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.

I tread onto this ground with much dread, because rules discussions often make me want to yank the hair out of my head and I am getting older and therefore cannot spare said hair. But I must pose this to you.

4th Ed. Area Terrain rules, if I remember correctly, basically stated that area terrain was any piece of terrain that wasn't strictly WYSIWYG. It was an abstraction. This ruined house piece here is Area Terrain even though if you look at it WYSIWYG there really aren't enough rubble piles to hide a model behind, but if we modeled it that way it would be a pain in the ass to move models into and out of so screw it, it's Area Terrain and if half a unit is inside the borders of that piece they get cover. Deal?

Or, this forest here is actually much taller than these HO scale pine trees we stuck into the foam are, but to actually model those trees at WYSIWYG height would be ridiculous and where the hell would I store the fething thing so screw it, let's call it Area Terrain and say it's very high and covers up everything, deal?

(Which, of course, leads to all the b.s. about Skimmers and "Well, if you can shoot over it because your Skimmer is so high that means I can shoot back at it but you can't shoot my Skimmer through the Area Terrain unless I shoot over it first" which is how in part we get to TLOS in 5th Ed. I would guess)

Now in 5th Ed. if memory serves, Area Terrain is discussed after other sorts of terrain. Area Terrain is defined as terrain which doesn't have clear borders. Anything with clear borders is therefore not Area Terrain. So, that building you put onto a piece of MDF is not be Area Terrain because you have modeled it on a base, and you know where it begins or ends. If that building was being represented by two free-standing building corners placed opposite each other on the table with no base then it might be area terrain because where does the "terrain" begin or end?

In the rules, it says if half of a unit is standing behind Area Terrain that the unit gets cover. I would take this to mean that if you were using two free-standing corners of a building as a piece of Area Terrain, there's going to be a big, empty space between those two corners that provides perfectly clear TLOS from a shooting unit on one side of the Area Terrain to a target unit on the other...but because you've defined that as Area Terrain and have defined its borders, the target unit is "behind" the Area Terrain and those rules therefore trump TLOS. You refer to the abstraction of the Area Terrain.

When I start to think like this I begin to wonder how the Skimmer problem got solved for everyone as abstraction is still involved, but anyway...


Hopefully we're all on the same page so far. Setting up the background. Now the game-specific scenario.

You know the set of five plastic craters that came out a few years ago, the original set of them, not the crappy new releases that I've heard people complaining about. I have those in my terrain box at home. We're setting up a table for a 40K game. My opponent asks me "Do we consider these Area Terrain?"

I think about it. Well, we usually play that models inside those craters get a cover save. I usually want to call it 5+ because those craters are pretty flat, and we make models take Difficult Terrain rolls to walk through the craters and usually we impart cover saves to any piece of terrain which requires those rolls...so sure, it's Area Terrain. You don't need TLOS blocking to get a cover save for being in the craters.

Flash forward to Turn 3 or 4 of that game. It took place a while ago. I have a shooting unit on one side of the crater. He has a target unit on the other side. Neither of them have any models with any bases on the actual terrain piece. The most the terrain piece obscures TLOS is perhaps their feet.

He tells me his unit gets cover because half of the models are behind area terrain. I ask him what he means - they're not behind anything. They're standing right out in the open.

He reminds me about asking earlier if the crater pieces were considered Area Terrain. I say yeah, we're playing it as though you get saves for standing half a unit in it. He says "The rulebook says that if half a unit is standing behind area terrain, they get cover."

I'm still not getting him. I look it up in the book. I see how it defines Area Terrain as terrain which is not clearly defined through borders and such. However the rulebook puts it. It's not referring to those crater pieces the way the rulebook describes Area Terrain. In my house we play giving people cover for that terrain anyway because on the cover saves list in the rulebook it says that craters grant cover, so it seems fair to do so...but the models have to be IN the terrain to get it.

He says no, they get cover because they are actually standing behind the borders of the crater, which we've called Area Terrain and that's why he asked me at the beginning of the game whether they were Area Terrain or not.



