Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
But still, the rule is about finding a compromise between an easy cover system (+1 Armor Save) and not making the best defended units too immune to fire via that rule. Moving a 3+ Save to an effective 2+ Save is something they didn't want to do, so they simply ruled it out by exception. It is not elegant, but it is simple.

Wait, isn't their new motto "Simplified but not simple"?

The whole set of terrain rules are absolutely simplified from the keyword salad and then the cover bonus isn't simple, because you have to contextualize it. Simplified, not simple.

 alextroy wrote:
You are free to rage against the rules if you like, but the mental gymnastics aren't even that hard.

Most armor on most models is simply not that resistant to AP0 attacks anywhere. Enough solid hits to the torso will punch through them.

2+ and 3+ armor is only vulnerable at the weak points like the head and joints. Guess what is available to be hit when you are looking and firing from a cover position? The head, neck, arms, and shoulders. Sometimes the foot and legs. Lots of joints showing with the heavily armored torso hidden.

But still, the rule is about finding a compromise between an easy cover system (+1 Armor Save) and not making the best defended units too immune to fire via that rule. Moving a 3+ Save to an effective 2+ Save is something they didn't want to do, so they simply ruled it out by exception. It is not elegant, but it is simple.

You're right, the head of Infantry has to be stopped by a fence first vs the Marine where it magically swerves out of the way of the fence.

Don't forget the discrepancy of Ogryn vs Bullgryn getting benefits! Only an Ogryn's legs can ever get benefit, because a bullet knows it needs to try harder against a Bullgryn!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
But still, the rule is about finding a compromise between an easy cover system (+1 Armor Save) and not making the best defended units too immune to fire via that rule. Moving a 3+ Save to an effective 2+ Save is something they didn't want to do, so they simply ruled it out by exception. It is not elegant, but it is simple.

Wait, isn't their new motto "Simplified but not simple"?

The whole set of terrain rules are absolutely simplified from the keyword salad and then the cover bonus isn't simple, because you have to contextualize it. Simplified, not simple.

Ah, my mistake, I thought by "not simple" they meant "has depth" and not "it can get confusing" .

Just give cover a 5+ invuln save.

Problem solved next edition.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

You're right, the head of Infantry has to be stopped by a fence first vs the Marine where it magically swerves out of the way of the fence.

Don't forget the discrepancy of Ogryn vs Bullgryn getting benefits! Only an Ogryn's legs can ever get benefit, because a bullet knows it needs to try harder against a Bullgryn!

I mean, we can discuss how "unrealistic" it is until the space-cows come home. Its a game, not a simulation, and the reasons why they did this are purely mechanically driven, not lore driven, so no amount of talk of realism, verisimilitude, or whatever, is going to change the fact the designers think 3+ armoured units in cover getting a 2+ is a Bad Thing, so they added a rule to prevent it.

Thats it. Is it "unrealistic" within the confines of the settings lore? yes. Doesnt matter, its not meant to be "realistic", just to stop a interaction that most players agree has a disproportional effect on game balance and boosts MEQ factions heavily. Given the stated and so far apparent reduction in lethality, its clear they think this additional boost will be overpowered and oppressive, or promote gameplay they feel is "unfun", so they removed it.

im reminded of all the discussion at the start of 9th about the introduction of CORE, and how "unrealistic" (or not) that was, and how it was silly that X marine unit was core, but Y unit was not. because like with CORE, the reasons for this are game balence driven, not lore driven.

It would be easy enough to assign different forms of cover different cover save values. These could easily range from 3+ down to 6+ with obscuring cover also giving a -1 to hit penalty. That's realistic and easy enough to adjudicate with tournaments easily able to pin cover values to bits of terrain or publish terrain maps giving cover values for ease of use.

Garage and PUGs would need some agreement but no more than other editions.

In terms of what might be coming with 10th Ed?

The Lion, Son of the Forest, features quite a lot of Chaos Beastmen. It doesn’t strike me as just the author liking Beasties. So perhaps Chaos will be getting Beastmen in the relatively near future?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In terms of what might be coming with 10th Ed?

