The desire for better terrain rules

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.

**catbarf**

Talizvar wrote:
If ANYONE has a really simple rule for intervening units I would be very happy to hear it.
Intervening units providing cover had been an old pain and prone to abuse.
It all boils down to taking a "cheap" screening unit and it somehow is a bullet-catcher for the ravening hordes behind them.
There have been no real good rules for this unless the unit in front is treated similar to a "wall".
There is still addressing the say 10-man unit providing cover for a 30 man unit.
We can play with the number of wounds of screening unit vs the other, physical model size being at least half the height of the unit to be covered, only models of the same base size or bigger able to screen covered unit.
Not great.

I always liked target priority tests as a mechanic, letting high-Ld elites more effectively pick their targets than low-Ld hordes.

But failing that, I think rather than giving the screened unit cover, it would be better to say 'if you roll exactly your BS, you hit the closest intervening unit instead'. Or mathematically identically, -1 to hit and on a roll of 1 you hit the intervening unit. Make it so that the intervening unit actually absorbs the bullets, rather than having them vanish into the ether.

**the_scotsman**

I mean, super simplified would be something like:

Designate all terrain as either terrain or scatter.

Draw the shortest possible line between shooting unit and target unit. If the line passes through 1 terrain piece or model with the VEHICLE or MONSTER keyword, add 1 to the units Sv rolls against the attack. If it passes through 2 such obstructions subtract 1 from the hit roll.

Units with the FLYER or TITANIC keyword can never claim the benefit of cover.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Tetsu0 wrote:
I see people clamoring everywhere for better terrain rules and I often feel I'm in the minority that likes the current simplified and streamlined terrain rules and I hate the idea of clogging up the game and slowing it down further with complex terrain rules. I especially don't miss arguing and checking for individual models being in cover or line of sight to their body.

I would like to know exactly what proponents of better terrain rules mean when they say that.

I think most of the current rules are fine, but...

I wish that intervening terrain gave cover, not just being on it.

**Da Boss**

I like terrain to matter, because otherwise it is only there as decoration and adds nothing to the tactical aspects of the game.

I think no ediiton of 40K has had particularly good rules for terrain. "cover saves" were a bit of a weird mechanic, but at least they did not advantage marines too much.

I think negative to hit modifiers make the most sense for cover. So once you have that mechanic the question just becomes when to apply it. Ideally, I think it should be if a squad is inside area terrain, standing within a certain distance of a linear feature with the feature between them and the enemy. TLOS should not matter in these cases, it should just be cover if you are in those positions as you should assume your dudes are hugging the ground and trying to make use of the cover.

Finally, areas of ruins or forest should block line of sight if you are behind them, regardless of gaps in the trees or windows.

I also like some movement effects from terrain to make it a risk-reward situation so I would bring that in, but I would not make it too punishing.

**skchsan**

Amishprn86 wrote:

Now for IMO, I like to add that Cities of death gives even more and better rules, Apoc is way to streamline for me for a normal 40k game for terrain (but i love how Apoc plays more than 40k in general).

CoD rules practically demand FLY keyword, so no. Any rulesets that heavily favor one particular unit keyword is bad. This is precisely why current terrain rule set is bad because only INFANTRY and FLY units truly benefit from any terrain rules. That 50% obscured rule is the cause of 90% of all arguments during game play.

**Insectum7**

Grimtuff wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:

It's a huuuuge distinction though. For example, you could see into a forest, but not through a forest. This immediately gave a table a lot more LOS blocking terrain.

5th Edition onward, if you could see it, you could shoot it. (barf)

2nd had the same rules as 5th

2nd ed. rulebook page 26- "However in some cases it will be difficult to tell if a LOS is blocked or not, and players must stoop over the table for a model's eye view. This is always the best way to determine if LOS exists- some players even use small periscopes or mirrors to check the views from their models!..."

Might be true, but in 2nd Ed I'm pretty sure a unit beyond intervening terrain still got a cover bonus. (Can't check atm)

Besides, I still think the 3rd and 4th edition way (of seeing into but not through) was better.

