at. It makes it much harder for melee infantry to hang out in a central ruin and threaten the board without being shot off it. And it makes it much easier for shooty infantry to draw LOS to a wide range of targets while getting the cover bonus.
This is another big buff to tanks and shooty infantry and another big nerf to melee infantry compared to how ITC used to work.
You really want invulnerable melee infantry sitting in the middle of the table? That's seems niche, weird and gamey. I know there's a really threatening unit in the building I can see with all my army but I can't shoot at it/them? That's goofy, man. I ought to be able to take my siege weaponry and start leveling that building on top of them.
We don't know all the rules yet. Maybe assaulting out of moving transports is a thing again.
But it's not goofy that if they're 1mm on the far side of the ruin instead - even if there's no back wall, so literally they just stepped back 1mm - now you can't see them?
I understand your reasoning, but I understand their reasoning, too. They did it like this to remove confusion, as opposed to the older way of measuring into the terrain to see if they were fully hidden or not.
yukishiro1 wrote: What you are calling goofy is how the ITC rule worked. Whether you think they're goofy or not, this represents a dramatic reduction of LOS-blocking for infantry models compared to the ITC rule. Compared to the ITC rule, it's a big buff for bigger models and shooting infantry, and a big nerf for melee infantry.
It all depends on what terrain you're putting down. IMO this is better.
Let's say we define "light infantry" in this case as a humble Guardsman. Currently, they have 5+ armor save.
Light cover gives them +1, so effectively a 4+ save. Unless you're shooting AP -3 weaponry at them (or "ignore cover" ap -2 weaponry), they will get a save. I would call that significant.
Seriously. What are people really wanting? Do you want Guardsmen in ruins to have a 3+ invuln? Are light infantry your centerpiece models that you can't stand to have removed from the board as casualties?
Insectum7 wrote: Oh jesus now I'm reading it the other way. WTF is going on? This is like those reversible images or soemthing.
Lol, nice Daedalus.
Yea it is super easy to get turned around, because we're pretty wired to think it should work a certain way. It makes some sense that a charging unit has enough momentum to get into that heavy terrain and cancel the bonus. Then in a protracted combat both the units have settled into the terrain.
Yeahhh, this is weird. . . I'm trying to understand if A: I'm only NOW reading it correctly, and B: What their reasoning behind the rule is. It's annoying that they didn't elaborate in the article.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh jesus now I'm reading it the other way. WTF is going on? This is like those reversible images or soemthing.
Lol, nice Daedalus.
Yea it is super easy to get turned around, because we're pretty wired to think it should work a certain way. It makes some sense that a charging unit has enough momentum to get into that heavy terrain and cancel the bonus. Then in a protracted combat both the units have settled into the terrain.
Yeahhh, this is weird. . . I'm trying to understand if A: I'm only NOW reading it correctly, and B: What their reasoning behind the rule is. It's annoying that they didn't elaborate in the article.
Maybe that's part of buffing melee? Essentially gives you a bonus for assaulting dug in infantry. Actually sounds pretty tasty for people playing melee armies to me.
I don't really have a problem with it, and I don't even play melee-focused armies.
speaking sister, is the floaty preacher thingy a monster or a vehicle maybe? If it can hide behind buildings that are 5" and then use its mega flamer in melee, it could be downright scary to some armies.
Let's say we define "light infantry" in this case as a humble Guardsman. Currently, they have 5+ armor save.
Light cover gives them +1, so effectively a 4+ save. Unless you're shooting AP -3 weaponry at them (or "ignore cover" ap -2 weaponry), they will get a save. I would call that significant.
Realistically: You're Guardsmen, you have a 5+ save. You sit in cover, so it's 4+. You get engaged by Tactical-doctrine Bolt Rifles, and now it's a 6+ save. Your total increase in durability due to cover is a measly 17%.
Meanwhile, a group of Intercessors in cover goes from a 3+ to a 2+. Your lasguns are now half as effective as before. The Marines get far more benefit from cover than you do.
Quasistellar wrote: Seriously. What are people really wanting? Do you want Guardsmen in ruins to have a 3+ invuln? Are light infantry your centerpiece models that you can't stand to have removed from the board as casualties?
Well, if you look at literally every other edition before 8th, you have an example alternative: Basic cover provides a 5+ invuln save. Heavy infantry still benefit from it as protection against anti-tank weapons, light infantry benefit as either equivalent to their armor or better but not mitigated by AP. Was there something wrong with that system?
FWIW, I don't consider light infantry centerpieces, but I appreciate when expensive models that I put a lot of time and effort into do more than occupy the table for ten minutes before being removed by the handful.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh jesus now I'm reading it the other way. WTF is going on? This is like those reversible images or soemthing.
Lol, nice Daedalus.
Yea it is super easy to get turned around, because we're pretty wired to think it should work a certain way. It makes some sense that a charging unit has enough momentum to get into that heavy terrain and cancel the bonus. Then in a protracted combat both the units have settled into the terrain.
Yeahhh, this is weird. . . I'm trying to understand if A: I'm only NOW reading it correctly, and B: What their reasoning behind the rule is. It's annoying that they didn't elaborate in the article.
Maybe that's part of buffing melee? Essentially gives you a bonus for assaulting dug in infantry. Actually sounds pretty tasty for people playing melee armies to me.
I don't really have a problem with it, and I don't even play melee-focused armies.
So I'm noticing now that the Ruins bit at the bottom of the article says Ruins are Light Cover and Defensible. Defensible must be the sort of bonus I was thinking Heavy Cover gave. The scenario for Heavy Cover still seems odd, I'm trying to imagine what it's supposed to represent.
Let's say we define "light infantry" in this case as a humble Guardsman. Currently, they have 5+ armor save.
Light cover gives them +1, so effectively a 4+ save. Unless you're shooting AP -3 weaponry at them (or "ignore cover" ap -2 weaponry), they will get a save. I would call that significant.
Realistically: You're Guardsmen, you have a 5+ save. You sit in cover, so it's 4+. You get engaged by Tactical-doctrine Bolt Rifles, and now it's a 6+ save. Your total increase in durability due to cover is a measly 17%.
Meanwhile, a group of Intercessors in cover goes from a 3+ to a 2+. Your lasguns are now half as effective as before. The Marines get far more benefit from cover than you do.
Quasistellar wrote: Seriously. What are people really wanting? Do you want Guardsmen in ruins to have a 3+ invuln? Are light infantry your centerpiece models that you can't stand to have removed from the board as casualties?
Well, if you look at literally every other edition before 8th, you have an example alternative: Basic cover provides a 5+ invuln save. Heavy infantry still benefit from it as protection against anti-tank weapons, light infantry benefit as either equivalent to their armor or better but not mitigated by AP. Was there something wrong with that system?
FWIW, I don't consider light infantry centerpieces, but I appreciate when expensive models that I put a lot of time and effort into do more than occupy the table for ten minutes before being removed by the handful.
Let's say we define "light infantry" in this case as a humble Guardsman. Currently, they have 5+ armor save.
Light cover gives them +1, so effectively a 4+ save. Unless you're shooting AP -3 weaponry at them (or "ignore cover" ap -2 weaponry), they will get a save. I would call that significant.
Realistically: You're Guardsmen, you have a 5+ save. You sit in cover, so it's 4+. You get engaged by Tactical-doctrine Bolt Rifles, and now it's a 6+ save. Your total increase in durability due to cover is a measly 17%.
Meanwhile, a group of Intercessors in cover goes from a 3+ to a 2+. Your lasguns are now half as effective as before. The Marines get far more benefit from cover than you do.
I understand this. I am fine with cheaper units with lower base armor gaining less from cover.
I’m not sure what to make if the terrain rules revealed so far. I like that they’re making an effort to make terrain meaningful, but we’ve only been given a small portion of the whole.
Overall I think I’m happy with what I’ve seen, but would have preferred a flat cover save rather than a save modifier.
I agree that the heavy cover/charging interaction is counterintuitive, but I suppose it’s representative of the charging unit breaking into the terrain and surprising the unit in cover?
I admit I’m still a bit confused by the Obscuring rule ( there’s a thread specifically about that in YMDC).
For the rules that haven’t been revealed yet these are my musings:
Scalable: can be scaled, so I guess that’s multi level buildings, ladders, staircases etc. I’m guessing that it will mean infantry, beasts and swarms can move up levels but other things can’t.
Breachable: can be breached, so probably allows infantry, beasts and swarms to move through walls, similar to moving through ruins in 8th.
Unstable: can be “unsted”?! I would expect this to be some sort of movement penalty, maybe a dangerous terrain roll, or it could mean -1 to hit if you’re shooting out of this terrain.
Defensible: I expect this to be similar to heavy cover, but the charging unit is the one that doesn’t get the save bonus.
Exposed position: If you’re placed on top of this terrain feature you don’t get the save bonus.
I’m very interested in the implications of this:
Obstacles, on the other hand, are a footslogger’s best friend as they offer the benefit of cover (which, for the most part, means, +1 to your saving throws against ranged weapons)...
Is this referring to heavy cover providing a save in melee or to some other as yet unrevealed benefit provided by cover in certain circumstances? A to hit modifier or a morale boost for units in cover?
So I'm noticing now that the Ruins bit at the bottom of the article says Ruins are Light Cover and Defensible. Defensible must be the sort of bonus I was thinking Heavy Cover gave. The scenario for Heavy Cover still seems odd, I'm trying to imagine what it's supposed to represent.
There's all sorts of junk. Defensible, breachable, exposed...I'd bet quite a few more in the book.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's all sorts of junk. Defensible, breachable, exposed...I'd bet quite a few more in the book.
Is it me, or is GW piling a particularly large number of caveats, exceptions, and special cases into everything they can.
8th edition was bad enough with every unit obscured under five layers of faction/aura rules, strategems, unique special rules, and so on, but at least cover was just cover and you didn't have to individually count the models in the unit before each shot.
Let's say we define "light infantry" in this case as a humble Guardsman. Currently, they have 5+ armor save.
Light cover gives them +1, so effectively a 4+ save. Unless you're shooting AP -3 weaponry at them (or "ignore cover" ap -2 weaponry), they will get a save. I would call that significant.
Realistically: You're Guardsmen, you have a 5+ save. You sit in cover, so it's 4+. You get engaged by Tactical-doctrine Bolt Rifles, and now it's a 6+ save. Your total increase in durability due to cover is a measly 17%.