The Lion, Son of the Forest, features quite a lot of Chaos Beastmen. It doesn’t strike me as just the author liking Beasties. So perhaps Chaos will be getting Beastmen in the relatively near future?

Valrak already said as much, according to him the Killteam that was recently previewed is only the beginning and they're getting, quote 'Lots of love'.

 vipoid wrote:
Do you think it would make more sense if cover just didn't provide a benefit against AP0 weapons, regardless of a model's armour save?

Honestly cover should probably provide more protection against low AP weapons. A tree is a real barrier to a 5.56 round, but probably helps f*** all against a depleted uranium rod traveling at mach 4.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Do you think it would make more sense if cover just didn't provide a benefit against AP0 weapons, regardless of a model's armour save?

Honestly cover should probably provide more protection against low AP weapons. A tree is a real barrier to a 5.56 round, but probably helps f*** all against a depleted uranium rod traveling at mach 4.

From a realism standpoint, I fully agree.

From a gameplay perspective, it seems 99% of AP0 weapons are already garbage-tier, so this might at least make them slightly more appealing.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Just give cover a 5+ invuln save.

Problem solved next edition.

It doesn't help models with an inv save though, especialy if the cost is actualy build in to the model and not handed out for free.

Karol wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Just give cover a 5+ invuln save.

Problem solved next edition.

It doesn't help models with an inv save though, especialy if the cost is actualy build in to the model and not handed out for free.

Its more or less how old editions did cover - you can take an armor OR cover save if you are in cover. Cover saves were generally worse than armor saves, but didn't care about the AP of the gun, so Guardsmen or Orks for example benefited from cover by actually getting a save, while marines only worried about it when the big guns came out. And the advantage for the model with the invuln save was that well, they got that save anywhere no matter what.

Mind you GW has been throwing stuff out that ignores invuln saves, and then other rules that ignore rules that ignore invuln saves, so who knows. If the scaled back lethality is true then that would be something I'd imagine would be also scaled back.

Maybe this isn't the best place to post our cover rules, but what the heck.

We still use area terrain & cover saves similar to the 3rd-7th edition paradigm, as well as the previous weapon AP system so keep that in mind.

Models only get one save type: cover, armor or invulnerable. Sound familiar? Granting each save type is the most fair but it we decided it slows down the game too much. Area terrain can be shot into and through up to & including a second area terrain but not past that (exceptions for sniper rifles & railguns). Models receiving cover from area terrain (but not just a barricade, for example) are at a -1 to get hit. This benefits all units taking cover.

Different terrain types provide better cover: ruins & rocks 4+, forest 5+, light fences & bushes 6+, etc. If the AP of a weapon is a higher number than the save provided by the area terrain, shots may go into that area but not past it.
So a bolter that is AP 5 won't pass through a 4+ cover save ruin, for example.

Is this a perfect system? Of course not, because such a thing doesn't exist for all examples. We have found it to be the most equitable in the greatest number of cases, however. Your mileage may vary.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Do you think it would make more sense if cover just didn't provide a benefit against AP0 weapons, regardless of a model's armour save?

Honestly cover should probably provide more protection against low AP weapons. A tree is a real barrier to a 5.56 round, but probably helps f*** all against a depleted uranium rod traveling at mach 4.

There are two things going on.

One is that 'cover' in 40K also includes concealment. That tank gun might put a fist-sized hole through whatever it hits, but if you can't actually see the guys hiding behind the sandbags, your effectiveness is still reduced.

And the other is that while it's logical for the protection offered by hard cover to be mitigated by sufficient AP, it isn't particularly logical for cover to disproportionately benefit more-armored units over less-armored ones, to the point where if your armor is an impenetrable aegis of bulletproof protection you hide whenever you can while if your only protection is a t-shirt you don't bother hiding from fire.

Basically, they wrote themselves into a corner with using save modification as the mechanic. And now they're trying to write themselves into a better gameplay outcome, logic be damned.