**LoftyS**

+2 save for heavy cover (buildings) or when LoS is drawn through multiple terrain pieces
+1 save for light cover (trees, barricades)

You need to see more than just any amount of antennas, weapons, banners, backpacks, cables etc. to draw LoS.

That's how we play it in my group

**aphyon**

The 8th ed super simple terrain rules work really good for one thing-when I play 40K epic scale with 8th ed rules (halving all ranges and movement) it makes the game fast, fun and manageable-

when I am playing anything else it is terrible.

I love and still like to use the 5th edition terrain cover rules and occasionally I like to toss in the 6th ed mysterious terrain chart as well. one big thing it did was reduce the effect of 1st turn alpha strikes because of hard cover saves. even fences gave a 6+ save so at least it was something for non MEQ armies.

I also love the difficult and dangerous terrain rules.

Infinity uses cover rules that are far more realistic-the shots have to travel in a direction that moves through the cover (no area terrain) and the model must be actively seeking to use it as cover. IE standing behind a wall but 5" away from it does not grant cover but being up against it does.

the happy medium I found is with DUST it harkens back to 3rd ed 40K the mechanics work a bit different in the game since it is a symbol dice d6 system with 2 faces of the dice being a cover symbol as such many things provide cover but only infantry get a semi hard save(only negated by a few specific weapons) on the 2 faces of army symbol. it is true LOS outside of area terrain like ruins and trees that provide LOS blocking area terrain where you must be inside it and within 4" of an edge to shoot out or be shot at.

The game itself uses limited range reaction and alternating unit activation so alpha strikes turn 1 are never a thing to begin with ( far better mechanics than 40K IMHO).

**greyknight12**

To be honest, one of the best ways to make terrain matter again might just be bringing back cover saves. +1 to your save just doesn't matter when 3 Caladius tanks decide to shoot you with 24 shots at -3 AP, or when space marines are rocking -4 AP lascannons.

**Banville**

Solution: Cut and paste 4th Ed terrain rules. Basically, you can shoot into but not through terrain. Jump troops, bikes etc take dangerous terrain tests.

I'd also be in favour of adding a higher level of interaction between units and terrain. Flamers should be able to set things on fire, making it dangerous for anyone to enter, for e.g.

**Karol**

But maybe it isn't so bad. If someone takes wrecks or ogryn to give cover to his dudes, or grots get some characterful bullter catcher rule it aint that bad. It only becomes a problem when 10 grots start tanking the shots for a stomp or mega dread.

Plus some rules should, maybe not for armies, but for models or units, give extra protection. IG transports for example, aren't used that often, but what if they had a synergy that all infantry or specific infantry get a +1 to save where near them. It could make less popular armies like scions a lot more fun to play.

A vindicator is a bad tank, but if it had some siege rule that lets marines take cover near it, it maybe could see play in casual games.

**Crimson**

As many people have already mentioned, intervening terrain doing nothing is absolutely the biggest flaw in the current system. It is completely crazy and immersion breaking. You should absolutely gain the benefits of cover if the attacker has to draw LOS though terrain, even if you're not in that terrain. And some types of terrain should just prevent LOS being drawn through them altogether. It is bizarre that you can shoot a target through some tiny window that is between you and the target and neither of you are nowhere near it.

And this has already been pointed out, but the cover giving bonus to save is not a good way to do it. It means that cover benefits you much more if you're heavily armoured; it should be the exact opposite. Hit penalties or even cover saves would be better ways to handle it.

**Da Boss**

Hit penalties would mean cover was most useful against heavy bombardment, which makes sense to me. If I went back to older editions of 40K like 3rd and 4th, that would be a change I would try out.

Weird that they have chosen this other system, as it just does not "feel" good.

**The Newman**

The current terrain rules are fairly counter-intuitive on who gets cover and what blocks movement, and true LoS is dumb, but I'm not of the opinion that the terrain rules and LoS need to be highly complicated. Maybe something like this:

LoS must be drawn to and from the base of a model. Models without a base use the hull. A model may only select an enemy unit as a target for shooting or charging if it has LoS. * When a unit is selected as a target for shooting, determine how many models are within LoS of the firing unit; the result is the maximum number of casualties that can be inflicted on the target.