Meanwhile, a group of Intercessors in cover goes from a 3+ to a 2+. Your lasguns are now half as effective as before. The Marines get far more benefit from cover than you do.
Quasistellar wrote: Seriously. What are people really wanting? Do you want Guardsmen in ruins to have a 3+ invuln? Are light infantry your centerpiece models that you can't stand to have removed from the board as casualties?
Well, if you look at literally every other edition before 8th, you have an example alternative: Basic cover provides a 5+ invuln save. Heavy infantry still benefit from it as protection against anti-tank weapons, light infantry benefit as either equivalent to their armor or better but not mitigated by AP. Was there something wrong with that system?
FWIW, I don't consider light infantry centerpieces, but I appreciate when expensive models that I put a lot of time and effort into do more than occupy the table for ten minutes before being removed by the handful.
There is a huge difference between a Guardsman and an Intercessor. as such, there should be a huge difference in how beneficial cover is to the respective infantry.
I'm enjoying all of this ITC talk like it impacts the game for those of us that dont give 2 gaks about ITC. Let's make a comparison between house rules and rules from the company that makes them. By that logic we should all play w no strats/rerolls/auras/Tau etc. Cuz I'm sure those are house rules somewhere in the world.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's all sorts of junk. Defensible, breachable, exposed...I'd bet quite a few more in the book.
Is it me, or is GW piling a particularly large number of caveats, exceptions, and special cases into everything they can.
8th edition was bad enough with every unit obscured under five layers of faction/aura rules, strategems, unique special rules, and so on, but at least cover was just cover and you didn't have to individually count the models in the unit before each shot.
No, I think they're getting us proper variety so that terrain feels different and does more. These extra rules don't need to apply to every piece. It will be interesting to see what tournaments adopt for their pieces.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's all sorts of junk. Defensible, breachable, exposed...I'd bet quite a few more in the book.
Is it me, or is GW piling a particularly large number of caveats, exceptions, and special cases into everything they can.
8th edition was bad enough with every unit obscured under five layers of faction/aura rules, strategems, unique special rules, and so on, but at least cover was just cover and you didn't have to individually count the models in the unit before each shot.
No, I think they're getting us proper variety so that terrain feels different and does more. These extra rules don't need to apply to every piece. It will be interesting to see what tournaments adopt for their pieces.
I expect it won’t be so much what tournaments adopt, but more what the “recommendations” are in the rule book regarding how much terrain and if what type.
All seems fairly sensible to me. The Heavy Cover rule is counter-intuitive, but its basically a boon for charging units - and since we all like assaulting armies and not evil castle builds we can all agree that's great.
The obscuring rule just seems to be saying that the terrain feature blocks LOS unless you are in it. Which again seems sensible enough to me. It might not matter if you were used to using polystyrene bricks - but it makes a big difference for all GW terrain. I don't really get the lament that your flying Hive Tyrant can still be shot in his wing tip if it pokes out the side - sucks to be him I guess? Find something bigger to hide behind. At least he can't be shot straight through it.
The fact you will be able to shoot aircraft and knights etc and they may not be able to shoot back? Excellent.
But as people have said - hard to see how this helps hordes. Yes, it will be nice that units with a 5+/6+ are more likely to be in light cover than they are in terrain at the moment (depending on how free you are scattering obstacles across the table). But it will in turn also mean units with a 3+ save are more likely to be in cover. You can't really square that issue with maths.
Going back to cover=5++ would perhaps have been better, even if I was never really a fan of that rule.
Tyel wrote: All seems fairly sensible to me. The Heavy Cover rule is counter-intuitive, but its basically a boon for charging units - and since we all like assaulting armies and not evil castle builds we can all agree that's great.
The obscuring rule just seems to be saying that the terrain feature blocks LOS unless you are in it. Which again seems sensible enough to me. It might not matter if you were used to using polystyrene bricks - but it makes a big difference for all GW terrain. I don't really get the lament that your flying Hive Tyrant can still be shot in his wing tip if it pokes out the side - sucks to be him I guess? Find something bigger to hide behind. At least he can't be shot straight through it.
The fact you will be able to shoot aircraft and knights etc and they may not be able to shoot back? Excellent.
But as people have said - hard to see how this helps hordes. Yes, it will be nice that units with a 5+/6+ are more likely to be in light cover than they are in terrain at the moment (depending on how free you are scattering obstacles across the table). But it will in turn also mean units with a 3+ save are more likely to be in cover. You can't really square that issue with maths.
Going back to cover=5++ would perhaps have been better, even if I was never really a fan of that rule.
I suppose there's still the Defensible trait. That could be something like an old school 4+ cover save, but I'm beginning to doubt it. I think today was a bit details-light because otherwise keen minds would have figured out this terrain system still disproportionately benefits elites over hordes.
Something is screwed every edition, and it's GW's idea to conceal what it is until the maxmum number of people buy in.
Racerguy180 wrote: There is a huge difference between a Guardsman and an Intercessor. as such, there should be a huge difference in how beneficial cover is to the respective infantry.
The increase to durability should be proportional to their base durability, but it isn't. Something like a FNP save would provide a flat, consistent durability bonus. A Guardsman with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, and an Intercessor with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
Instead, a Guardsman in cover is 33% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, while an Intercessor in cover is 100% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's all sorts of junk. Defensible, breachable, exposed...I'd bet quite a few more in the book.
Is it me, or is GW piling a particularly large number of caveats, exceptions, and special cases into everything they can.
8th edition was bad enough with every unit obscured under five layers of faction/aura rules, strategems, unique special rules, and so on, but at least cover was just cover and you didn't have to individually count the models in the unit before each shot.
Well, even in 8th you had ruins, babed wires, tank traps, barricades, woods, containers all with their own rules that were easy to forget. It seems to me they're streamlining those a bit now.
Racerguy180 wrote: There is a huge difference between a Guardsman and an Intercessor. as such, there should be a huge difference in how beneficial cover is to the respective infantry.
The increase to durability should be proportional to their base durability, but it isn't. Something like a FNP save would provide a flat, consistent durability bonus. A Guardsman with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, and an Intercessor with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
Instead, a Guardsman in cover is 33% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, while an Intercessor in cover is 100% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
That just doesn't make sense.
Not defending the mechanic, but you could imagine that heavier armor protects you from spalling debris that's being blasted around as the cover you are behind/in/under is getting blasted to bits.
Racerguy180 wrote: There is a huge difference between a Guardsman and an Intercessor. as such, there should be a huge difference in how beneficial cover is to the respective infantry.
The increase to durability should be proportional to their base durability, but it isn't. Something like a FNP save would provide a flat, consistent durability bonus. A Guardsman with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, and an Intercessor with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
Instead, a Guardsman in cover is 33% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, while an Intercessor in cover is 100% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
That just doesn't make sense.
That really depends on what weapon is shooting you since a 5+++ does little to help W1 models against D2+ weapons - especially considering the increased chance for blast weapons to come their way.
In doing so you'd advantage Intercessors more than IS I would imagine.
Of course this doesn't apply evenly to units with a 6+ save and other considerations, but it isn't a simple "x would be better".
It seems odd as a mechanic they functionally a human running around naked ( no armour save ) gets no real benefit from standing in the open or standing in a building, given the prevalence of AP-1
If that doesn’t seem stupid to some people, I reckon you play a power armour army.
Karol wrote: I hope that defensible means you can't draw LoS through it, even if it has windows etc.
Not likely. More like some other esoteric defensive buff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tulun wrote: It seems odd as a mechanic they functionally a human running around naked ( no armour save ) gets no real benefit from standing in the open or standing in a building, given the prevalence of AP-1
If that doesn’t seem stupid to some people, I reckon you play a power armour army.
It makes sense, because a big machine gun can go through concrete.
tulun wrote: It seems odd as a mechanic they functionally a human running around naked ( no armour save ) gets no real benefit from standing in the open or standing in a building, given the prevalence of AP-1
If that doesn’t seem stupid to some people, I reckon you play a power armour army.
But they do get a save against AP0. Spore Mines are "naked" and start with a 7+ save, improved to 6+ in cover.
Defensible is almost surely the garrison rule from AoS and from Apoc.
If you can fit all your models inside the terrain, you garrison it. Auras garrisoned inside affect all models garrisoned but nothing outside. You can fight in melee or shoot from any point of the terrain. All your models can get attacked in melee by someone touching the border of the terrain.
Do you think assault rifles only shoot 40 meters too? Or perhaps the game involving our collectible plastic models is played with some understanding that the mechanics require some amount of abstraction.
You can make this picture even better, by making the 5" thing not infinite length. Them move the KoS 1mm to the left, so part of his claw extends horizontally beyond the terrain piece- and boom, that guy is dead, because horizonal LOS is based on TLOS. But move him back 1mm to the right, so his claw is behind the terrain but his whole upper body is still exposed in plain view above the barrier...ha ha, he's invisible, because verticalLOS is not TLOS.
Repeat with flyers for especial hilarity: the leman russ can shoot the flyer, but the flyer can't shoot the leman russ, even though they're both in plain view of one another.
And people complained about ITC's "first floor of a ruin blocks LOS" rules. These are going to be great.
tulun wrote: It seems odd as a mechanic they functionally a human running around naked ( no armour save ) gets no real benefit from standing in the open or standing in a building, given the prevalence of AP-1
If that doesn’t seem stupid to some people, I reckon you play a power armour army.
No "real" benefit? Believe it or not, there's still plenty of AP0 weaponry that gets used.
Assuming there are zero other terrain keywords (which we know there's more) that will help the poor, innocent 4-6 point infantry model who wasn't hurtin' nobody, this isn't even a change from the current edition.
When shooting at a unit in cover, first roll to hit. After rolling to hit but before rolling to wound, roll a D6 for each successful hit. On a roll of a 6, the hit is absorbed by the cover and the attack sequence ends. Then proceed with the rest of your attacks.
That way everyone gets precisely the same benefit from being in cover - a 16% reduction in the amount of hits.
The downside is this adds one additional step when shooting at units in cover.
You can make this picture even better, by making the 5" thing not infinite length. Them move the KoS 1mm to the left, so part of his claw extends horizontally beyond the terrain piece- and boom, that guy is dead
You mean, just like shooting through three layers of windows at a claw in the last edition?