Okay, first an admission - had I picked up the rulebook as soon as he asked me whether those craters were Area Terrain I might have said what I wound up saying when I did finally read the rulebook: that no, those craters wouldn't be Area Terrain by the strictest definition because we can see where the borders of the piece are. There is no question, no need for abstraction. I'll grant you cover for being IN it, but you have to have half your models IN the crater.

I make this admission by way of admitting that the situation I found myself in was partially of my own doing.

That said, once the conversation began I had to ask my opponent if he knew the 5th Ed. rules so well and that's why he was making the claim that standing on the other side of the crater, which is "behind" from a certain point of view (I always think of being "behind" cover in any wargame as in "half the unit is obscured in a meaningful fashion/hidden from view") grants cover why he asked if the crater was Area Terrain at all because clearly from RAW in 5th. Ed. you would never consider the crater Area Terrain?

In the end, I granted him the cover save to keep the game going but I felt taken for a ride a little. We were at my house playing a game. I likely wasn't paying much attention when he asked me the question about the craters because I was making us some food or mixing drinks or feeding the cats or something...the dining room where the gaming table goes is right next to the kitchen...



But I don't even want a judgment on the situation. That's not why I am posting this. I want to know:

1) Would you ever consider those crater pieces I am talking about Area Terrain by 5th Ed. rules such that you would ask the question?

2) Would you ever consider granting a unit a cover save for standing on the other side of the crater, but otherwise totally unobscured from view?

By way of determining whether I was entirely out of my mind for being frustrated at the situation or not. Danke in advance.

Not trying to be rude, but you appear to have missed the second paragraph of the area terrain rules.

The first paragraph explains that area terrain represents the sort of terrain that often doesn't have clear borders or edges.
The second paragraph goes on to explain that to get around this, we give the terrain an artificial border by putting it on a base. The base then defines what is considered the 'edge' of the terrain for the purposes of the game.

In 'reality' the forest (or whatever) may actually have outlying elements beyond that edge, but at that point they are insignificant enough to be disregarded. It's just what is inside the established boundary of the terrain that counts.

Cairnius wrote:1) Would you ever consider those crater pieces I am talking about Area Terrain by 5th Ed. rules such that you would ask the question?

Craters are generally considered Area Terrain, yes.

2) Would you ever consider granting a unit a cover save for standing on the other side of the crater, but otherwise totally unobscured from view?

No. See the rules for cover saves on page 22. Specifically the one about firing through area terrain (3rd bullet point). The LOS has to pass between elements of the terrain in order to grant a cover save to units on the other side of it. Firing over the terrain does not confer a cover save.

In the situation you described, you can just eyeball if the models are significantly covered (seemingly not, here).

Also,if you feel aggrieved by your opponents pov and can't find clear cut rules, have a roll off - the 40k equivalent of a duel. At least you won't feel cheated afterwards.

I wish I had my book handy... I could quote you some references. However, in general I think you have it. Had you not discussed a guiding rule prior to the game that contradicted, then you could have called it WYSIWYG and you could have moved on.

Providing the following as food for thought, not as verbatum quotes. This is all from memory. However, I think some of the points here will give you something to research on the various technical components of terrain, cover, LOS and Area Terrain. Do not take this as law, research and draw your own conclusions...

1. First and foremost, discuss the terrain with your opponent before a game. That way, even if you have differences - you and your opponent will have some common ground for approaching that specific game. This single step can solve so many issues... I strongly encourage even the best of friends to have this brief but effective discussion.

2. My gaming group and at local tourny's, we play craters as WYSIWYG. They have borders, they have an actual height. We shy away from Area Terrain unless ruins, forest or water features.... we find it simpiler to stick with WYSIWYG where possible.

3. "Infantry" can get cover from anything that can partially obscure models in the unit. More specifically, if 50% or more of the target unit's models are partially obscured from the firing unit, it is safe to give them cover.

4. So depending upon the firing unit's vantage point, height of firing models and target models, the rolling terrain of the table, and the crater's placement, the crater's modelled size, position of units as lines are drawn from shooter eyes to body of target models, etc... it's quite possible for the crater to have given a target unit cover if it was interveining and concealing some portion of the models AND concealing some portion of at least 50% of the models.