Some weapons may ignore LoS when selecting a target. Such models suffer a -1 to hit if they cannot draw LoS to the target.

Area of Effect terrain: This comprises woods, ruins, craters, and anything else with a base.

- A model is in AoE terrain if it's base/hull overlaps the base of the terrain. A Unit is in AoE terrain if every model is in the terrain feature. A unit in AoE terrain is -1 to be hit. **

- A unit is partially behind AoE cover if any line can be drawn between the firing model and the target unit that crosses the terrain feature. A unit in or partially behind AoE terrain is -1 to be hit.

-A unit is entirely behind an AoE terrain feature if no line can be drawn between the firing model and the target unit that doesn't cross the feature. A unit entirely behind an AoE feature may not be targetted by the firing model.

- AIRCRAFT and TITANIC units do not gain any defensive bonuses from AoE terrain.

Obstructions: This comprises solid features like hills, boulders, and solid buildings. Obstructions with steeply angled top surfaces or that are too small/thin to balance a model on are considered Impassible. LoS may be drawn over an Obstruction but not through it regardless of actual construction.

- A model suffers a penalty to it's movement equal to the height of the obstruction for climbing onto or off of the obstruction. Units with FLY suffer half this penalty. If a model does not have enough movement to reach the top it may not move onto the feature. If an Obstruction is Impassible then a unit without FLY may not move onto it at all and a unit with FLY my cross an Obstruction if it has enough movement to pay the height penalty to go up and down and still reach the other side. AIRCRAFT may ignore the movement penalty but do not gain any defensive bonuses from Obstructions. TITANIC units do not gain any defensive bonuses from Obstructions.

- A model is behind an obstruction if any line can be drawn between the firing model and any model in the target unit that crosses the obstruction. A unit is behind an Obstruction if every model is behind the Obstruction. A unit behind an Obstruction is -1 to be hit and gains +1 to it's armor save.

Trenchworks and bunkers may be treated as Obstructions for the purposes of movement and firing into them, but not for firing out of them.

Difficult Terrain: AoE terrain features and the top surfaces of Obstructions may also be considered Difficult.

- Models move at 1/2 speed while in Difficult terrain. Models with FLY suffer half this penalty. AIRCRAFT and TITANIC may move over Difficult terrain without penalty.

...ok, maybe that came out a bit more complicated than I expected.

* - Units being able to charge models they can't see is one of the most unintuitive things in this game.

** - Note that as worded this would mean that the penalty for cover is applied on a firing model by firing model basis instead of the target not getting cover if a single eligible shooter wouldn't be subject to the penalty.

*** - I'm on the fence about it mechanically, but I think Cover should be a -1 to hit instead of a bonus to armor save. It's the more intuitive bonus.

**Tetsu0**

I like the idea of terrain cover providing a hit modifier as it evens the playing field for the various potential units utilizing cover. I think the all or nothing targeting system for shooting is fine as it is, because it really does make it simple and avoid a lot of arguements.

**LoftyS**

Crimson wrote:
cover giving bonus to save is not a good way to do it. It means that cover benefits you much more if you're heavily armoured

Exactly?

Rounds lose momentum as they go through more stuff. The effect is cumulative. That's how physics work. A Space Marine would and should be gaining a cumulatively better protection from his bunker than a guardsman, because if the halved momentum of the round does make it through the bunker, the armour of the Space Marine is still better than the paper of the guardsman.

**Crimson**

LoftyS wrote:
Crimson wrote:
cover giving bonus to save is not a good way to do it. It means that cover benefits you much more if you're heavily armoured

Exactly?

Rounds lose momentum as they go through more stuff. The effect is cumulative. That's how physics work. A Space Marine would and should be gaining a cumulatively better protection from his bunker than a guardsman, because if the halved momentum of the round does make it through the bunker, the armour of the Space Marine is still better than the paper of the guardsman.

Thematically it feels wrong. The whole fething point of power armour is that you don't need to hide behind rocks, you can charge towards the enemy wearing your brightly coloured portable cover. It is the normal humans of IG who should be hiding behind barricades.