You can make this picture even better, by making the 5" thing not infinite length. Them move the KoS 1mm to the left, so part of his claw extends horizontally beyond the terrain piece- and boom, that guy is dead
You mean, just like shooting through three layers of windows at a claw in the last edition?
Definitely. The difference is this time we're combining the silliness of TLOS for horizontal shooting with the different kind of silliness of non-TLOS for vertical shooting.
Layering two different types of silliness on top of each other and having one rule apply horizontally and a different rule apply vertically doesn't make the overall system less silly, it makes it more silly.
Now everybody will be putting their models in the "don't shoot, bro!" pose with both arms directly above their heads if they want to model for advantage, instead of whatever silliness they used to do.
Quasistellar wrote: At some point, you just have to admit you're playing a miniatures game with little toy soldiers, and not an exact military simulation.
Definitely. But that's an argument for either just picking TLOS and sticking with it, or not picking TLOS and not sticking with it. Not for a convoluted flowchart with rules about when to use TLOS and when not, when you use it horizontally but not vertically, when you use it for both, when you use it for one model drawing LOS to the other but not for that model drawing LOS to your model, etc etc.
You can make this picture even better, by making the 5" thing not infinite length. Them move the KoS 1mm to the left, so part of his claw extends horizontally beyond the terrain piece- and boom, that guy is dead, because horizonal LOS is based on TLOS. But move him back 1mm to the right, so his claw is behind the terrain but his whole upper body is still exposed in plain view above the barrier...ha ha, he's invisible, because verticalLOS is not TLOS.
Repeat with flyers for especial hilarity: the leman russ can shoot the flyer, but the flyer can't shoot the leman russ, even though they're both in plain view of one another.
And people complained about ITC's "first floor of a ruin blocks LOS" rules. These are going to be great.
Ah, yes. Let's have terrain that is so abstract and models so homogeneous that no one will ever be confused again. Or we can just pivot the models a little and stop complaining about everything.
You can make this picture even better, by making the 5" thing not infinite length. Them move the KoS 1mm to the left, so part of his claw extends horizontally beyond the terrain piece- and boom, that guy is dead
You mean, just like shooting through three layers of windows at a claw in the last edition?
Definitely. The difference is this time we're combining the silliness of TLOS for horizontal shooting with the different kind of silliness of non-TLOS for vertical shooting.
Layering two different types of silliness on top of each other and having one rule apply horizontally and a different rule apply vertically doesn't make the overall system less silly, it makes it more silly.
Now everybody will be putting their models in the "don't shoot, bro!" pose with both arms directly above their heads if they want to model for advantage, instead of whatever silliness they used to do.
Hahaha, its gonna be good to trigger all the gunline armies with that rule, LOVE IT! And if they whine, im fine with trading it for removal of fallback. Im not unreasonable.
Quasistellar wrote: At some point, you just have to admit you're playing a miniatures game with little toy soldiers, and not an exact military simulation.
wait....were not playing an exact simulation down to the smallest detail?
Unfortunately, some cant come to that realization.
You can make this picture even better, by making the 5" thing not infinite length. Them move the KoS 1mm to the left, so part of his claw extends horizontally beyond the terrain piece- and boom, that guy is dead, because horizonal LOS is based on TLOS. But move him back 1mm to the right, so his claw is behind the terrain but his whole upper body is still exposed in plain view above the barrier...ha ha, he's invisible, because verticalLOS is not TLOS.
Repeat with flyers for especial hilarity: the leman russ can shoot the flyer, but the flyer can't shoot the leman russ, even though they're both in plain view of one another.
And people complained about ITC's "first floor of a ruin blocks LOS" rules. These are going to be great.
Ah, yes. Let's have terrain that is so abstract and models so homogeneous that no one will ever be confused again. Or we can just pivot the models a little and stop complaining about everything.
What a strange response. How does pivoting the models fix any of the issues here? Also, you technically aren't allowed to pivot models under the rules, you have to pay movement for any time one part of the base starts in one place and ends in another. Everybody does it anyway in 8th as long as the model's base is round, but technically, it's violating the rules.
If you favor non-abstract terrain and models, presumably you want to just stick with the TLOS rule in 8th, right?
You can make this picture even better, by making the 5" thing not infinite length. Them move the KoS 1mm to the left, so part of his claw extends horizontally beyond the terrain piece- and boom, that guy is dead, because horizonal LOS is based on TLOS. But move him back 1mm to the right, so his claw is behind the terrain but his whole upper body is still exposed in plain view above the barrier...ha ha, he's invisible, because verticalLOS is not TLOS.
Repeat with flyers for especial hilarity: the leman russ can shoot the flyer, but the flyer can't shoot the leman russ, even though they're both in plain view of one another.
And people complained about ITC's "first floor of a ruin blocks LOS" rules. These are going to be great.
Ah, yes. Let's have terrain that is so abstract and models so homogeneous that no one will ever be confused again. Or we can just pivot the models a little and stop complaining about everything.
What a strange response. How does pivoting the models fix any of the issues here? Also, you technically aren't allowed to pivot models under the rules, you have to pay movement for any time one part of the base starts in one place and ends in another. Everybody does it anyway in 8th as long as the model's base is round, but technically, it's violating the rules.
If you favor non-abstract terrain and models, presumably you want to just stick with the TLOS rule in 8th, right?
No, i'll stick to not using grossly misrepresented memes to make an absurd point - the KoS is not that tall and pivoting is hardly a hassle. If you guys can't communicate your intention with your opponent I've got nothin'.
You can make this picture even better, by making the 5" thing not infinite length. Them move the KoS 1mm to the left, so part of his claw extends horizontally beyond the terrain piece- and boom, that guy is dead, because horizonal LOS is based on TLOS. But move him back 1mm to the right, so his claw is behind the terrain but his whole upper body is still exposed in plain view above the barrier...ha ha, he's invisible, because verticalLOS is not TLOS.
Repeat with flyers for especial hilarity: the leman russ can shoot the flyer, but the flyer can't shoot the leman russ, even though they're both in plain view of one another.
And people complained about ITC's "first floor of a ruin blocks LOS" rules. These are going to be great.
Ah, yes. Let's have terrain that is so abstract and models so homogeneous that no one will ever be confused again. Or we can just pivot the models a little and stop complaining about everything.
What a strange response. How does pivoting the models fix any of the issues here? Also, you technically aren't allowed to pivot models under the rules, you have to pay movement for any time one part of the base starts in one place and ends in another. Everybody does it anyway in 8th as long as the model's base is round, but technically, it's violating the rules.
If you favor non-abstract terrain and models, presumably you want to just stick with the TLOS rule in 8th, right?
So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
The question is, why? Why should someone's vertical ribbon sticking up in the air be ignored, but someone's horizontal ribbon sticking out to the side be a good opportunity to blow them to kingdom come? It seems like splitting the baby in a way that means that it doesn't make sense no mater how you look at it.
TLOS makes a certain kind of sense. It leads to silly results with modeling, but at least it's consistent, and it's easy to apply.
Ignoring TLOS also makes a certain kind of sense. It can also lead to silly results, but it's also consistent.
Now we have a bizare hybrid system where sometimes one model is using TLOS to the other while the other cannot use TLOS back, and where both models may be using TLOS differently horizontally and vertically.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
The question is, why? Why should someone's vertical ribbon sticking up in the air be ignored, but someone's horizontal ribbon sticking out to the side be a good opportunity to blow them to kingdom come? It seems like splitting the baby in a way that means that it doesn't make sense no mater how you look at it.
TLOS makes a certain kind of sense. It leads to silly results with modeling, but at least it's consistent, and it's easy to apply.
Ignoring TLOS also makes a certain kind of sense. It can also lead to silly results, but it's also consistent.
Now we have a bizare hybrid system where sometimes one model is using TLOS to the other while the other cannot use TLOS back, and where both models may be using TLOS differently horizontally and vertically.
Yeah it's definitely bizarre and doesn't sound good at first glance, especially in the new light of having a model based cover and additional ways of getting it...
Yeah. But if you can draw a LOS to some spear hanging off the side, you could shoot at it just fine. It's only if the spear is directly above that it would be blocked.
Doesn't seem to work that way.
No, that is what it says. Read it carefully: if you can draw a straight line from your model to any part of their model without hitting the building, you can shoot at it. So if there's a spear or a gun or something hanging off the side, you can fire at them even if 99% of their model is obscured by the sillhouette. It's only if the spear/rifle etc is pushing up over the top that obscuring blocks it.
While hiding a huge mob of Ork Boyz or a swarm of gaunts from a Leman Russ will be difficult, you can still try to make it harder for multi-model units in the enemy's army to target you with all of their models. That spear? Might not be visible to all of the Centurions or Obliterators who want to fire at it.
Spoletta wrote: Defensible is almost surely the garrison rule from AoS and from Apoc.
If you can fit all your models inside the terrain, you garrison it. Auras garrisoned inside affect all models garrisoned but nothing outside. You can fight in melee or shoot from any point of the terrain. All your models can get attacked in melee by someone touching the border of the terrain.
My guess, too. Also, defensible from Apoc grants a "natural 6 always saves", so a backdoor 6++.
You can make this picture even better, by making the 5" thing not infinite length. Them move the KoS 1mm to the left, so part of his claw extends horizontally beyond the terrain piece- and boom, that guy is dead
You mean, just like shooting through three layers of windows at a claw in the last edition?
Definitely. The difference is this time we're combining the silliness of TLOS for horizontal shooting with the different kind of silliness of non-TLOS for vertical shooting.
Layering two different types of silliness on top of each other and having one rule apply horizontally and a different rule apply vertically doesn't make the overall system less silly, it makes it more silly.
Now everybody will be putting their models in the "don't shoot, bro!" pose with both arms directly above their heads if they want to model for advantage, instead of whatever silliness they used to do.
So good!
But multiple layers of silliness is GW rules writing in a nutshell, isn't it?
Did you really sugest makng a whole extra roll fishing for 6's to see if cover absorbs damage... Okay... And I thought GW had a hard on for 6's fishing as a mechanic.
These rules are great more or less so far. It looks like you can advance a model right up to the wall so it cant be seen. Like when you paintball and you are rushing to that barricade...
So you have the option to give up shooting (or not if assult) to get protected by cover. Sounds legit. Next turn you can walk into the cover to fire and get cover or bide your time. Its almost like you have to make tactical manoeuvring decisions because it no longer matters where your models are unless you have some sort of universal magic L shaped terrain..
