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.

This is one of the few changes that I don't like from 4th to 5th. I personally thought the line of sight rules for area terrain (size classifications) was a good, workable solution. Oh well, maybe it will be back in 6th edition...

I'm with Ghaz on this.
I preferred 4th edition terrain rules.

The new rules have made things faster, I'll give GW that, but my problems are that they're mixing specific locations and general locations and both are to the detriment of the defender, IMO.

You place a terrain piece that is heavy woods...Literally.... You can NOT see through the trees. They are as densely packed as the 3rd picture that was posted earlier.
You place a unit behind it with half the models sticking out. Only half can be seen.
Now, the SPECIFIC placement rules of the trees says that you cannot see through them. Therefore, you can only see the half of the models NOT behind the trees.
The GENERAL placement rules of the models states that the whole unit can die because you can see half of them. Apparently, when the 50% in front die, the ones behind cover run out blindly to see what all the ruckus is about.

WTF?
Consistency, anyone? Anyone?
Beuller? Beuller?

Now, if I intended it to be heavy woods upon terrain placement and I put my tank behind it, but the terrain piece LOOKS like the second image posted earlier, I'm SOL. You play WYSIWYG on the trees and, lo & behold, they do NOT cover 50% of the front of my Rhino (I'm aware of "house rules," but I'm talking about RAW).

"Pow! Pow!" Dead Rhino.

I can live with the cover rules, but that doesn't mean I'll like them.

Eric

Toreador wrote:We are going back to using plug in trees. You can pop them out and back in as needed, so you always know exactly where they are.

Terrain will need to be modified at most shops. As even our gaming tables started seeing people put out green felt for trees, and grey felt for ruins. No need for the actual terrain, it was just an abstraction anyway.

I'm confused. Why can't you just state that all trees in this patch of turf are the height of X tree or 3 inches or such? Am I missing something?

I'm confused. Why can't you just state that all trees in this patch of turf are the height of X tree or 3 inches or such? Am I missing something?

What's odd, is they basically said that woods are area terrain, and block line of sight as an area, just like 4e, but now only to the height of the trees.

Thats my point. Just agree the "average height" is a representative tree or some fixed height. I feel like I am missing something here.

A pre-game consensus on what each terrain piece exactly represents in game terms is all it takes to resolve these problems before they even pop up.

Being reasonable and having forthought should get as much effort as the complaints and arguments do IMHO.

That is how we handle it at my LGS, anything not discussed pre-game is considered literal RAW concerning terrain. If you want to make a case for having woods count one way or whatever it is up to you to discuss it with your opponent BEFORE any models get placed.

A pre-game consensus on what each terrain piece exactly represents in game terms is all it takes to resolve these problems before they even pop up.

This has always been the case, but I think especially so now. To their credit, GW has made many mentions of this in the rules.

To touch back on the primary point, I'm going to have to agree with Phryxis on the irritating inconsistency of TLOS in 5th ed. Why allow the defenders to be abstracted when the shooters cannot be? Seems pointless to me, and it just makes crouching/whatever models less effective.

Sure, I can swap 'em out for other standing models... if I want to spend the money and buy more boxes for that purpose. Which is a little like GW saying "hey, we're going to include a few useless models in every box, and you're going to have to pay for them just the same."

Nuts to that.

Phryxis wrote:

I'm confused. Why can't you just state that all trees in this patch of turf are the height of X tree or 3 inches or such? Am I missing something?

What's odd, is they basically said that woods are area terrain, and block line of sight as an area, just like 4e, but now only to the height of the trees.

The way I understand it no area terrain blocks LOS unless the terrain model ACTUALLY blocks LOS ( as a real object on the table ). Basically area terrain means a save for anyone being shot at from the other side of it.

Grignard wrote:
The way I understand it no area terrain blocks LOS unless the terrain model ACTUALLY blocks LOS ( as a real object on the table ). Basically area terrain means a save for anyone being shot at from the other side of it.

Saves of course being dependent on the actual placement of the trees (or whatever) within the piece of area terrains................

Why? Absent trees physically blocking LOS, anything in/behind get a standard 4+ cover save correct?

jfrazell wrote:Why? Absent trees physically blocking LOS, anything in/behind get a standard 4+ cover save correct?

Ummmm, no. If a unit is behind the cover, the models have to be between two features of the area terrain to qualify for a cover save. Shooting through terrain does not automatically grant a cover save.

don_mondo wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Why? Absent trees physically blocking LOS, anything in/behind get a standard 4+ cover save correct?

Ummmm, no. If a unit is behind the cover, the models have to be between two features of the area terrain to qualify for a cover save. Shooting through terrain does not automatically grant a cover save.

The way I read it if you're shooting through area terrain, the models get a 4+. Otherwise, why are we still defining area terrain at all in 5th?

Grignard wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Why? Absent trees physically blocking LOS, anything in/behind get a standard 4+ cover save correct?

Ummmm, no. If a unit is behind the cover, the models have to be between two features of the area terrain to qualify for a cover save. Shooting through terrain does not automatically grant a cover save.

The way I read it if you're shooting through area terrain, the models get a 4+. Otherwise, why are we still defining area terrain at all in 5th?

Ummmmm, no again . See previous statement. Now go to the main rulebook and look at the cover save rules (I'd give you the page number but I'm at work) and pay special attention to the picture, the one showing three models, note that the model to the side (behind terrain but not between the two trees) does not qualify for a cover save. Models IN area terrain get a save regardles of their postion relative to the terrain features (I'll just use trees from now on) but models BEHIND the terrain must be between the trees to qualify.

Edit: Home now, rulebook available. Page 22.................................

Alright, that is clear now, I didn't see the part that says "between two features".

Which means that same piece of terrain, offers almost no cover when viewed at 90 degrees. Since the two trees would line up.



So what happens when you have a shrub and a tree? Do you assume the height of the terrain slopes from one to the other?

DaisukeAramecha wrote:To touch back on the primary point, I'm going to have to agree with Phryxis on the irritating inconsistency of TLOS in 5th ed. Why allow the defenders to be abstracted when the shooters cannot be? Seems pointless to me, and it just makes crouching/whatever models less effective.

Sure, I can swap 'em out for other standing models... if I want to spend the money and buy more boxes for that purpose. Which is a little like GW saying "hey, we're going to include a few useless models in every box, and you're going to have to pay for them just the same."

Nuts to that.

One important thing to remember is that the firing player gets to move his models and then fire with them while the opposing models sit there and can't react. So again, the firing player has the full ability to place his models in the positions he needs them to be in order to get a quality LOS. Since only 50% of his unit needs to actually be in cover it shouldn't be a problem 95% of the time to keep the oddly posed models slightly outside of cover in order to give them a good LOS.

Now, if you're dealing with Heavy weapons, obviously you don't have the opportunity to move before firing which gives your opponent a chance to move his models out of LOS of some of your firing models (which IMO is the whole point of the 'heavy' restriction).

If only a single model from the firing unit was needed to draw LOS I think the balance swings to hard towards the firer. The firer can then choose to keep only a single model out of LOS during his turn to draw LOS and then when the opposing turn rolls around the first enemy unit that fires at the unit he pulls the one model in LOS and denies all further enemy shooting that round from being able to target the unit.

All in all I believe using abstraction for the targets and true placement of the firing models is a fair compromise because of the way the turn system works (one player moves and then fires).

coredump wrote:
So what happens when you have a shrub and a tree? Do you assume the height of the terrain slopes from one to the other?

That is one of the big grey areas of the LOS rules. They explain that you can shoot "over" intervening terrain and units but they don't specify exactly what constitutes this concept of "over". Does the 'top' of the unit slope from one terrain piece/model to another (when they are different heights) or do you draw a horizontal line across the entire unit/piece of area terrain based on the highest point?


I think this is the kind of issue that is likely never to be covered in an official GW FAQ and instead would have to be decided upon between players or covered in a tournament FAQ.

For the crouching model just tell the opposing player "hey for this model, if he gets stuck behind rock can we allow him to stand and shoot?"

I'd bet money on them saying yes.

Just a note: Was at the FLGS today, and was told by a guy there that the GW Kommandos (he is one) have a forum for disseminating rules answers, and on this forum it was said that any shooting over a unit, even if the unit doesn't block LoS to the target unit, would provide a cover save.

Comments?

GW Kommandos...?

Since it is partially blocked LoS that grants a cover save, if a weapon ignores LoS does it also ignore cover saves?

Phryxis wrote:Just a note: Was at the FLGS today, and was told by a guy there that the GW Kommandos (he is one) have a forum for disseminating rules answers, and on this forum it was said that any shooting over a unit, even if the unit doesn't block LoS to the target unit, would provide a cover save.

Comments?

Never heard of GW Kommandos. That answer sounds like a Rulesboyz type answer, though, in that it clearly contradicts the rules in the book which say that if you can draw a line of sight over something (including units) and you can see the target unit clearly, then there is no cover save. Hence, a monolith or a Daemon Prince is likely to be able to actually "see" over infantry models and see further units clearly.

Alternately, if you shoot "through" the unit, as in, a model of the same height (figuratively speaking) shooting between models in a unit (similar to terrain features) to hit a further unit, even if the target models can be clearly seen, does grant a cover save.

The point is, shooting from a height is supposed to be a benefit, being able to overlook cover-providing terrain would be one of those benefits.

insaniak wrote:GW Kommandos...?

Replacement for the Outrider program.

That answer sounds like a Rulesboyz type answer, though, in that it clearly contradicts the rules in the book

I agree, but I think it's interesting that the rules are just as readily confused as always, and GW has programs in place contributing to that (as always).

Personally, I think GW's rules are always short on examples, and particularly in the LoS section, where some nice photographic demonstrations would have been well worth having.

Agreed. And GW should know better bow that they are following "RAW". The rulebook itself isn't "that" confusing, even concerning LOS.

Yes, they could have included more photo examples. The one on pg 22 as pointed out earlier, showing "between terrain features" is a good example of a good example :-)

(edited for really bad grammar late at night)

Ghaz wrote:This is one of the few changes that I don't like from 4th to 5th. I personally thought the line of sight rules for area terrain (size classifications) was a good, workable solution. Oh well, maybe it will be back in 6th edition...

I agree with Ghaz.... but READ THIS CAREFULLY

TOO many people interpreted all terrain to be sizes. You have to realize that half of the people you will play with will be sub average IQ. This is not trying to be insulting... its just a fact of life that if the average IQ is 100 then half the people you meet will be sub 100. This means that it is alot harder for some people to grasp hard concepts! and... well lets be honest it may not be hard for us to understand that the 4th ed rules with sizes only applied to area terrain and close combat... but when you only make a brief mention of the fact true los is used except in these circumstances you will lose alot of the people who only retain 10% of what they read.

I liked the sizes for area... BUT in truth if this is a model game people need to get used to the fact True LOS has always and will always exist!

end

phew...

If you don't like the new revision of TLOS then seriously, stop whining and go to another game

frgsinwntr wrote:You have to realize that half of the people you will play with will be sub average IQ. This is not trying to be insulting... its just a fact of life that if the average IQ is 100 then half the people you meet will be sub 100. This means that it is alot harder for some people to grasp hard concepts! and... well lets be honest it may not be hard for us to understand that the 4th ed rules with sizes only applied to area terrain and close combat... but when you only make a brief mention of the fact true los is used except in these circumstances you will lose alot of the people who only retain 10% of what they read.

I liked the sizes for area... BUT in truth if this is a model game people need to get used to the fact True LOS has always and will always exist!

end

phew...

If you don't like the new revision of TLOS then seriously, stop whining and go to another game

I'm really tired of hearing people say these two things.
1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

2) "If you don't like it, quit whining and go to another game" is just insulting and unnecessary. I can have a legitimate complaint and still play a game, and not all complaints are "whining".

"Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

A bell curve doesn't necessarilty change it. Still holds true in most large sample sets, with sufficiently granular data.

There are ways to set up the sample set so that it's not true, but generally speaking, it's a sound, if somewhat tautological argument.

Generally the only counter to your argument would be the existance of a small number of extremely stupid people, with the rest clustered around the average. However, since the lower limit of IQ is fixed, and the upper limit isn't, it's much more likely to have a few edge conditions on the high side.

So, in actual fact, most people you meet are indeed below average precisely BECAUSE of the way a bell curve behaves in this situation.

Another TLoS question: The rules say that wings, banners, etc. don't count for the purposes of establishing LoS to the target.

What they don't say (as far as I can tell), is that those items can't block LoS to models that need 50% coverage, such as vehicles and MCs.

So, could you not build a model with a massive back banner, deploy him out of LoS, but with his back banner covering your whole side, and thus obscure all your vehicles?

Or, in a more reasonable scenario, my Hive Tyrant is built from a Carnifex and has pretty huge wings. He could probably be positioned to nicely screen a Dakkafex or two, and yet his wings aren't targettable.

True or false?

DaisukeAramecha wrote:1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

Let's take a sampling of numbers:

1,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,6.

If you graphed these numbers against how often they occur in the sample, you would get a (rough) bell curve, if you average these numbers out you get 3.5, meaning exactly half of them are below average.

The bell curve only affects how common the degree to which something is below average is, you will still in most situations have approximately 50% of things being below average.