**solkan**

The Newman wrote:
The current terrain rules are fairly counter-intuitive on who gets cover and what blocks movement, and true LoS is dumb, but I'm not of the opinion that the terrain rules and LoS need to be highly complicated. Maybe something like this:

LoS must be drawn to and from the base of a model. Models without a base use the hull. A model may only select an enemy unit as a target for shooting or charging if it has LoS. * When a unit is selected as a target for shooting, determine how many models are within LoS of the firing unit; the result is the maximum number of casualties that can be inflicted on the target.

The reason why you don't draw line of sight from the base:
* Classic pointing Space Marine Sergeant and class pointing Eldar Farseer are facing off against each other. The models are practically touching. But there is a 2" long, 1/4" tall wall piece positioned between the two models, meaning that the two model's bases are mutually obstructed.
* Take the same situation, but now one of those models is behind the 1/4" tall wall, and the other one is across the table. It's still impossible to draw an unobstructed line from one model's base to the other, but the models are otherwise completely in the open.

1/4" tall walls are why the 40k line of sight rules have in previous editions used the model's "eyes" (and gun barrels for vehicles) and in the more recent edition(s), just threw up their hands and said to draw line of sight from anything.

**Lance845**

Lance845 wrote:
So this was originaly part of the Beyond the Gate of 40k project (Located here https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/733472.page ). I have had a few games that have utilized this recently and it works great so it should also work well in normal 40k. A lot of this is ripped from Beyond the Gates of Antares and then adapted to fit within the context of 8th 40k.

Line of Sight Rules

You can trace Line of Sight from any part of your model to any part of the target unit. For the purpose of targeting I recommend using 7ths targeting rules (I.E. wings, antennae, banners) do not count as a part of the model, meaning you cannot draw los from or too these bits. That is just my personal preference, do what you want.

Targeting Occupied Terrain Occupied Terrain is any terrain that has a unit within the terrain feature. Units that occupy a Terrain feature can see and be seen through it. Units that Occupy Terrain gain Cover from the terrain. A unit is considered to be occupying the terrain if all of it's models bases are at least partially within the terrain or meet it's other requirements. Models that do not have a base must be at least 50% within the terrain to be considered to Occupy it.

Intervening Terrain Intervening terrain is any terrain that sits between you and the target unit but is not occupied by the target unit. You can trace LoS over a single piece of Light terrain. A second piece of Light terrain and/or Dense terrain will block LoS normally. Targeting a unit over intervening Terrain confers a -1 to hit penalty.

High Ground If your unit is on a piece of raised terrain they may have high ground. A unit with high ground can ignore all terrain and los blocking terrain features when targeting units on a lower level so long as they can still actually trace line of sight to the unit. To repeat, you still need to be able to trace line of sight, but the target unit would gain no benefit from any intervening terrain. I personally use a lot of the Mantic Battlezones. So each layer up in my terrain is 3". So we use that 3" marker to determine height. Again, do what you want.

Intervening Units If you cannot trace LoS to your target unit without tracing a line through an enemy unit the intervening unit counts as Light Terrain. That means if your target unit is behind both an enemy unit and a piece of Light terrain that unit is untargetable because your LoS is blocked (just like 2 pieces of light terrain). For this you are counting the entire unit and the spaces between models as 1 object. You cannot trace LoS between models in the same unit to get around this. You would need to actually be able to trace LoS around the entire unit to not be effected by the unit.

Monsters, Vehicles, and Titanic When targeting any unit with the MONSTER or VEHICLE Keyword you ignore any intervening units when tracing Line of Sight treating them as Open Ground. When targeting any unit with the TITANIC keyword you ignore all intervening units and Light Terrain treating them as Open Ground. In addition treat all Dense Terrain as Light Terrain for the purpose of tracing LoS on TITANIC units.

Flier Units with the Flier battlefield role can be targeted freely treating all terrain and intervening units as Open Ground so long as you can still trace Line of Sight. Do the same for any LoW with the FLY Keyword.