Obviously depending on terrain this makes a lot of sense.
My wraithlord can finaly not die to a sneeze on the 1st turn. Im happy. The blob of 20 guardians might not be fine due to the blast rules but oh well.
I would have liked it if the terrain also impeded movement as well in the difficult terrain sense so you can benefit from cover but then you will have to pay the movement price when you want to move through it to add another layer of cost v benefit but so far so good. Its an improvement.
BUT also i cant help thinking this is GW sneaky way of ensuring TO's buy uniform terrain from them to set up tables.
Racerguy180 wrote: There is a huge difference between a Guardsman and an Intercessor. as such, there should be a huge difference in how beneficial cover is to the respective infantry.
The increase to durability should be proportional to their base durability, but it isn't. Something like a FNP save would provide a flat, consistent durability bonus. A Guardsman with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, and an Intercessor with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
Instead, a Guardsman in cover is 33% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, while an Intercessor in cover is 100% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
That just doesn't make sense.
Not defending the mechanic, but you could imagine that heavier armor protects you from spalling debris that's being blasted around as the cover you are behind/in/under is getting blasted to bits.
Sure. And from an armor penetration perspective, there's a reasonable case to be made that maybe the cover slows down a bullet to the point where it'll still kill you if you're not wearing any armor, but won't penetrate body armor. I get that.
But the current cover system doesn't model:
-Being harder to see, and therefore engage, because you are literally behind an object which blocks line of sight and obscures your exact position
-A barrier stopping a round entirely.
Maybe Marines take cover so that anything that blows through the intervening obstacle is less likely to penetrate their power armor, but that's certainly not why a Guardsman or Cultist would. They're more interested in not getting shot to begin with- having that nice chunk of concrete eat the bullet instead, or stay hidden and occasionally pop up to take a shot.
I'd have been happy with a simple -1 to hit in addition to the +1 save.
At this point I am going to hold judgment until I get the full rules and get to play a few games. 9th really is seeming to me to be a pretty significant change from 8th. Kind of like 4th to 5th. Not a complete redo, but I think 9th is going to have a much different playing feel. Anyone know when it actually is coming out?
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Racerguy180 wrote: There is a huge difference between a Guardsman and an Intercessor. as such, there should be a huge difference in how beneficial cover is to the respective infantry.
The increase to durability should be proportional to their base durability, but it isn't. Something like a FNP save would provide a flat, consistent durability bonus. A Guardsman with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, and an Intercessor with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
Instead, a Guardsman in cover is 33% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, while an Intercessor in cover is 100% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
That just doesn't make sense.
Not defending the mechanic, but you could imagine that heavier armor protects you from spalling debris that's being blasted around as the cover you are behind/in/under is getting blasted to bits.
Sure. And from an armor penetration perspective, there's a reasonable case to be made that maybe the cover slows down a bullet to the point where it'll still kill you if you're not wearing any armor, but won't penetrate body armor. I get that.
But the current cover system doesn't model:
-Being harder to see, and therefore engage, because you are literally behind an object which blocks line of sight and obscures your exact position
-A barrier stopping a round entirely.
Maybe Marines take cover so that anything that blows through the intervening obstacle is less likely to penetrate their power armor, but that's certainly not why a Guardsman or Cultist would. They're more interested in not getting shot to begin with- having that nice chunk of concrete eat the bullet instead, or stay hidden and occasionally pop up to take a shot.
I'd have been happy with a simple -1 to hit in addition to the +1 save.
Wellll. . . . . there is still a bonus to defense even if it's not a -1 to hit. That can still function to cover the case of a round being stopped or being harder to see. It's all lumped in to the same single modifier.
But sure, a -1 to hit would have been another way to go about it (a la 2nd Ed.) However, you'd also see skewed numbers from that, too. Orks would hit half as often against models in cover, and Marines would only see their effectiveness drop by 25% (before calculating rerolls. I think the benefit to having it be a modifier to the save is that you can use higher power weapons to blast through it, whereas a -1 to hit would affect all weapons the same way. The save-mod gives the attacker more decision making power. It also caps out at the low end, too.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Well, except that you can shoot the knight even if you can't see it, and that the knight can't shoot you even if it can see you. Ironically, giving a terrain piece the obscuring keyword as written guarantees it will NEVER block LOS for a knight, whereas if you DON'T give it obscuring, it might, if it's big enough. GG GW, that makes sense!
On the first point, no, you're mixing up what is horizontal and what is vertical. What you're describing is still vertical LOS. And rather silly itself: it means that a .5 inch tall pile of rubble on the side of the building blocks LOS to the land raider, even if you have real TLOS, as long as some part of the building is more than 5" and it has obscuring, even if the 5" part of the building is way on the other side of the building; that's drawing vertical LOS, because it goes over the terrain piece.
On the other hand, if the land raider has a ribbon that extends .1mm past that pile of rubble to the left or right, such that you can draw a line to any tiny portion of the model that doesn't pass vertically over the terrain piece, you can blow it off the table. That is horizontal LOS, because you're drawing LOS around/ to the side of the terrain piece. Similarly, that land raider can also use its ribbon to blow you off the table, as long as the ribbon is horizontally peeking around the corner rather than vertically peeking over the corner.
So we're keeping the ribbon targeting from 8th for horizontal, but ditching it for vertical, but only for some terrain pieces, and only for some models.
The question is, why? Why should someone's vertical ribbon sticking up in the air be ignored, but someone's horizontal ribbon sticking out to the side be a good opportunity to blow them to kingdom come? It seems like splitting the baby in a way that means that it doesn't make sense no mater how you look at it.
TLOS makes a certain kind of sense. It leads to silly results with modeling, but at least it's consistent, and it's easy to apply.
Ignoring TLOS also makes a certain kind of sense. It can also lead to silly results, but it's also consistent.
Now we have a bizare hybrid system where sometimes one model is using TLOS to the other while the other cannot use TLOS back, and where both models may be using TLOS differently horizontally and vertically.
Because you have to draw the line somewhere. What do we do? Pretend the terrain is wider than it is? That doesn't make sense, because a lot more other stuff occupies the horizontal space on the table than does the vertical space.
Should we instead target only the base? Ok, when we can't see the base what do we do? Draw a column. Great - how tall is that column? What happens when I need to put a stick next to the base when you can't see it to determine the column? Am I holding that stick at the proper angle?
Alternatively, now, what I see is what I shoot unless i'm passing through a sufficiently tall piece of terrain. That terrain now gives me an unambiguous place to put large, but not too large models without worrying about visibility - provided I mind my arms. Were you able to move your units enough to see part of me? Great - you flanked me. I'm sure it wasn't your whole army that did so and my risk is still a ton lower.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Ahh, I suppose the first part of that is true (for now). The second part I don't think is paradoxical once we acknowledge the abstraction.
On the flip side to all of it, people have been complaining about the inclusion of superheavies and flyers in the game for years. This is a distinct and specific nerf to those units. Rejoice!
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Well, except that you can shoot the knight even if you can't see it, and that the knight can't shoot you even if it can see you. Ironically, giving a terrain piece the obscuring keyword as written guarantees it will NEVER block LOS for a knight, whereas if you DON'T give it obscuring, it might, if it's big enough. GG GW, that makes sense!
On the first point, no, you're mixing up what is horizontal and what is vertical. What you're describing is still vertical LOS. And rather silly itself: it means that a .5 inch tall pile of rubble on the side of the building blocks LOS to the land raider, even if you have real TLOS, as long as some part of the building is more than 5" and it has obscuring, even if the 5" part of the building is way on the other side of the building; that's drawing vertical LOS, because it goes over the terrain piece.
On the other hand, if the land raider has a ribbon that extends .1mm past that pile of rubble to the left or right, such that you can draw a line to any tiny portion of the model that doesn't pass vertically over the terrain piece, you can blow it off the table. That is horizontal LOS, because you're drawing LOS around/ to the side of the terrain piece. Similarly, that land raider can also use its ribbon to blow you off the table, as long as the ribbon is horizontally peeking around the corner rather than vertically peeking over the corner.
So we're keeping the ribbon targeting from 8th for horizontal, but ditching it for vertical, but only for some terrain pieces, and only for some models.
Because you literally have to draw the line somewhere. So make it simple.
And they gave you an out for the Obscuring. . . which is. . . don't declare it as Obscuring. Ta daaa!
xeen wrote: At this point I am going to hold judgment until I get the full rules and get to play a few games. 9th really is seeming to me to be a pretty significant change from 8th. Kind of like 4th to 5th. Not a complete redo, but I think 9th is going to have a much different playing feel. Anyone know when it actually is coming out?
Hmmm. I think its going to be significant if you never touched ITC. Otherwise I think its going to be as if regular 40k and ITC had a baby, and produced something kind of like you'd expect.
I don't think we know for sure - but precedent would suggest up for preorders in 2-3 weeks time, actual release two weeks later (so mid/late July). Give or take a week either side.
The issues with GW's Covid backlog mean it might take longer - but I wouldn't have thought they'd want to spin this out for 3 months.
Because you have to draw the line somewhere. What do we do? Pretend the terrain is wider than it is? That doesn't make sense, because a lot more other stuff occupies the horizontal space on the table than does the vertical space.
Should we instead target only the base? Ok, when we can't see the base what do we do? Draw a column. Great - how tall is that column? What happens when I need to put a stick next to the base when you can't see it to determine the column? Am I holding that stick at the proper angle?
Alternatively, now, what I see is what I shoot unless i'm passing through a sufficiently tall piece of terrain. That terrain now gives me an unambiguous place to put large, but not too large models without worrying about visibility - provided I mind my arms. Were you able to move your units enough to see part of me? Great - you flanked me. I'm sure it wasn't your whole army that did so and my risk is still a ton lower.
Drawing a line somewhere isn't an argument for drawing a line anywhere.
If we're going to ditch TLOS, I would say we should simply ditch TLOS completely. Measure LOS for everything from base to base, by drawing that line from one base to the other. If the line passes over any terrain, it blocks LOS, whether you have an arm hanging off the end or not, as long as that terrain has the keyword for blocking. It shouldn't matter whether it's an arm hanging off the side or a head hanging off the top - it certainly shouldn't be the case that the head hanging off the top is safe, but the arm hanging off the side makes you vulnerable. For stuff without bases, you could either put it on bases (this makes the most sense), or come up with some rule about what to do in that situation. But 90% of stuff does have bases.