Frankly, it's a good example of why designing for effect often beats designing for simulation. I was never a fan of the all-or-nothing AP system but the pick-your-best-save approach to armor/invulns/cover produced thematically appropriate results on the tabletop.

 amanita wrote:
Is this a perfect system? Of course not, because such a thing doesn't exist for all examples. We have found it to be the most equitable in the greatest number of cases, however. Your mileage may vary.

The point I think most people miss ( not you, specifically ) is that the 'perfect' system will only become more and more complex. If we want to have a game that is quick to resolve and systems that don't create pockets of imbalance then simpler is better.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Is this a perfect system? Of course not, because such a thing doesn't exist for all examples. We have found it to be the most equitable in the greatest number of cases, however. Your mileage may vary.

The point I think most people miss ( not you, specifically ) is that the 'perfect' system will only become more and more complex. If we want to have a game that is quick to resolve and systems that don't create pockets of imbalance then simpler is better.

If its more and more complex, its almost definitionally not perfect. So, I'm honestly not sure where you're going with that.
Similarly, quick and simple isn't necessarily a blueprint for avoiding pockets of imbalance. I'm not sure that's even likely, as it pretty much falls under the 'cheap, fast or good, pick 2' maxim.

I am just looking forward to trying out the system. Don't really care for the "what's real"/"My Marines got 38 rules last year and only 37 now" discussion. For me I need to experience the terrain rules on the table and then make judgment.

Although I would love an indepth look in future White Dwarf magazines what the thinking was behind this.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Is this a perfect system? Of course not, because such a thing doesn't exist for all examples. We have found it to be the most equitable in the greatest number of cases, however. Your mileage may vary.

The point I think most people miss ( not you, specifically ) is that the 'perfect' system will only become more and more complex. If we want to have a game that is quick to resolve and systems that don't create pockets of imbalance then simpler is better.

That's the entire point: simplifying the system to make it intuitive and easy to understand, but then also making it complex (and not simple) to improve player interactions and add depth. You can make an insanely detailed and complex system and it will still run lightning-fast if you put enough grease between the gears, so to speak. The flip side is that designing such a system takes a lot more than throwing around ideas while sipping coffee.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Although I would love an indepth look in future White Dwarf magazines what the thinking was behind this.

Yeah. You're not going to get that.

Voss 809431 11522830 wrote:
If its more and more complex, its almost definitionally not perfect. So, I'm honestly not sure where you're going with that.
Similarly, quick and simple isn't necessarily a blueprint for avoiding pockets of imbalance. I'm not sure that's even likely, as it pretty much for under the 'cheap, fast or good, pick 2' maxim.

With the expeption of Ad Mecha, all top w40k armies in 9th ed were easy to understand how they work, and most were also fast to play. Sometimes in case of stuff like pre nerf Eldar, D Eldar and Vottan the armies could have 45min 2k point games.

I'd be happy to just shave an hour or so from my games. They always take a really long time due to looking up rules and stats, and because my group hasn't played that many times, really. So much reading getting in the way! 10th will hopefully be a lot quicker.

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Is this a perfect system? Of course not, because such a thing doesn't exist for all examples. We have found it to be the most equitable in the greatest number of cases, however. Your mileage may vary.

The point I think most people miss ( not you, specifically ) is that the 'perfect' system will only become more and more complex. If we want to have a game that is quick to resolve and systems that don't create pockets of imbalance then simpler is better.

If its more and more complex, its almost definitionally not perfect. So, I'm honestly not sure where you're going with that.
Similarly, quick and simple isn't necessarily a blueprint for avoiding pockets of imbalance. I'm not sure that's even likely, as it pretty much for under the 'cheap, fast or good, pick 2' maxim.

Perfect as in satisfying all these conditions people want, which in the end makes terrain it's own game if you go far enough.