5. Area terrain provides additional rules for consideration. One of many considerations is that if an Infantry model's base is partially or more in area terrain, it may claim a cover save. It doesn't have to be behind it. If 50% of a target unit is in the area terrain, the unit can claim cover. As you said, this is an abstraction by design. Vines can rap out and around models, smoke and burning debris could be blowing smoke, rocks could be all over the place, some kind of toxic gas could be disrupting vision in the area, etc, etc... This does not overrule WYSIWYG, but instead compliments it.

6. Be mindful that firing OVER area terrain to a target on the other side and in the distance does not automatically grant the target unit cover. If you can see 100% of MORE THAN 50% of the models in the target unit, then it PROBABLY doesn't get cover... but other considerations exist... such as firing "through" Area Terrain or inbetween objects standing upright on either side of the area terrain which you are firing inbetween... but I'll direct you to the book for those details.

Hope that helps, and good luck,

Tac

Seems like cover should aplly does it not as if the base of the models is obscured then one is not firing over the terrain, thus able to ignore it.

He does say the base was covered and we have not asked if any of the shooting models where in the crater at all for the 2 inches area terrain effects to kick in either.

But I would give the guy a cover save on the information here and those craters are 4 plus as defined in the rulebook and not 5 plus.

Again, I typed all that at work on Friday, without my rulebook handy, so I take no responsibility for any faultiness to my memories of what the rulebook says while recounting the tale, or when asking my questions.

I have the rulebook in front of me now.

@ Insaniak -

This is why Area Terrain still kills me. So, correct, Area Terrain is that which does not have a clear border, hence we place the terrain on a baseboard or by using sand or a different color on the tabletop...

...but now that the terrain HAS a clear border, because we just gave it one, doesn't that make it cease to be Area Terrain by RAW? Really, that's not what the rulebook means...it's still drawing upon the idea that Area Terrain is an abstraction to prevent us having to model certain terrain types like forests or ruins in a painfully WYSIWYG fashion in order to make sure that the cover we intend the models inside that piece of terrain to be granted is actually granted to them. Otherwise, using TLOS, they wouldn't get cover for being "in the woods" unless an actually-modeled tree was obscuring the target model from LOS.

Anyway...page 13:

"Sometimes a terrain feature has clearly defined edges, such as a crater..."

Craters are not Area Terrain, should never be considered Area Terrain, and I wasn't out of my mind for wondering why my opponent asked me if they were. They're not - and hence I think that I was right in wanting to deny him cover for just being on the other side of the crater and not IN it. I am a friendly gamer, not a competitive one, so I decided to bend, but would have been within my rights to say "Sorry, now we know what the rule is so we play by it." Seems like how it usually goes whenever I find myself in this situation with someone else and I'm the one who got the rule wrong...and I don't complain about it...

In any case...even if the craters *were* Area Terrain...your point from page 22 seems to clinch the deal. The LOS of the shooters has to pass between elements of an Area Terrain piece in order to get cover even if the model is clearly visible to a shooter on the other side of the terrain piece.

Here's the rub:

Basic cover rules say that some part of a model's body - defined as head, torso, legs, and arms on page 16 - has to be obscured from the enemy. All I remember not being able to see were his models' feet, so that doesn't count. My opponent, once I bring this up to him, will probably remember the situation as his models' ankles, maybe, being slightly obscured from my shooters, and claim that he still should have received some cover by RAW.

I think I will have to get some models and those craters out and see...but the idea of someone getting cover even if they were obscured only halfway up their shin is ridiculous. Cover is WAY too generous in 40K if that's really how we're meant to be playing it. It should be either fully half the model, as in from the waist down, or some part of chest of the model, which needs to be obscured in order to get cover.

Bloody TLOS. Somehow FoW uses TLOS but they keep proper Area Terrain abstractions and we never have these sorts of questions arise for me...

Cairnius wrote:Again, I typed all that at work on Friday, without my rulebook handy, so I take no responsibility for any faultiness to my memories of what the rulebook says while recounting the tale, or when asking my questions.

I have the rulebook in front of me now.