You could then have different terrain keywords for blocking infantry/bikers/beasts and for blocking vehicles/monsters. Maybe even a third one for titantic. In other words, 2" tall fence could be "blocks los: infantry/bikers/beasts." This would mean that your tank can fire over it into another tank, but infantry cannot fire over it into other infantry, nor can they fire over it into a tank, nor can a tank fire over it into them. A 4" wall could be blocks los: vehicles and monsters. So a knight could shoot over it at another knight, but not at a tank, nor could a tank shoot at the knight. Climbing up onto a wall or ruin would give you an ability to ignore blocks:los keywords less than or equal to the size of the rule that pertains to the terrain piece you have scaled.
I don't like a hybrid system that is TLOS for some situations and some models and some dimensions but not TLOS for other situations and other dimensions and other models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Because you literally have to draw the line somewhere. So make it simple.
But this isn't simple. 8th was simple: if you can see it - no matter what part you can see - you can shoot.
Now, it's: if you can see it, you can shoot it. unless there's an obscuring piece in the way. then, you have to go down a flowchart - is the model INSIDE the piece, or is it OUTSIDE? If inside, TLOS. If outside, TLOS horizontally, non-true LOS vertically. But wait, is either model a flyer or above 18W? Then it's back to full TLOS only for that model when it wants to draw LOS, but still horizontal TLOS but vertical non-true LOS when you want to draw LOS to that model.
I'm not complaining about drawing the vertical line at all. I'm complaining about drawing the vertical line one way and the horizontal line a different way.
If they wanted to move everything to the non-TLOS vertical line approach, I'm totally fine with that. I would actually prefer it to 8th edition TLOS! But what I like least of all is a hybrid system that is part one and part the other.
ITC ruins weren't actually a modification of TLOS, they were just a "counts as" rule. It's quite different. The ITC ruin rule was just that the base level counts as being solid, even if it isn't. It didn't change how you drew LOS from TLOS to something else, it changed the terrain piece itself to be solid even if it wasn't. You could have accomplished the same thing by just throwing away all the ruins with windows modeled and using solid walls instead. It was a "change the piece" rule, not a "change the rule" rule.
Right now you have two big L-shaped ruins in the middle of a standard tournament board. These both totally block LOS - whether you're inside them or on the far side of them.
New GW rules: being inside doesn't block LOS any more. If you want to block LOS, you have to be on the far side of the terrain piece instead.
This is a massive change, unless we simply decide that all ruins have no dimensions and that being 1mm on the far side of the wall means you're on the far side of the terrain piece, not inside it.
It is possible to not place the keyword `area terrain` on a L shaped piece of terrain that does not have a 'base'. Now, the model is not inside the terrain. This appears to be a tweak of older editions of 40K terrain where we had defined 'areas` to various terrain, such as woods and ruins. I would imagine FLG will release an update to the ITC once 9th edition is released which will address terrain recommendations.
yukishiro1 wrote: It didn't change how you drew LOS from TLOS to something else, it changed the terrain piece itself to be solid even if it wasn't.
That's the same thing. That is literally changing TLOS into something else.
I'm not sure it's worth arguing about, but it isn't the same thing.
What GW is doing here with obscure is moving to non-true LOS. It isn't saying "imagine this building is a different shape or appearance" it's saying "this blocks LOS in ways that have nothing to do with its appearance, whether the actual appearance on the tabletop or the theoretical appearance in the 40k world." When you're drawing the LOS line and deciding you can't shoot at the land raider because it's blocked by a .5 inch bit of rubble on the side of the ruin with the obscure trait, you're not saying "I'm going to imagine this .5 inch bit of rubble is actually an infinitely high pillar in the world of 40k, and I would like to model it that way, but I just don't have any infinitely high terrain pieces." You're saying "I'm adopting a way of looking at LOS that doesn't depend on how the model actually looks, either in practice or in theory. The piece of rubble isn't any higher in the imaginary game world either; it just blocks LOS for gameplay reasons even though it isn't big enough to block it physically, even in the imaginary game world."
The ITC rule, by contrast, is literally just a cheaper way of throwing away ruins with windows and replacing them with ruins without windows. This is a "counts as" modification of TLOS, not going outside TLOS per se. It's the same as treating a conversion as having the dimensions of the official model - that's not abrogating TLOS, it's modifying your model so you can use TLOS.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Ahh, I suppose the first part of that is true (for now). The second part I don't think is paradoxical once we acknowledge the abstraction.
On the flip side to all of it, people have been complaining about the inclusion of superheavies and flyers in the game for years. This is a distinct and specific nerf to those units. Rejoice!
Yeah because we should rejoice that we are nerfing codex's that hit 40% win ratio as part of soup. Whike buffing Marines the 65% win ratio faction.
Also those people complaining about superheavies and flyers have a game tailer made for them it's called killteam, it's got more in common the the 2nd/3rd edition vibe they want.
So they can stop trying to have valid codex's nerfed into unplayable trash to have them soft banned from the game.
yukishiro1 wrote: It didn't change how you drew LOS from TLOS to something else, it changed the terrain piece itself to be solid even if it wasn't.
That's the same thing. That is literally changing TLOS into something else.
I'm not sure it's worth arguing about, but it isn't the same thing.
What GW is doing here with obscure is moving to non-true LOS. It isn't saying "imagine this building is a different shape or appearance" it's saying "this blocks LOS in ways that have nothing to do with its appearance, whether the actual appearance on the tabletop or the theoretical appearance in the 40k world." When you're drawing the LOS line and deciding you can't shoot at the land raider because it's blocked by a .5 inch bit of rubble on the side of the ruin with the obscure trait, you're not saying "I'm going to imagine this .5 inch bit of rubble is actually an infinitely high pillar in the world of 40k, and I would like to model it that way, but I just don't have any infinitely high terrain pieces." You're saying "I'm adopting a way of looking at LOS that doesn't depend on how the model actually looks, either in practice or in theory. The piece of rubble isn't any higher in the imaginary game world either; it just blocks LOS for gameplay reasons even though it isn't big enough to block it physically, even in the imaginary game world."
As the player, you get to define where those barriers begin and end. You can bring them tightly to the walls of ruins, or you can have it encompass the base that the ruins are standing on. The problem you're having in this example can be entirely mitigated at your discretion. It is not a new thing that some pieces of terrain will be more intuitive or more abstracted than the representation of it. Often I have rearranged my own terrain collection and alternated favored pieces for the sake of clarity and to avoid confusion. These are very solve-able problems. Call the walls of the building on the Ruin base the extent of Obscuration, and call the Barrels on the base next to it Soft Cover. The problem is solved. As mentioned above, giant pieces of solid terrain do not have to be officially Obscuring, and can block LOS naturally, mitigating the Knight/Airplane examples. Big corner pieces can be chosen to block LOS as-is or Obscuring, again, up to your discretion. And as for the Keeper of Secrets, I've always felt the re-done models were, while spectacular pieces, waaay to big for gaming purposes, making them pretty awkward. But again, why would a flying Hive Tyrant be unable to take cover behind a ruin? Or do we just assume it's not an intelligent and dynamic creature?
I for one have been asking for this change since. . . well. . . 5th edition, basically. Primarily because of forests, but also because successfully hiding larger models in an environment where you can just shoot through everything exacerbates the issues with shooting lethality, and lowers the value of maneuvering. This is a good change.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Ahh, I suppose the first part of that is true (for now). The second part I don't think is paradoxical once we acknowledge the abstraction.
On the flip side to all of it, people have been complaining about the inclusion of superheavies and flyers in the game for years. This is a distinct and specific nerf to those units. Rejoice!
Yeah because we should rejoice that we are nerfing codex's that hit 40% win ratio as part of soup. Whike buffing Marines the 65% win ratio faction.
Also those people complaining about superheavies and flyers have a game tailer made for them it's called killteam, it's got more in common the the 2nd/3rd edition vibe they want.
So they can stop trying to have valid codex's nerfed into unplayable trash to have them soft banned from the game.
Do you have inside knowledge as to what all the new point values are?
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Ahh, I suppose the first part of that is true (for now). The second part I don't think is paradoxical once we acknowledge the abstraction.
On the flip side to all of it, people have been complaining about the inclusion of superheavies and flyers in the game for years. This is a distinct and specific nerf to those units. Rejoice!
Yeah because we should rejoice that we are nerfing codex's that hit 40% win ratio as part of soup. Whike buffing Marines the 65% win ratio faction.
Also those people complaining about superheavies and flyers have a game tailer made for them it's called killteam, it's got more in common the the 2nd/3rd edition vibe they want.
So they can stop trying to have valid codex's nerfed into unplayable trash to have them soft banned from the game.
Do you have inside knowledge as to what all the new point values are?
at this point if it's upwards in any direction they'll suck and given every overcosted weapon they have is likeky to pick up the blast keyword which Stu was very adminet are getting "significant points increases, for their improved versatility" I'm certainly not hopeful that actually any of the proposed changes actually help anyone outside of marines primarily, Custodes maybe.
You could then have different terrain keywords for blocking infantry/bikers/beasts and for blocking vehicles/monsters. Maybe even a third one for titantic. In other words, 2" tall fence could be "blocks los: infantry/bikers/beasts." This would mean that your tank can fire over it into another tank, but infantry cannot fire over it into other infantry, nor can they fire over it into a tank, nor can a tank fire over it into them. A 4" wall could be blocks los: vehicles and monsters. So a knight could shoot over it at another knight, but not at a tank, nor could a tank shoot at the knight. Climbing up onto a wall or ruin would give you an ability to ignore blocks:los keywords less than or equal to the size of the rule that pertains to the terrain piece you have scaled.
Not all infantry, bikes, beasts, vehicles, and titans are created equally. An Ork Buggy is certainly no bike and it definitely is no LRBT.
Thing the about 5" is that most everything can't see over it. 4" is pretty easily seen over by a knight, so an LRBT 30" away where a knight draws a line through a 4" wall that literally blocks none of the LRBT just seems really silly.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Ahh, I suppose the first part of that is true (for now). The second part I don't think is paradoxical once we acknowledge the abstraction.
On the flip side to all of it, people have been complaining about the inclusion of superheavies and flyers in the game for years. This is a distinct and specific nerf to those units. Rejoice!
Yeah because we should rejoice that we are nerfing codex's that hit 40% win ratio as part of soup. Whike buffing Marines the 65% win ratio faction.
Also those people complaining about superheavies and flyers have a game tailer made for them it's called killteam, it's got more in common the the 2nd/3rd edition vibe they want.
So they can stop trying to have valid codex's nerfed into unplayable trash to have them soft banned from the game.
Do you have inside knowledge as to what all the new point values are?
at this point if it's upwards in any direction they'll suck and given every overcosted weapon they have is likeky to pick up the blast keyword which Stu was very adminet are getting "significant points increases, for their improved versatility" I'm certainly not hopeful that actually any of the proposed changes actually help anyone outside of marines primarily, Custodes maybe.
Marines haven't been 65% winrate since the second round of nerfs came out. Also, tau, Eldar, SoB, and Crons benefit as much or more from these changes as marines do. Crons especially.
Insectum7 wrote: But again, why would a flying Hive Tyrant be unable to take cover behind a ruin? Or do we just assume it's not an intelligent and dynamic creature?
But that's the whole point. To use your language, the 9th edition rules still assume he's not an intelligent and dynamic creature horizontally, but that he is an intelligent and dynamic creature vertically. If he lets a stray wing tip go past the line of the terrain horizontally, you can still blow him off the table using TLOS. But if he lets a stray head go over the top of the parapet, we pretend he didn't do that, as long as the parapet is 5" or taller. This is the definition of cognitive dissonance. Whether you think a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent or dynamic creature or not, surely not one person in the entire world thinks he is intelligent and dynamic vertically, but not horizontally?
yukishiro1 wrote: But that's the whole point. To use your language, the 9th edition rules still assume he's not an intelligent and dynamic creature horizontally, but that he is an intelligent and dynamic creature vertically. If he lets a stray wing tip go past the line of the terrain horizontally, you can still blow him off the table using TLOS. But if he lets a stray head go over the top of the parapet, we pretend he didn't do that, as long as the parapet is 5" or taller. This is the definition of cognitive dissonance. Whether you think a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent or dynamic creature or not, surely not one person in the entire world thinks he is intelligent and dynamic vertically, but not horizontally?
Thank you for so elegantly stating the core issues with the LOS and cover rules.
You could then have different terrain keywords for blocking infantry/bikers/beasts and for blocking vehicles/monsters. Maybe even a third one for titantic. In other words, 2" tall fence could be "blocks los: infantry/bikers/beasts." This would mean that your tank can fire over it into another tank, but infantry cannot fire over it into other infantry, nor can they fire over it into a tank, nor can a tank fire over it into them. A 4" wall could be blocks los: vehicles and monsters. So a knight could shoot over it at another knight, but not at a tank, nor could a tank shoot at the knight. Climbing up onto a wall or ruin would give you an ability to ignore blocks:los keywords less than or equal to the size of the rule that pertains to the terrain piece you have scaled.
Not all infantry, bikes, beasts, vehicles, and titans are created equally. An Ork Buggy is certainly no bike and it definitely is no LRBT.
Thing the about 5" is that most everything can't see over it. 4" is pretty easily seen over by a knight, so an LRBT 30" away where a knight draws a line through a 4" wall that literally blocks none of the LRBT just seems really silly.
And that's the argument against non-true LOS. It's a fine argument. There are merits to both positions.
What I find trouble seeing the merits of is this strange hybrid system they have in 9th that is half TLOS and half not true LOS.
Insectum7 wrote: But again, why would a flying Hive Tyrant be unable to take cover behind a ruin? Or do we just assume it's not an intelligent and dynamic creature?
But that's the whole point. To use your language, the 9th edition rules still assume he's not an intelligent and dynamic creature horizontally, but that he is an intelligent and dynamic creature vertically. If he lets a stray wing tip go past the line of the terrain horizontally, you can still blow him off the table using TLOS. But if he lets a stray head go over the top of the parapet, we pretend he didn't do that, as long as the parapet is 5" or taller. This is the definition of cognitive dissonance. Whether you think a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent or dynamic creature or not, surely not one person in the entire world thinks he is intelligent and dynamic vertically, but not horizontally?
I'm totally fine with that because the table is horizontal, and meneuvers are conducted horizontally, and again, you gotta draw the line somewhere.
What I find trouble seeing the merits of is this strange hybrid system they have in 9th that is half TLOS and half not true LOS.
I think it should be thought of thusly - it is the same system as before. Now you just have a small subset of terrain that operates a little differently. Call it smoke from the smoldering ruins, whatever.
Previously in many games (ITC, some GW) we could not see into the first floor as a way to bandaid terrain, but this caused its own problems. Now buildings / ruins are back to "normal", but we also got this rule to replace the need for tournaments to place these...things...
Insectum7 wrote: But again, why would a flying Hive Tyrant be unable to take cover behind a ruin? Or do we just assume it's not an intelligent and dynamic creature?
But that's the whole point. To use your language, the 9th edition rules still assume he's not an intelligent and dynamic creature horizontally, but that he is an intelligent and dynamic creature vertically. If he lets a stray wing tip go past the line of the terrain horizontally, you can still blow him off the table using TLOS. But if he lets a stray head go over the top of the parapet, we pretend he didn't do that, as long as the parapet is 5" or taller. This is the definition of cognitive dissonance. Whether you think a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent or dynamic creature or not, surely not one person in the entire world thinks he is intelligent and dynamic vertically, but not horizontally?
I'm totally fine with that because the table is horizontal, and meneuvers are conducted horizontally, and again, you gotta draw the line somewhere.
You do have to draw the line somewhere. But that isn't an argument for drawing it any particular place. You tried to use the logic that a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent and dynamic creature to explain why the vertical abstraction is good. It isn't logically consistent to say that his intelligence and dynamism matters only on the vertical plane, but not the horizontal plane, because "we have to draw the line somewhere." Why not draw the line at the vertical plane too, and say that if he can't pull in a wing tip, he can't crouch either?
Illogical results aren't necessarily bad BTW. It may be totally fine that the LOS rules result in the idea that a hive tyrant can duck but cannot pull in his wings.
But what isn't convincing is to try to use a particular argument (he can crouch) to defend one aspect of the rules, while rejecting that exact same argument (he can pull in a wing tip) when it comes to a different aspect of the rules. Based on what I'm hearing you say, the reason you think the vertical abstraction is good isn't that Hive Tyrants can crouch, because you don't think it matters on the horizontal end that Hive Tyrants can't pull in their wings. The real reason is something else (which is totally fine).
yukishiro1 wrote: You do have to draw the line somewhere. But that isn't an argument for drawing it any particular place. You tried to use the logic that a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent and dynamic creature to explain why the vertical abstraction is good. It isn't logically consistent to say that his intelligence and dynamism matters only on the vertical plane, but not the horizontal plane, because "we have to draw the line somewhere." Why not draw the line at the vertical plane too, and say that if he can't pull in a wing tip, he can't crouch either?
It seems to me that what Insectum7 is saying is that the following is fine for blocking LOS completely to the Hive Tyrant (circled in red):
... but the HT in this pic (again, circled in red) is completely fair game as far as shooting goes:
I think this discussion needs to wait until we get the actual rules for how to draw LoS. The rules preview don't give any indication other than drawing a line between two models.
If it's from "any point on a model to any point on the target model" like it is currently, then this is a problem.
If it's something more sensible, like "from the center of the model's base/hull, to the center of the target model's base/hull" then this becomes an entirely different conversation.
I don't have a whole lot of faith, but I HAVE to believe that the rules team has reacted to the whole "you can shoot the antennae of an otherwise obscured vehicle" outcry that's been around since the launch of 8th somehow.
I dont see why they just dont defer t 50% obscured for the purposes of horizontal. It has worked in 8th to give vehicles and monsters cover.. I.E. be in cover AND be 50% obscured. Made sense if a little bit counter intuitive. makes more sense in this proposed paradigm...
Insectum7 wrote: But again, why would a flying Hive Tyrant be unable to take cover behind a ruin? Or do we just assume it's not an intelligent and dynamic creature?
But that's the whole point. To use your language, the 9th edition rules still assume he's not an intelligent and dynamic creature horizontally, but that he is an intelligent and dynamic creature vertically. If he lets a stray wing tip go past the line of the terrain horizontally, you can still blow him off the table using TLOS. But if he lets a stray head go over the top of the parapet, we pretend he didn't do that, as long as the parapet is 5" or taller. This is the definition of cognitive dissonance. Whether you think a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent or dynamic creature or not, surely not one person in the entire world thinks he is intelligent and dynamic vertically, but not horizontally?
I'm totally fine with that because the table is horizontal, and meneuvers are conducted horizontally, and again, you gotta draw the line somewhere.
You do have to draw the line somewhere. But that isn't an argument for drawing it any particular place. You tried to use the logic that a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent and dynamic creature to explain why the vertical abstraction is good. It isn't logically consistent to say that his intelligence and dynamism matters only on the vertical plane, but not the horizontal plane, because "we have to draw the line somewhere." Why not draw the line at the vertical plane too, and say that if he can't pull in a wing tip, he can't crouch either?
Illogical results aren't necessarily bad BTW. It may be totally fine that the LOS rules result in the idea that a hive tyrant can duck but cannot pull in his wings.
But what isn't convincing is to try to use a particular argument (he can crouch) to defend one aspect of the rules, while rejecting that exact same argument (he can pull in a wing tip) when it comes to a different aspect of the rules. Based on what I'm hearing you say, the reason you think the vertical abstraction is good isn't that Hive Tyrants can crouch, because you don't think it matters on the horizontal end that Hive Tyrants can't pull in their wings. The real reason is something else (which is totally fine).
You, the owning player can rotate the model to try and get advantage, and the opposing player can counter-move in their turn to try and get the shot. Neither of you can freely modify the model or the LOS along the vertical plane. AND, you still have to draw the line somewhere AND we haven't seen all the rules yet.
So take a deep breath, and wait and see. I for one am done with the conversation, for now.
Argive wrote: I dont see why they just dont defer t 50% obscured for the purposes of horizontal. It has worked in 8th to give vehicles and monsters cover.. I.E. be in cover AND be 50% obscured. Made sense if a little bit counter intuitive. makes more sense in this proposed paradigm...
Because that creates a giant zone where you can't see units at all. And then we just shift the goal posts. What is 50%? What if "this little itty bitty extra thing is poking out past 50%"? Can I shoot you then? Hmmm? HMMMMMM??!?!
McGibs wrote: I think this discussion needs to wait until we get the actual rules for how to draw LoS. The rules preview don't give any indication other than drawing a line between two models.
If it's from "any point on a model to any point on the target model" like it is currently, then this is a problem.
If it's something more sensible, like "from the center of the model's base/hull, to the center of the target model's base/hull" then this becomes an entirely different conversation.
I don't have a whole lot of faith, but I HAVE to believe that the rules team has reacted to the whole "you can shoot the antennae of an otherwise obscured vehicle" outcry that's been around since the launch of 8th somehow.
This is true. If they abandon TLOS - whether with base to base targeting, or targeting from the "central mass" of the model, or whatever else - then the fact that the obscure rule doesn't follow TLOS becomes less of an issue.
I'm not a big fan of central mass / 50% / whatever rules because I think they lead to needless arguments, whereas base-to-base LOS is objective and easy to decide. But either way, it'd certainly be better than retaining TLOS except for obscure terrain.
If you're daemons (or harlequins), now you actively don't want to be in cover, because if you're in the cover according to these silly new rules, you can be shot; if you're behind the terrain that would give cover, you can't be shot (assuming the cover has obscure).
Additionally, by being in cover in melee, you benefit the enemy you're fighting, while getting no benefit yourself.
So it's actually worse than useless to be in cover for these armies.
I'm amused by how all the griping about not having enough LOS block in 8e has been completely flipped on its head in this thread because GW tried to give us more LOS block.
yukishiro1 wrote: because if you're in the cover according to these silly new rules, you can be shot; if you're behind the terrain that would give cover, you can't be shot
Yeah, we wouldn't possibly want to fire our battlecannons into that ruin with the glowing windows and snarling noises coming from it, now would we?
AnomanderRake wrote: I'm amused by how all the griping about not having enough LOS block in 8e has been completely flipped on its head in this thread because GW tried to give us more LOS block.
If you think that's why there's griping, then you haven't been reading the thread all that carefully.
yukishiro1 wrote: because if you're in the cover according to these silly new rules, you can be shot; if you're behind the terrain that would give cover, you can't be shot
Yeah, we wouldn't possibly want to fire our battlecannons into that ruin with the glowing windows and snarling noises coming from it, now would we?
Apparently you would, but you definitely wouldn't want to fire your battlecannons into the area right behind that ruin that are glowing and have snarling noises coming out. That's impossible.
But if we're going to start suggesting that LOS is based not on LOS but whether you know somebody is there, that'd be a real change in the way the game works! "I can't see you now, but I saw you move in there last turn, so I can still shoot you because I know you must be there!"
That can be 10th edition. "I'm sure my troops show your harlequins are in that ruin! I can hear the maniacal laughter! Fire up the volcano cannon!"
"Nuh uh, these are dreaming shadow harlequins, so they don't speak or make any sound at all. There's no way you'd know they are there. CHECKMATE, brah!"
yukishiro1 wrote: because if you're in the cover according to these silly new rules, you can be shot; if you're behind the terrain that would give cover, you can't be shot
Yeah, we wouldn't possibly want to fire our battlecannons into that ruin with the glowing windows and snarling noises coming from it, now would we?
Apparently you would, but you definitely wouldn't want to fire your battlecannons into the area right behind that ruin that are glowing and have snarling noises coming out. That's impossible.
But if we're going to start suggesting that LOS is based not on LOS but whether you know somebody is there, that'd be a real change in the way the game works! "I can't see you now, but I saw you move in there last turn, so I can still shoot you because I know you must be there!"
It works like this:
Do you think models occupying a ruin should be able to shoot out of a ruin? (the answer is yes)
Then. . . do you want to allow the units that are being shot at by the occupying troops to shoot back? (the answer is also yes)
Do you want ruins to still provide lots of LOS blocking so that units have to move to engage things and you can hide big things like tanks? (the answer, again, is yes)
Do you want to keep it binary so that there isn't any fiddly measuring of model distances to and from the edge of a ruin (yes)
Being able to shoot in and out of a ruin, regardless of whether that ruin has "windows" and whatnot speeds the game up tremendously. It's just "Area Terrain", and it works.
The issue lies in how LOS actually works, and whether this this 5"+ ruin = infinity high dead zone is really how it's meant to be played.
Do you think models occupying a ruin should be able to shoot out of a ruin? (the answer is yes)
Then. . . do you want to allow the units that are being shot at by the occupying troops to shoot back? (the answer is also yes)
Do you want ruins to still provide lots of LOS blocking so that units have to move to engage things and you can hide big things like tanks? (the answer, again, is yes)
Do you want to keep it binary so that there isn't any fiddly measuring of model distances to and from the edge of a ruin (yes)
That's why it is the way it is.
That's one list of answers.
Mine would be: if the ruin is solid enough to block LOS, I don't think you should be able to shoot into or out of it unless the models are physically on the edge of the ruin, i.e. looking out. You can plausibly shoot from a window or an edge; you can't shoot out from the middle of the building.
If the answer to the last question for you is that it's too "fiddly" to allow models near the windows to shoot out without allowing everyone to shoot out, I'd much rather have models not able to shoot out at all.
I'd much rather have a binary "no, you can't shoot from inside something that blocks LOS to things behind it" than a binary "yes, you can shoot from inside something that blocks LOS to things behind it." Why should be assume that the front wall is always porous, even if it's solid, but the back wall is always solid, even if it doesn't exist at all? That seems pretty weird.
If the ruin is "solid enough", just count it as TLOS, call it a day, and leave Obscuring for dilapidated structure frames and forests. Not everything has to be Obscuring.
Oh, ok. So when you said "do you think models should be able to shoot from a ruin," you only meant ruins full of holes?
That makes more sense.
Though then you're back to the weird issue of solid terrain blocking less LOS than terrain full of holes, because the solid terrain doesn't block above it, but the terrain full of holes does. I.e. the problem of the Hive Tyrant that can hide behind a ruin full of holes, but can't hide behind a ruin of the exact same height that isn't full of holes.
It seems kinda weird that they didn't break obscuring into two different things: (1) does this block line of sight at the actual height it's modeled? and then (2) does it block line of sight as if it was much taller than it actually is?
It's weird they combined the two into a single keyword. If they were split off, you wouldn't have that problem. You could just give obscuring to everything that actually does obscure and to everything you want to obscure, and then give the thing for infinite vertical height to whatever you wanted too. You wouldn't have to pick from one of two odd results.
If there's another keyword that makes something block LOS at the dimensions it's modeled, whether or not it actually does - without this funky vertical stuff - i.e. the ITC rule - I will happily eat my hat and admit that this was all a big red herring.
Guys it's just measuring LoS from overhead. It's worked great in a number of other games because it's easy to explain, and easy to check. It's going to speed the games up, and if it creates occasional oddities, just remember it's replacing unchargeable units on barrels, and ITC magic boxes.
As for the wounds thing, ideally units would have a size stat, similar to Kings of war, and that would determine what can hide behind which bit of terrain. We don't though, so they are using wound count as a stand in for size. Not ideal, but far from the weirdest abstraction we use.
We adopt a little abstraction to make the game more balanced and enjoyable, and 9th ed isn't the first edition to do it. Remember firing arcs on vehicles, no longer a thing, which made vehicles much better in 8th ed then they were in 7th ed.
Are you really going to miss bending over, moving your face as close to the model as possible, and squinting to see if you can see part of a model? I've had LoS questions in quite a few games, they always break the flow, and and a few times have involved a TO which is ultra lame.
You want to use true LoS, do you man, no one is going to tell you how to play with your models. For tournaments and most pickups, a quick and easy way to unequivocally determine LoS is very desirable, even if it comes with a few quirks.
In AoS there is a spell which creates the equivalent of 9th 40k 5" high obscuring terrain element. To check the LoS around it, AoS uses base to base measurement. Expect that to come here too.
Also, I think that people have weird ideas about what a ruin is
You can easily see that in ruins, the only possible concept of "inside" is when you are on the second floor or close to the windows, which means that you can get shot and that you can shoot.
Pretty much any terrain element where you can get inside, has so far been described by other rules. The fact that ITC attached a "ruin" label to pretty much any terrain element, doesn't mean that they are ruins for canonic 40k.
The obscuring keyword is something that will appear mostly on linear elements, like ruins.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's not forget also that 9th gave us a new toy which could be more important than what we are discussing.
Obstacles give cover bonuses just by being in the way, that is HUGE!
Cover doesn't help much when your being slammed by waves of ap2 weapon fire. Being unhitable on the other hand is very nice, especialy if you can fire from outside of LoS.
Karol wrote: Cover doesn't help much when your being slammed by waves of ap2 weapon fire. Being unhitable on the other hand is very nice, especialy if you can fire from outside of LoS.
Cover is always important.
Even on my lowly 6+ saves pestered by -1 AP fire, cover increased durability by 20%. If people really think that 20% isn't a factor, then they should leave Lts at home, because they are doing nothing for you.
It's better than nothing but low armored dudes but a flat 5+ save that isn't affected by AP would have been the best choice. It represents the chance to hit the terrain instead of the model. Adding +1 to the save doesn't make much sense lorewise and favors units that are already tough gamewise.
yeah and it matters if you have a 200model army, because then saving every 6th model matters. If I have the chance to save every 5th or 6th model out of a 5 man squad , then I am not saving up that much.
Lts are good, because they buff 40+ intercessors. Few people would take them if they were to buff a squad of 5 regular dudes. the 5 dudes would have to come with hvy weapons or something, and even then the rule about never taking singels kicks in, so you are buffing a whole formation of 10-15 models, and then it is also worth to add a chaplain or an ancient with a banner etc.
My dudes were running around with portable cover all 8th ed, I can tell you that it did not help them that much.
Now an orc or an IG conscript suddenly being 33% more resilient, that is another thing. But neither orcs nor IG are the main army played in w40k. it is marines, that is why I wrote that it doesn't help that much.
Blackie wrote: It's better than nothing but low armored dudes but a flat 5+ save that isn't affected by AP would have been the best choice. It represents the chance to hit the terrain instead of the model. Adding +1 to the save doesn't make much sense lorewise and favors units that are already tough gamewise.
It assumes that the covering element is something equivalent to a light armor save, to which we can agree or disagree. This means that you can hit the terrain element, but if you were firing with a plasma gun I will just push trough it.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Ahh, I suppose the first part of that is true (for now). The second part I don't think is paradoxical once we acknowledge the abstraction.
On the flip side to all of it, people have been complaining about the inclusion of superheavies and flyers in the game for years. This is a distinct and specific nerf to those units. Rejoice!
Yeah because we should rejoice that we are nerfing codex's that hit 40% win ratio as part of soup. Whike buffing Marines the 65% win ratio faction.
Also those people complaining about superheavies and flyers have a game tailer made for them it's called killteam, it's got more in common the the 2nd/3rd edition vibe they want.
So they can stop trying to have valid codex's nerfed into unplayable trash to have them soft banned from the game.
Do you have inside knowledge as to what all the new point values are?
at this point if it's upwards in any direction they'll suck and given every overcosted weapon they have is likeky to pick up the blast keyword which Stu was very adminet are getting "significant points increases, for their improved versatility" I'm certainly not hopeful that actually any of the proposed changes actually help anyone outside of marines primarily, Custodes maybe.
Marines haven't been 65% winrate since the second round of nerfs came out. Also, tau, Eldar, SoB, and Crons benefit as much or more from these changes as marines do. Crons especially.
Marines for 2020 once you take out all the marine vrs marine scores avarage win ratio for Codex Spacemarine supliments is 62%
They still are over powered and nothing in the rules previews for 9th indicate a Marine nerf if anything GW still seem to be on Marines need buffs charge.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Ahh, I suppose the first part of that is true (for now). The second part I don't think is paradoxical once we acknowledge the abstraction.
On the flip side to all of it, people have been complaining about the inclusion of superheavies and flyers in the game for years. This is a distinct and specific nerf to those units. Rejoice!
Yeah because we should rejoice that we are nerfing codex's that hit 40% win ratio as part of soup. Whike buffing Marines the 65% win ratio faction.
Also those people complaining about superheavies and flyers have a game tailer made for them it's called killteam, it's got more in common the the 2nd/3rd edition vibe they want.
So they can stop trying to have valid codex's nerfed into unplayable trash to have them soft banned from the game.
Do you have inside knowledge as to what all the new point values are?
at this point if it's upwards in any direction they'll suck and given every overcosted weapon they have is likeky to pick up the blast keyword which Stu was very adminet are getting "significant points increases, for their improved versatility" I'm certainly not hopeful that actually any of the proposed changes actually help anyone outside of marines primarily, Custodes maybe.
Marines haven't been 65% winrate since the second round of nerfs came out. Also, tau, Eldar, SoB, and Crons benefit as much or more from these changes as marines do. Crons especially.
Marines for 2020 once you take out all the marine vrs marine scores avarage win ratio for Codex Spacemarine supliments is 62%
They still are over powered and nothing in the rules previews for 9th indicate a Marine nerf if anything GW still seem to be on Marines need buffs charge.
That's hard to say. We have pretty much no data for 2020. Most of the world was not allowed to play 40K, so the data is skewed by those few local metas which somehow managed to play.
I guess that you are taking your data from 40K stats, but for most people that data is even more useless than it usually already is (being ITC only).
Having had time to think about it a bit more, I quite like what they're doing with terrain and am looking forward to getting the full picture.
Would i have preferred a flat cover save rather than a modifier to the existing save? Yes, but its not going to ruin my day.
After initially being dubious about the Obscuring terrain, I quite like it. It all comes down to what terrain features are given this keyword.
Ruins have it and armoured containers don't. I would expect that soild objects in general don't have it but broken up things do - ruins are broken/crumbling, trees have gaps etc. I think this means the LOS to see 18w+ and flyer models makes a bit more intuitive sense, representing seeing the flyer high above or the knight through the gaps.
Walls with windows and doors could be given obscuring.
I would expect solid walls and buildings etc not to have the obscuring trait and to block LOS or not using TLOS.
It seems like the main driving force behind these rules is to allow people to have useable rules for attractive terrain, whether GW official pieces or otherwise. There shouldn't be any need now for boring looking solid L-shaped walls everywhere just to make the game playable.
One thing people seem to have forgotten regarding heavy cover is that if the model has to be wholly within the terrain to receive the benefit, then the simplest way to prevent chargers getting the save bonus is to make sure there is no room for any of their models to be wholly within the terrain after making their charge move...
i.e. stationing your models within an inch of the edge will prevent any of the chargers getting far enough onto the terrain to be 'wholly within'.
Mr Morden wrote: The [[Obscuring]] Terrain only obscurs some things but a solid piece of non [[Obscuring]] terrain can potentially screen anything.
This at least makes sense to me. 'Obscuring' is a tag used exclusively on non-solid terrain, like jungles or ruins; if you have a solid wall then the tag would be redundant.
Aside from the weird interaction with Obscuring and height, the exact details of which remain to be seen.
Mr Morden wrote: The [[Obscuring]] Terrain only obscurs some things but a solid piece of non [[Obscuring]] terrain can potentially screen anything.
This at least makes sense to me. 'Obscuring' is a tag used exclusively on non-solid terrain, like jungles or ruins; if you have a solid wall then the tag would be redundant.
Aside from the weird interaction with Obscuring and height, the exact details of which remain to be seen.
But you know someone will come up with it being the default to hand it out to all Ruins at which point cover on the board just becomes another thing that will be used to game the system in certain armies favour.
Mr Morden wrote: The confusing and unintuative nature of the new Terrain rules is putting me off a bit.
I am going to dive behind [[Hard Cover]] - so that the attacker can be protected on the way in and it gives me no extra protection....
The [[Obscuring]] Terrain only obscurs some things but a solid piece of non [[Obscuring]] terrain can potentially screen anything.
WTF
One of the things I hate most about stuff like this is "defining terrain" because half the rules inevitably get forgotten. I'm surprised none of the naysayers have come onto to claim that people will inevitably argue about is terrain modelled as an intact building considered a ruin or some such.
Mr Morden wrote: The confusing and unintuative nature of the new Terrain rules is putting me off a bit.
I am going to dive behind [[Hard Cover]] - so that the attacker can be protected on the way in and it gives me no extra protection....
The [[Obscuring]] Terrain only obscurs some things but a solid piece of non [[Obscuring]] terrain can potentially screen anything.
WTF
One of the things I hate most about stuff like this is "defining terrain" because half the rules inevitably get forgotten. I'm surprised none of the naysayers have come onto to claim that people will inevitably argue about is terrain modelled as an intact building considered a ruin or some such.
Well as GW have defined Buildings as parts of your army ie Tectonic fragdrill, Battle Sanctum etc which have specific rules the implications of that is Buildings can't be "general terrain" so yes the likely hood is buildings will still remain as effectively ruins.
Mr Morden wrote: The [[Obscuring]] Terrain only obscurs some things but a solid piece of non [[Obscuring]] terrain can potentially screen anything.
This at least makes sense to me. 'Obscuring' is a tag used exclusively on non-solid terrain, like jungles or ruins; if you have a solid wall then the tag would be redundant.
Aside from the weird interaction with Obscuring and height, the exact details of which remain to be seen.
But you know someone will come up with it being the default to hand it out to all Ruins at which point cover on the board just becomes another thing that will be used to game the system in certain armies favour.
Or people are not going to be interested in having hour long arguments over what build is what kind of terrain, and will go for the easy and simple every building is this one specific thing.
Karol wrote: Or people are not going to be interested in having hour long arguments over what build is what kind of terrain, and will go for the easy and simple every building is this one specific thing.
which is about as lame as you can get, but I guess if that's what idiots who want to make the game into something it isnt, fine. But those of us that are not donkey-caves will enjoy the variety in how you can interact with terrain.
Yes of course, the people who agree with you are enlighted adults with moral traits up to the heavens, while everyone who disagrees or sees something different is a donkey cave who does everything wrong. Probably with low morals and bad looks too.
Because it is not like GW employs themselfs said multiple times on twitch that games in 8th took to long, and they wanted 9th games to go smoother and faster. Who knows maybe GW designers and playtesters are donkeys caves themselfs too.
I think you're misunderstanding, if the person you are playing with(not against) cant agree with you on terrain, etc... maybe they're not someone whom you'd like to play with.
I mean, if you cant agree on something as simple as terrain, how on terra can you come to any reasonable compromise regarding anything in game?
No one is holding a bolter to your head and forcing you to play with someone you don't want to play with. Well maybe in your fethed up meta where your army will get trashed(literally) it's not reasonable.
Spoletta wrote: In AoS there is a spell which creates the equivalent of 9th 40k 5" high obscuring terrain element.
To check the LoS around it, AoS uses base to base measurement. Expect that to come here too.
Also, I think that people have weird ideas about what a ruin is
You can easily see that in ruins, the only possible concept of "inside" is when you are on the second floor or close to the windows, which means that you can get shot and that you can shoot.
Pretty much any terrain element where you can get inside, has so far been described by other rules. The fact that ITC attached a "ruin" label to pretty much any terrain element, doesn't mean that they are ruins for canonic 40k.
The obscuring keyword is something that will appear mostly on linear elements, like ruins.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's not forget also that 9th gave us a new toy which could be more important than what we are discussing.
Obstacles give cover bonuses just by being in the way, that is HUGE!
Hopefully, this will help to make the smaller table feel bigger.
Base to base for line of sight is good. I hope that you are correct.
Keeping in mind that we are seeing partial reveals of rules without the full picture, I think that these Cover rules show that GW is following the competitive scene and what the game had turned into on the circuits. Being able to shoot through windows meant that tables at the big tournies were filled with giant walls and magic boxes. Those horrible-looking tourney tables probably spurred the GW team into action. Obscuring Terrain is a nod to the ITC ruins idea and will mean that we have good looking and functional terrain. The giant walls dominating the centre of tourney tables were likely the result of the prevalence of Knights - normal terrain was often meaningless. The Obscuring twist of LOS not being reciprocal for models with more than 18 wounds means that Knights sitting still in their deployment area will now risk getting lit up by heavy weapons that they cannot touch in return. They will have to stomp forward. Not an intuitive rule but I think it might just do the trick.
Obviously we'll just have to see how it all meshes together. I like that it seems that we can have good-looking, functional tables of terrain now.