Said another way - a game where terrain is the star ( e.g. Necromunda ). But terrain in those games in very technical. A lot of 40K players want terrain that is very diverse and for a game that takes a lot of time investing more rules into it will only slow it down.

You got that one right. In 8th, everyone screamed for better terrain rules. 9th rolled in with a ton of Terrain Traits and everyone said that is not what they meant. Now 10th is distilling down the 9th rules into a smaller range of options, while remaining more complex than 8th. Looks good so far, but there are obviously details to be added.

 alextroy wrote:
You got that one right. In 8th, everyone screamed for better terrain rules. 9th rolled in with a ton of Terrain Traits and everyone said that is not what they meant. Now 10th is distilling down the 9th rules into a smaller range of options, while remaining more complex than 8th. Looks good so far, but there are obviously details to be added.

Out of curiosity, what were the perceived problems with 9th edition's terrain rules? A lot of them went unused, but I rather liked them on the whole. If I had any gripes, the main one was probably just that the lack of stacking to-hit mods made dense terrain a bit wonky, but I kind of liked being able to apply relevant tags to terrain.

EDIT: Passing thought: I wonder if a more intuitive approach to the cover changes could have been to let marines benefit from cover against small arms, but only at a distance. So if you're willing to get danger close to the marines, you can "find better angles" or whatever. So instead of the 10th edition rule of not being able to get a 2+ save, maybe you instead only get the benefits of cover against attacks from more than X" away. So you end up with counterplay to avoid having to chew through 2+ saves all game, and marines still have a reason to take cover.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Out of curiosity, what were the perceived problems with 9th edition's terrain rules?

Can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally I find the keyword system to be implemented in an annoyingly convoluted way. The fact that it's written in lawyer-speak (so dense that even the writers can't really parse it- see Heavy Cover, where the full rules and the bullet point summary contradict each other about who gets the benefit) only makes it worse.

I'm much happier with a few types of codified cover and before the game saying 'these are ruins, these are craters' rather than having to run through the keywords assigned to each piece of terrain, remember what those do, and then remember which terrain has which keywords.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
EDIT: Passing thought: I wonder if a more intuitive approach to the cover changes could have been to let marines benefit from cover against small arms, but only at a distance. So if you're willing to get danger close to the marines, you can "find better angles" or whatever. So instead of the 10th edition rule of not being able to get a 2+ save, maybe you instead only get the benefits of cover against attacks from more than X" away. So you end up with counterplay to avoid having to chew through 2+ saves all game, and marines still have a reason to take cover.

People thinking this means that Marines won't ever take cover are being silly. If you leave your Marines out in the open because it doesn't make any difference against lasguns, you're still going to get mulched by plasma guns.

It just means that firing lasguns won't involve an average of 120 dice rolled for every Marine taken off the board, which is flying rodent gak insane.

The problem with the 9th Edition Traits is that there are just too many and they are not intuitively applied. Add that some were just plan useless (I'm talking about you, scatter terrain) and you ended up with more rules than you need.

It didn't help that they wrote Heavy Cover so badly it got the wrong result, either. They had rewrite the last half of the sentence in the FAQ to make it work correctly.

My main gripes with 9th edition terrain are
a) a good terrain setup is absolutely mandatory to have a good game, and there is not much grey area - it terrain is either well placed or it isn't and ruins the game.
b) The terrain by itself can invalidate units or even entire armies, while not impacting the other army in any meaningful way (dense, breachable, unstable ground)
c) Great looking tables can be functionally identical to having no terrain
d) Setting up terrain in a good way is difficult and can in general only be done by experienced players.

As far as I can tell, 10th affects these four issues as follows:
a) Same as before, but maybe less binary. Even if they cut the ap and damage of every weapon in the game, and no matter how easy it is to obtain "benefits of cover", no valuable unit will survive T1 if they are visible to the enemy army. Placing sufficient amounts of obscuring terrain ruins in the right places will still make or break games.
b) Dense is gone, the jury is still out on breachable and unstable ground.
c) This got slightly toned down, as almost all terrain now hands out benefits of cover if they are in the way. So this got quite a bit better, but a table without ruins in the center will still be shooting gallery, even if less stuff dies.
d) Once again, since ruins didn't change functionally, it's still necessary to know how to use them. Depending on how terrain blocks movement, this might or might not have improved.