Terrain

All terrain has 3 features.

1) Line of Sight
2) Cover
3) Difficulty

1] Line of Sight

There are 3 degrees of effect terrain has on LoS.

-Open Ground: No effect on LoS. This terrain piece can be shot over as though it was not there. Example: A water pool or river.

-Light: Blocks LoS to some extent. You can draw Line of Sight over a single piece of light terrain. A unit cannot draw LoS over 2 pieces of light terrain. Barricades, grassy hills, light copse of trees, smaller ruins/

-Dense: Dense Terrain blocks LoS entirely. Dense cops of trees, ruined whole buildings.

2) Cover

All terrain has a cover value that is a bonus to your Sv roll (Ex. +1). This bonus is granted to any unit entirely within or meets the requirements of the terrain feature.

3) Difficulty

All terrain has a difficulty value. This value is a penalty to the Movement Value of any unit that enters or attempts to move through the terrain. It is possible the Difficulty of the terrain is a 0 meaning it does not impact movement at all. They may also have special considerations such as "Impassible to VEHICLES".

So for example, the baricades that make of a Aegis Defense Line and thus AGLs themselves would be

LoS: Light
Cover: +1 - The unit must be within 1" or within 1" of a model from their unit that is within 1" of the terrain to occupy the terrain. This unit only gains the benefit of cover from units targeting them from the opposite side of the terrain.
Difficulty: 1

Thus tracing LoS over these baracades would impose a -1 to hit to any unit that is not occupying it. Provides a +1 Sv bonus to any unit that is occupying it, and eat up 1" of Movement to cross over it.

Ruined Building could be.

LoS: Dense
Cover: +1
Difficulty: 1 non-INFANTRY

You could not target units on the other side of the building even if you could trace LoS. Units that occupy the terrain gain a +1 SV bonus and any noninfantry would loose 1" of movement by entering or trying to pass through the terrain. Driving some bikes over the rough surface of the ruins is hard on them and the ruins make navigating the landscape difficult for anything that is too big and/or lacking the dexterity that Infantry have.

In addition. I propose that Character Targeting is changed to make it so a character cannot be targeted with shooting if the character is not the closest visible unit and within 3" of another friendly unit. This way they need to maintain a semi unit coherency to keep their protection AND a closer unit behind some LoS blocking terrain won't save them.

Any unit with Sniper Weapon/rules will also ignore intervening units when tracing LoS.

**Gadzilla666**

Crimson wrote:
LoftyS wrote:
Crimson wrote:
cover giving bonus to save is not a good way to do it. It means that cover benefits you much more if you're heavily armoured

Exactly?

Rounds lose momentum as they go through more stuff. The effect is cumulative. That's how physics work. A Space Marine would and should be gaining a cumulatively better protection from his bunker than a guardsman, because if the halved momentum of the round does make it through the bunker, the armour of the Space Marine is still better than the paper of the guardsman.

Thematically it feels wrong. The whole fething point of power armour is that you don't need to hide behind rocks, you can charge towards the enemy wearing your brightly coloured portable cover. It is the normal humans of IG who should be hiding behind barricades.

So all marines should just change their enemies screaming "for the Emperor " or "blood for the blood god "? Works for Black Templars and World Eaters I guess but I'd imagine most other legions/chapters use more sensible tactics.

Last I checked modern soldiers in modern body armor still don't charge machine gun nests. Terrain is even used for advantage in tank battles.

**JNAProductions**

40k is not reality. Nor is it meant to emulate it.

Power armor is not modern body armor. Marines are not modern soldiers.

**the_scotsman**

Base to base LOS creates more game/common sense disconnects than some form of tlos. I prefer Infinity's system of having size ratings that translate to "hit boxes" that you can put down in front of a figure to help resolve disputes.

That said id rather have base to base los and melee or tlos and true melee range instead of what we have now. Base to base melee and true los is such a feels bad combo.

**The Newman**

solkan wrote:
The Newman wrote:
The current terrain rules are fairly counter-intuitive on who gets cover and what blocks movement, and true LoS is dumb, but I'm not of the opinion that the terrain rules and LoS need to be highly complicated. Maybe something like this:

LoS must be drawn to and from the base of a model. Models without a base use the hull. A model may only select an enemy unit as a target for shooting or charging if it has LoS. * When a unit is selected as a target for shooting, determine how many models are within LoS of the firing unit; the result is the maximum number of casualties that can be inflicted on the target.

The reason why you don't draw line of sight from the base:
* Classic pointing Space Marine Sergeant and class pointing Eldar Farseer are facing off against each other. The models are practically touching. But there is a 2" long, 1/4" tall wall piece positioned between the two models, meaning that the two model's bases are mutually obstructed.
* Take the same situation, but now one of those models is behind the 1/4" tall wall, and the other one is across the table. It's still impossible to draw an unobstructed line from one model's base to the other, but the models are otherwise completely in the open.

1/4" tall walls are why the 40k line of sight rules have in previous editions used the model's "eyes" (and gun barrels for vehicles) and in the more recent edition(s), just threw up their hands and said to draw line of sight from anything.

You clearly didn't read the rest of the rules. AoE terrain would act the way you're describing, but a 1/4" wall would be an Obstruction and LoS can be drawn over an Obstruction if it's short enough. "From the base/hull" is to eliminate any ambiguity about whether a line can be drawn that crosses a terrain feature.

**the_scotsman**

JNAProductions wrote:
40k is not reality. Nor is it meant to emulate it.

Power armor is not modern body armor. Marines are not modern soldiers.

Fully 1/2 of the armies in the game are space marines. A rule basically ignored by marines just should not be in the game.

See: morale in basically every edition of this game.

**leopard**

I want something roughly thus.

cover can do two things in effect, the first makes something harder to hit but provides no protection - e.g. smoke, fog and similar. The second makes things harder to hurt, but doesn't make them harder to hit as such - low walls, shallow trenches etc.

then you have items which can combine these effects.

the former effect is best represented by a to hit modifier, the second by the cover modifier adding to the models save.

easy to do case by case, I would also like intervening terrain to provide a partial effect. e.g. a strong wall may provide a -1 to hit for units within 1" of it and on the other side, as well as providing a +1 cover modifier. models further away may only get the -1 to hit - they are harder to see but far enough away if you can hit them they cannot duck behind the wall.

I would see intervening units as providing a -1 to hit, with each unit providing -1 so shooting through two is -2. would also prohibit firing through friendly units totally (with the sole exception being snipers)

would suggest an intervening unit needs at least half as many models as the target or it provides no benefit (so ten grots can't screen 30 boyz, but a ten man infantry squad can screen a four man command squad). Would also suggest this is combined with "a natural six is always a hit.

would also suggest for ruins you can fire in, out but not through regardless of TLoS, ditto other "area terrain" such as woods.

beyond that the cites of death stuff helps, AP boost for firing from above etc.

I want terrain to actually matter, doesn't need to be overly complicated by terrain should matter, where units are placed should matter

**Gadzilla666**

JNAProductions wrote:
40k is not reality. Nor is it meant to emulate it.

Power armor is not modern body armor. Marines are not modern soldiers.

True but the weapons they face (plasma, las, bolters, fusion blasters, etc) also aren't modern. They would still seek cover when under fire, not just stand out in the open. The +1 save for cover mechanic makes sense. It's the fact that intervening terrain doesn't cause penalties to hit that doesn't.

**catbarf**

Tetsu0 wrote:I like the idea of terrain cover providing a hit modifier as it evens the playing field for the various potential units utilizing cover. I think the all or nothing targeting system for shooting is fine as it is, because it really does make it simple and avoid a lot of arguements.

Keep in mind that a hit modifier hurts low-accuracy units more, so it's not completely even. Things that are BS4+ or 5+ suffer more from a -1 than things that are BS2+. But thematically, I think it makes a lot of sense- the more accurate you are to start with, the less partial obscurement impacts your shooting.

LoftyS wrote:Exactly?

Rounds lose momentum as they go through more stuff. The effect is cumulative. That's how physics work. A Space Marine would and should be gaining a cumulatively better protection from his bunker than a guardsman, because if the halved momentum of the round does make it through the bunker, the armour of the Space Marine is still better than the paper of the guardsman.

Gadzilla666 wrote:So all marines should just change their enemies screaming "for the Emperor " or "blood for the blood god "? Works for Black Templars and World Eaters I guess but I'd imagine most other legions/chapters use more sensible tactics.

Last I checked modern soldiers in modern body armor still don't charge machine gun nests. Terrain is even used for advantage in tank battles.

Here's the thing: Modern soldiers in modern body armor, when engaged by 25mm autocannons that can blow through intervening trees and render their body armor completely pointless, still take cover. The main point of cover is to not present a target in the first place, and if a rifle round goes through a tree and is stopped by your ceramic plate due to reduced velocity, that's a one-in-a-million lucky hit that you chalk up as a secondary benefit. Cover is vital on the modern battlefield even if you have no armor whatsoever. Realistically, it should be the halfway point between 'standing in the open' and 'LOS completely blocked', where you can still take fire but it is less likely to connect.

In 8th Ed, since it only affects armor rather than chance to hit, if you have poor armor (or no armor) you have little reason to take cover at all. Most things either ignore it entirely or mitigate it to the point that it isn't tactically advantageous to use.

Just wondering, did you play 40K back in earlier editions, where cover was treated as an invulnerable save? Because units like Space Marines did make use of cover; but it was for protection against lascannons, missile launchers, and other things that could ignore their normal save, not lasguns. It fit the background and theme of the game perfectly- power-armored demigods striding unhindered through basic rifle fire, but when something really big and scary shows up, then they take cover and play it smart.

In 8th, it's the opposite. You're incentivized to take cover against lasguns to go from a 3+ to a 2+, outright doubling your survivability. But if a meltagun gets a bead on you, well, you just go from no save to a 6+, so why bother?

As a game mechanic it's simple, elegant, and completely counterintuitive in its effects. Cities of Death at least attempts to address this by having cover provide a -1 to hit, but the differentiation between concealment and cover in CoD, with different grades, starts to get a little more complex in implementation.

**LoftyS**

I see a lot of arguing of semantics and thematics when all that matters in a rule set in this context is its representation of the laws of physics and thus the immersion it creates for a fun game.

The wrong abstraction in the wrong place is infuriating and makes you want to pack up and go home before round 2.

That's why we have our house rules, because GW is utterly incompetent at the most basic of rules writing.

**the_scotsman**

LoftyS wrote:
I see a lot of arguing of semantics and thematics when all that matters in a rule set in this context is its representation of the laws of physics and thus the immersion it creates for a fun game.

The wrong abstraction in the wrong place is infuriating and makes you want to pack up and go home before round 2.

That's why we have our house rules, because GW is utterly incompetent at the most basic of rules writing.

I agree occasionally that an abstraction in itself can be frustrating bit I am more often frustrated by simulation-style rules that can be abused by powergaming.

Part of the core disconnect between 40k and its current playerbase (or the online segment anyway) is that 40k was originally designed in the simulation wargame era. The rules were designed less to create a balanced game and more to create a sense of excitement as the players see what happened.

Vehicles randomly losing guns, exploding, becoming immobilized or whatever when hit is objectively less balanced than them having a fixed number of hit points before they get removed from the table as if they disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Similarly stooping down and trying to "see" what the model shoyls be able to spot is a simulation mechanic still left in a game where much of the play has been turned into a more mechanical game. Abstraction brings clarity but it also can create situations where a model feels as though it should be anle to take a shot but by the rules it cant.

**sidewinderscott**

I deffenitly want better rules. true line of sight has to go unless there are changes. In a recent game tlos and terrain rules had the opponent able to shoot at the spears of my custodians where they are 1 & 1/2 inches from the actual place but now the tip of a spear is gonna injure the model because it is shoot sure that makes lots of sense. in the same game had a unit behind a building that was about 10 inches side to side but though a window then another window could be seen and rules as written i would not only be shot but would not get a cover save because i was not in the terrain but behind it.