@ Insaniak -

This is why Area Terrain still kills me. So, correct, Area Terrain is that which does not have a clear border, hence we place the terrain on a baseboard or by using sand or a different color on the tabletop...

...but now that the terrain HAS a clear border, because we just gave it one, doesn't that make it cease to be Area Terrain by RAW?

But the actual terrain feature itself still doesn't have the clearly defined edges, because the base isn't really part of the terrain feature, it's something added in to help with the abstraction.

"Sometimes a terrain feature has clearly defined edges, such as a crater..."

Craters are not Area Terrain, should never be considered Area Terrain, and I wasn't out of my mind for wondering why my opponent asked me if they were. They're not - and hence I think that I was right in wanting to deny him cover for just being on the other side of the crater and not IN it. I am a friendly gamer, not a competitive one, so I decided to bend, but would have been within my rights to say "Sorry, now we know what the rule is so we play by it." Seems like how it usually goes whenever I find myself in this situation with someone else and I'm the one who got the rule wrong...and I don't complain about it...

It's impossible to say without seeing the terrain feature in question, it's certainly true that a single crater has very defined edges, on the other hand, a field of craters set up in a cluster does not necessarily, and you may want to treat them as area terrain, so as to represent all the loose soil scattered around them and the ready availability of nearby craters for models to dive in/behind for cover. It's just as valid to say that as to treat each crater as a unique non-area terrain piece. I would say if it was a cluster of craters, your opponent was smart to enquire about how you would be playing it, and while either option is valid, obviously, he gave you the chance to discuss it and you said "sure it's area terrain".

In any case...even if the craters *were* Area Terrain...your point from page 22 seems to clinch the deal. The LOS of the shooters has to pass between elements of an Area Terrain piece in order to get cover even if the model is clearly visible to a shooter on the other side of the terrain piece.

Here's the rub:

Basic cover rules say that some part of a model's body - defined as head, torso, legs, and arms on page 16 - has to be obscured from the enemy. All I remember not being able to see were his models' feet, so that doesn't count. My opponent, once I bring this up to him, will probably remember the situation as his models' ankles, maybe, being slightly obscured from my shooters, and claim that he still should have received some cover by RAW.

I think I will have to get some models and those craters out and see...but the idea of someone getting cover even if they were obscured only halfway up their shin is ridiculous. Cover is WAY too generous in 40K if that's really how we're meant to be playing it. It should be either fully half the model, as in from the waist down, or some part of chest of the model, which needs to be obscured in order to get cover.

The reason cover tends to be generous is because of the flow of the game, the player who is shooting gets a movement phase immediately prior with which to position his models for optimum shooting. So to account for that and the fact most models aren't in realistic "taking cover" positions, they give cover out generously, if you have even a remote possibility of a model being able to hide itself, then you pretend that it is hiding itself.

It was a single crater from the Moonscape package, as stated in the OP. From the original release of five plastic craters from GW. Not a cluster, a discrete terrain piece. Hence "a crater" not "a cluster of craters."

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat390003&prodId=prod1095502

Just imagine one of those craters, with 5 Space Marines on one side and 5 Space Marines on the other, and that's the situation during the game which raised the question.


Once we place a terrain feature on a base, then it DOES have clearly defined edges. That's why we put it on the base, in order to eliminate the problems we otherwise might have had if we didn't put the terrain feature on the base. "These woods are the area of the terrain piece." It's not Area Terrain anymore, it's a regular piece of a terrain with clearly defined edges. In game terms the base *is* part of the terrain piece because your models get cover for even partially touching that base. They count as being "in" the terrain.


I'm not sure that "the flow of the game" is a good reason to be quite as generous with cover as 40K currently stands. I think it's reasonable that "behind cover" means that you should have a clearly, large percentage of your body obscured. Technically, if a unit of models had the bottom half of their shin, which is to say part of their "leg" which is defined as part of the "body" of the model, obscured then those models get cover, even though their entire chests - the part of the body people (and ostensibly aliens as well) tend to aim for, is wide open to the world.

That seems ridiculous to me.

No, that isnt how Area terrain works. THe base defines the edge of what you consider Area Terrain, having a base doesnt make it no longer count as area terrain. A ruin with a base is still Area Terrain.

Otherwise what do you call the edge of area terrain? If you have a clump of trees do you imagine a base? No, you stick a base to it in what ever shape you fancy, and the trees represent the terrain that is there, as opposed to actually being the actual terrain.

It was defined as Area terrain but, without any "elements" to hide behind your opponent would find it difficult to claim cover.

I agree with you - but the rulebook makes the defining feature of Area Terrain "not having a clear border." That's not actually the defining feature of Area Terrain. It is a category of terrain which does not follow WYSIWYG principles. That is what actually defines it. Requiring the addition of a defined border is a requisite of being non-WYSIWYG, in order to make the terrain usable in practical terms during a game.

So, this then makes me wonder why GW didn't just keep the Area Terrain rules precisely as they were in 4th Ed. with this addition:

"Area Terrain must have at least one modeled piece of the height of the Area Terrain for LOS purposes."

And somewhere adding:

"Skimmers which are not entirely taller than Area Terrain may not see or be seen over Area Terrain."

Wouldn't that have been all the changes they needed to make Area Terrain less problematic than it sometimes was in 5th Ed.?


Flames of War handles Area Terrain like 40K used to in 4th Ed. "Anything within the area of this base is terrain. See these trees? They are there only to establish the height of the area terrain. You cannot see straight through area terrain."

It's easy, it works, and I've never had a question about area terrain in FoW...because they do what GW should have done and took the basics of area terrain from how it used to be in 40K and just added the height mechanics.

You are confusing the terrain as seen on the board and the terrain as seen in the "imaginary world in which 40k is played." Consider a real forest, in most cases the border is ambiguous as smaller trees stand at its outside and in some places you can see in and some you cannot. modeling and placing models in a "realistic" forest would be a pain and slow gameplay. Therefore we define the entire section as "area terrain" so we move the trees around a bit, do not concern ourselves overmuch with their position, et cetera. To mark the area terrain we can either connect the dots between the circumfrence of the trees and declare it all area terrain OR we can glue it onto a base or place a different colored piece of frabric, cardboard, et cetera to define its boundaries as played on the table.

Area terrain with a base and without a base all has CLEAR borders as played in the game, but is used as an abstraction for terrain that cannot be easily modeled on a tabletop. Therefore, it can still be area terrain if it has a marked border on the table top from a base or if it has no base and we just draw imaginary lines between the static terrain features.

Area terrain is usually something like a forest which traditionally in wargames is an irregular piece of brown coloured felt with several tree models scattered on it.

Clearly it is pointless to use TLoS on the tree models, since there aren't nearly enough of them to truly represent the number of trees in a copse, and you have to move them around to enable models to be placed with the wood and stay in formation.

A building or crater can be treated the same way by assuming that it is a visual aid intended to give an attractive indication of a battlefield, not the actual battlefield itself.

This saves all sorts of problems with some models being taller or shorter than the height of windows, and so on.

GW's strict TLoS may work with their own Gothic Ruin kits but becomes less workable with other sorts of terrain pieces.

Kilkrazy wrote:GW's strict TLoS may work with their own Gothic Ruin kits but becomes less workable with other sorts of terrain pieces.

A Stunning coincidence that has left me aghast!

Again, I agree that Area Terrain ought to be seen as a methodology of pure abstraction so as to prevent needless WYSIWYG modeling for dense terrain like forests or swamps or ruins which would otherwise be a pain to model and make moving models through it difficult at least...but that's not how the 5th Ed. rules treat Area Terrain by RAW.

Take the following example: the green area is, say, a piece of felt denoting the borders of a forest, and the brown circles are a pair of trees placed upon the felt to clearly denote that this is, indeed, a forest.



In this example, Blue Unit gets cover from Red Unit's shooting because the LOS is moving between two elements of the Area Terrain - the example shown on page 22 of the rulebook.




In this example, Blue Unit does NOT get cover from Red Unit's shooting because the LOS is moving over, not through, the Area Terrain. Because we use TLOS, we have to determine whether part of the Blue Unit models' bodies are obscured by the terrain and they are not because we're using a piece of felt.

In 4th Ed. rules, Blue Unit would be obscured from view altogether because the LOS is moving through two sides of a piece of Area Terrain. If we're dealing with pure abstraction this is how it ought to be. It is how it works in Flames of War, and is a superior way to handle Area Terrain IMHO.

In the 5th Ed. we use TLOS rules, and the 5th. Ed rules clearly state on page 22 that if you shoot over, not through, Area Terrain you get no cover if the models are in clear sight.

It seems to me that Blue Unit SHOULD get cover in example #2 if we're saying that the area of the green felt is woods, but that's not how the 5th Ed. rulebook reads.

This is to stop people JUST having green felt for area terrain, and to make it so that you cannot just hug the terrain edges - if you want cover from all angles you now have to be in terrain, much more often than in previous rules.

In addition EVEN IF you are in plain sitght you gain cover if you are shooting between elements of the area terrain - you can be entirely unobcured and you will still gain cover. Your 2nd to last sentence is wrong.

No, I said that sentence the way I did for a reason - if the LOS does NOT pass between elements of the Area Terrain, and the target unit is not obscured and in plain sight of the shooting unit, the target unit does NOT get cover because the LOS passes over, not through, the Area Terrain. See figure two in my post above.

Thus, Area Terrain in 5th Ed. does NOT function as pure abstraction. If it did, then the rules would say that if the LOS of the shooters passes over Area Terrain the target units would also get cover, because we don't handle the Area Terrain as WYSIWYG at all. It's abstraction, not TLOS.

So 5th Ed. Area Terrain rules are partially-abstract, partially-WYSIWYG, which is what I object to. Make it one or the other - make it pure abstraction, like in 4th Ed. I don't see what was wrong with the rules the way they were OTHER than the Skimmer question, which could have been solved by addressing it directly as I suggested.

Because 4th ed Area Terrain was wildly abused?

he other reason is to have mor "cinematic" boards - in 4th you could happily play with areas of felt labelled "forest" and scraps of MDF called "ruins", and some did - however part of the remove of the abstraction in 5th ed was to get a more cinemtatic feeling. So you need to have area terrain as a hybrid system to encourage actual terrain.

How was it/could it be abused other than the Skimmers versus height thing? I never had any other issues with it in three years of 4th Ed. play.

By everyone incorrectly classifying everything as area terrain, the invisible cylinder issue, etc. A lot of people entirely misplayed terrain in 4th ed and never knew.

Cairnius wrote:It seems to me that Blue Unit SHOULD get cover in example #2 if we're saying that the area of the green felt is woods, but that's not how the 5th Ed. rulebook reads.

In the interests of playability our regulars will typically allow saves beyond Trees such as example #2 IF the LOS would intersect a polygon in the shape of the Area Terrain base and the height of the trees in use. Putting enough trees on the base to create the situation of allowing a decent amount of saves makes moving into the Area Terrain a PITA. We just put a couple trees there so everyone knows it's Trees and play it magic cylinder style.

Not RAW but reasonable and plays faster.

Some of this has already been covered by others, but since this was directed at me, I'll chuck in a response anyway:

Cairnius wrote:@ Insaniak -

This is why Area Terrain still kills me. So, correct, Area Terrain is that which does not have a clear border, hence we place the terrain on a baseboard or by using sand or a different color on the tabletop...

...but now that the terrain HAS a clear border, because we just gave it one, doesn't that make it cease to be Area Terrain by RAW?

No. Area Terrain represents those sorts of terrain that in the world in which the game is set doesn't have a clear border. For gaming purposes we give it a set border because otherwise it would be impossible to use it in the game. The base gives it a defined area in which the terrain counts for the game.

Craters are not Area Terrain, should never be considered Area Terrain, and I wasn't out of my mind for wondering why my opponent asked me if they were.

That just comes down to how you and your opponent choose to count them, and how they are modelled. From my experience, most players do class craters as Area and Difficult terrain. YMMV.

I think I will have to get some models and those craters out and see...but the idea of someone getting cover even if they were obscured only halfway up their shin is ridiculous. Cover is WAY too generous in 40K if that's really how we're meant to be playing it. It should be either fully half the model, as in from the waist down, or some part of chest of the model, which needs to be obscured in order to get cover.

Bear in mind that the 'generous' cover system in the current rules is supposed to represent the fact that models aren't actually sliding around the battlefield in funky poses with 6'-wide discs attached to their feet. An obstruction that covers to halfway up your shins is more than sufficient to make you a difficult target when you're prone or kneeling.

It's also quite handy for equalising the game given that most people's terrain collections don't include anything particularly large.

insaniak wrote:

Craters are not Area Terrain, should never be considered Area Terrain, and I wasn't out of my mind for wondering why my opponent asked me if they were.

That just comes down to how you and your opponent choose to count them, and how they are modelled. From my experience, most players do class craters as Area and Difficult terrain. YMMV.

To clarify this bit a little: The mention of craters as a type of terrain with clear borders and therefore not area terrain is a bit of a red herring, on par with last edition's terrain rules mentioning hills as being classed as area terrain despite that being hugely inappropriate.

The Area Terrain rules serve two purposes: They allow the sort of terrain that doesn't have clear borders to function in the game, but more importantly they allow terrain that can't be accurately modelled to provide cover in more-or-less the way it would if it was accurately modelled.

By this, I mean that a forest (for example) can't be modelled with an appropriate amount of greenery and still be playable, as you would have nowhere to place the models. So we stick a tree or two on a base, call it area terrain, and models inside it still get their save as if there was a whole load of shrubbery in there. (Ignore for a moment GW's odd decision to use true LOS through area terrain... no idea what they were smoking there).

Craters, as a terrain feature that would normally be largely below ground level, are rarely modelled correctly as the only way to make them a good depth for adequate cover is to make them very tall (which doesn't look as good) or make them very shallow (which doesn't provide a whole lot of cover).

Enter the area terrain rules, which allow the crater to provide cover despite being too shallow to actually do so.

Obviously, the choice to classify them as area terrain is up to the players. You can jut as easily class them as regular terrain and take whatever cover they actually provide. But as I said earlier, from my experience classing them as area terrain is the norm, as it makes them function better in the game.

I agree that they are generally categorized as area terrain, although they could more easily just be terrain. I rather play them as just terrain, but most seem to just make everything area terrain for some reason.

nosferatu1001 wrote:By everyone incorrectly classifying everything as area terrain, the invisible cylinder issue, etc. A lot of people entirely misplayed terrain in 4th ed and never knew.

That is true and would be solved by a properly thought out and explained abstract system.

For instance, divide all models into categories:

Swarm (Rippers etc)
Normal (Standard infantry)
Big (Crisis Suits, mid-size Tyranids, small vehicles)
Monstrous (Normal vehicles, monstrous creatures)
Superheavy (Superheavies, not normally used in 40K)

Models occupy the area of their base but extend in a magic cylinder according to their size classification.

Classify all terrain as area and divide it into height categories corresponding to the target size categories. You need six or seven of them to account for ditches and gullies and so on.

Whe the shooter and target are on the same level, the target gets a big cover save if he is in or behind terrain of equal or greater height band. If he is in terrain one size smaller, the save is reduced. If the terrain is two sizes smaller there is no cover save.

For each terrain height level the shooter is above the target, the height band of the terrain is reduced by one. The opposite if the situation is reversed (target is above the

It isn't fully thought out because I bashed it out quickly to make an argument. Basically this sort of system has been used in umpteen wargames throughout the years.

the trouble with that sort of systemis it takes away from the modelling side - the idea behind TLOS is actually making the mdoels *important* to playing the game AND in playing the hobby.

One of their design notes for 5th ed was that they wanted to bring ht eidea that the models were actually part of the battle - something that was most prevalent in 2nd, but by 4th had gotten fairly lost.

I actually like that I have to think about where my models actually are and where they are positioned.

GW are, in theory, a model company first, the game was designed to sell models - not the other way around. 5th ed supports the model ethos much, much better than previous "modern" rulesets.