So my current opinion is that they took 9th edition's rules and just cut everything that wasn't used and fixed the biggest problems of the things that were used. For most games, they should almost play identical.
Instead of relying on obscuring to continue to save the day, I wished they should have been more drastic changes, like we see in boarding action.

So the previewed rules get a solid "meh" from me.

 Jidmah wrote:
My main gripes with 9th edition terrain are
a) a good terrain setup is absolutely mandatory to have a good game, and there is not much grey area - it terrain is either well placed or it isn't and ruins the game.
b) The terrain by itself can invalidate units or even entire armies, while not impacting the other army in any meaningful way (dense, breachable, unstable ground)
c) Great looking tables can be functionally identical to having no terrain
d) Setting up terrain in a good way is difficult and can in general only be done by experienced players.

As far as I can tell, 10th affects these four issues as follows:
a) Same as before, but maybe less binary. Even if they cut the ap and damage of every weapon in the game, and no matter how easy it is to obtain "benefits of cover", no valuable unit will survive T1 if they are visible to the enemy army. Placing sufficient amounts of obscuring terrain ruins in the right places will still make or break games.
b) Dense is gone, the jury is still out on breachable and unstable ground.
c) This got slightly toned down, as almost all terrain now hands out benefits of cover if they are in the way. So this got quite a bit better, but a table without ruins in the center will still be shooting gallery, even if less stuff dies.
d) Once again, since ruins didn't change functionally, it's still necessary to know how to use them. Depending on how terrain blocks movement, this might or might not have improved.

So my current opinion is that they took 9th edition's rules and just cut everything that wasn't used and fixed the biggest problems of the things that were used. For most games, they should almost play identical.
Instead of relying on obscuring to continue to save the day, I wished they should have been more drastic changes, like we see in boarding action.

So the previewed rules get a solid "meh" from me.

A lot will depend on the definition of "Partially visible" and "Fully visible". If it is defined with true LoS then yes, we don't get too far from 9th edition issues, but if they instead trace from base to base then it would be a lot cleaner.
Lower AP and easier to claim cover can fix the shooting gallery issue for many factions, but there are some like Aeldari which won't really get saved by that, and will still require to break LoS regularly.
It would be easier to fix them with bespoke rules ("Lighting fast reflexes: Can't be selected as a target of ranged weapons if the attacker is further than 18" and all the models of this unit have the benefit of cover"), than trying to fix them changing the general terrain rules.

Karol wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Just give cover a 5+ invuln save.

Problem solved next edition.

It doesn't help models with an inv save though, especialy if the cost is actualy build in to the model and not handed out for free.

So? Your termis already have a 2+ save anyway

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Is this a perfect system? Of course not, because such a thing doesn't exist for all examples. We have found it to be the most equitable in the greatest number of cases, however. Your mileage may vary.

The point I think most people miss ( not you, specifically ) is that the 'perfect' system will only become more and more complex. If we want to have a game that is quick to resolve and systems that don't create pockets of imbalance then simpler is better.

If its more and more complex, its almost definitionally not perfect. So, I'm honestly not sure where you're going with that.
Similarly, quick and simple isn't necessarily a blueprint for avoiding pockets of imbalance. I'm not sure that's even likely, as it pretty much for under the 'cheap, fast or good, pick 2' maxim.

Perfect as in satisfying all these conditions people want, which in the end makes terrain it's own game if you go far enough.

Said another way - a game where terrain is the star ( e.g. Necromunda ). But terrain in those games in very technical. A lot of 40K players want terrain that is very diverse and for a game that takes a lot of time investing more rules into it will only slow it down.

It wont happen because too many people want mutually exclusive things - and way too many categorize the things they don't like for armies they don't play as "bloat".