Switch Theme:

Artillery vs Dense Cover  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

I'm not saying I agree with the Light Cover argument, I'm pointing out how Dense Cover doesn't have the wording to even allow for that argument to be made.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




U02dah4 wrote:
No light cover saves can't stack please don't bring another thread into this one. When the first was circular it's still open argue it there not that you will convince anyone.

It's also disingenuous to say light cover can stack when that was by no means the conclusion of that thread - it wouldn't be 7 pages if it was. But a clear argument was made that benefits of cover was an aura and didn't stack between obstacles and area terrain while stealthy doesn't stack because it is explicitly clarified in the rare rules section that this means counting as being in light cover even when your not.


Seems like it's you who're bringing that thread here, not anyone else as it was only mentioned in passing before you decided to inject your opinion from that thread in here.

As far as Dense cover, no it doesn't stack due to the wording, and yes, it affects indirect fire which is a little weird but it's just one of those things you sometimes get in an abstracted system.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

In the real world, indirect fire is less accurate, so it’s not as unrepresentative as some would have you believe. Easier to hit stuff you can see.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

 p5freak wrote:
I wouldnt get my hopes up that GW makes any terrain rules that make sense, there are quite a lot that are stupid.


When I was leaving the Rule as Written in the book was "Figure it out amongst yourself and write it on a 'datasheet....'"
Anything changed in the newer editions?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/24 10:31:02


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

 JinxDragon wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
I wouldnt get my hopes up that GW makes any terrain rules that make sense, there are quite a lot that are stupid.


When I was leaving the Rule as Written in the book was "Figure it out amongst yourself and write it on a 'datasheet....'"
Anything changed in the newer editions?


You can assign terrain traits to individual terrain pieces. But then you need to remember (or write down) which piece which terrain trait has, which is really NOT fun when you have like 15 pieces on the table, and there are 12 different terrain traits Or you just use the ones which are predefined in the BRB, which is what i, and my opponent, always do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/24 11:50:51


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: