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.

Under special rules for Large Target on p72, it states that they can't claim cover modifiers for obstacles. It then specifically references p122 for things like fences, walls, etc.

So my question is do Large Targets still benefit from hard cover shooting modifiers from intervening units as stated on p41? As I see it, the Large Target SR does not take away all cover, just the cover benefits from obstacles as outlined on p122.

New to WFB so understand I may not have frame of reference on 'how things used to be'. I can only interpret the rules as I read them now.

Thanks,
Erik

Yes oddly enough a dragon can get cover from a unit of goblins but not from a building.

Actually, I read it as removing cover from the type of terrain "obstacle" and not even all terrain. So buildings are still ok for cover, so are hills or any random things like that... but not fences and walls.

Hmmm good point.

Killjoy00 wrote:Actually, I read it as removing cover from the type of terrain "obstacle" and not even all terrain. So buildings are still ok for cover, so are hills or any random things like that... but not fences and walls.

That's how I see it too. More like intervening models (buildings, trees, hills, troops, etc.) grant cover, but things specifically listed as obstacles on p122 do not. Interestingly, obstacles are defined as "long and narrow terrain types, such as fences, walls, and hedges".

It works for me. Khorne Lords on Juggernauts do not hide behind walls and fences.

Well juggers arent large targets they get all kinds of cover. Perhaps you meant lords on dragons?

I missed this early on too.
Large models can claim cover for intervening models, but as the rule for intervening states, if the unit is a single model, it must be 50% obscured.

Dragons can't be screened by goblins, because goblins are too short, and dragons are too tall.

-Matt

Ok then can a dragon get cover from a large enough building or not?
And why?

Yes, as long as it cov ers 50%, as beuildings are not "obstacles"

Thanks.

Since LoS is drawn from the shooters eyes, it is possible to screen big models with much smaller models... if you're close enough.

Harpies can easily screen a black dragon from thunderers, if the harpies are close enough (within an inch or two), and the dragon is far enough (~12" or so).

Dwarves being short give them a distinct disadvantage against screening.

I actually despise this section of the rules, because the position of a harpy on a movement tray, or how converted models are modeled, has a real impact on game play.

If 10 wide chaos warriors have marched within an inch of a dwarf gunline, you have to check, model by model, which guys can see more than 50% of a daemon prince, and which can see less than 50% of a daemon prince.

"Ok, this guy can't see at all, so he, and the model behind him can't fire. These 4 can see a head and a wing and a half, while these 3 are lined up in the gap and can see part of the chest. The engineer is lined up on your unit champ who's head popped off at the start of the game and can see the prince from the knee's up." Ok, so let's roll to hit...

True line of sight is just a bad idea. I've played few games where people use all the actual rules, because the shooting phase comes to a screeching halt.

-Matt

Except TLOS actually makes you feel like you're using real models, rather than 2D, top down "levels" in 7th, which I despised.

"sorry, you cant shoot the 2 ton huge lizard, with the slightly smaller lizard o ntop, because the 2' 6" tall skinks in front are the same "height""

It was moronic...especially when you were expected t ouse TLOS when using hills anyway...

Wait...aren't stegadons large targets?

I think this is an example of Games Workshop having an impossibly soft rules system-- there's no reasonable way to handle this without something very basic making sense. I don't think the way you've modeled something should benefit or hurt you during the game, but if you want things to be accurate or realistic, there's not much more to go on.

Which is where "modelling for advantage" comes in.

Yes, you COULD model your steam tank to be flat as a pancake, so it gains cover (possibly entirely blocked) from pretty much everything.

Noone would likely play you, and at tournaments you would be DQ / model thrown out/ forced to play "as if" the model were higher, so it doesnt matter much in the end.

Except you now have an ugly model.

True enough. I think thats "tough titties" though

I'm sure if someone complained about it you would play the worlds smallest violin....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which is where "modelling for advantage" comes in.

Yes, you COULD model your steam tank to be flat as a pancake, so it gains cover (possibly entirely blocked) from pretty much everything.

Noone would likely play you, and at tournaments you would be DQ / model thrown out/ forced to play "as if" the model were higher, so it doesnt matter much in the end.

Or just use the old, metal steamtank which is much smaller than the new one. Nobody can scream modelling for advantage..

See, but all this points to my problem with it. The game would allow us to "model for advantage", as it were, but humans are capable of some basic judgement that tells them we've gone too far. So we can't do this if we want to play in tournaments or have friends. So we don't do it.

Then we have the other guy, whose got this amazing model, but it's really big or whatever, and we punish him for it.

It's like GW is saying it's a two-way street, so it's okay. Except it's not and it wouldn't be okay even if it were. Honestly, I wish they'd have stuck with the base-to-base line of sight idea. Maybe toss in something about how larger base sizes can be seen over smaller ones.

Except a) it doesnt really punish him (big models suffer more from cannon than before, which dont care about obscure) and b) thats GW deciding to make the model large. Their choice

Its "ok" because it makes you feel like you are playing with real 3D models, not a 2D sort of 3D on one occasion (hills, not that many people played that correctly) game you may as well play with counters.

As with 5th ed 40k you now play with real, actual models, and those real, actual models act differently to each other. MUCH better.

I need to start putting my treemen behind the dryads! What was I thinking all this time... (dryads are quite tall, btw )

Unfortunately, they're always being shot by cannons...

Edit: I wonder if as skirmishers, a well-lined up bolt thrower or some such could shoot in between them... hrm...

The rules could have been really easy.
If half of the frontage is blocked, the target gets cover.

Line of Sight through skirmishers provides soft cover.
Line of Sight through ranked units provides hard cover.

Monsters treat cover as one step worse (no cover from skirmishers, soft cover from ranked units).

If you or the target is elevated so that you can see the entire model, it gains no cover.

Very similar to the current rules, but doing it unit by unit rather than model by model. Also adjusting cover for skirmishers, which are a lot harder to hid behind, because they are all spread out.

-Matt

Except it isnt, as it is ignoring true line of sight, and also making cover considerably worse for monsters than it is now - as they get the full benefits of the cover they are "covered" by. (gah, too much cover)

Tracing LOS "through" skirmishers (or the gaps) is still tracing LOS through a unit. So you still get cover.

I'd agree with Nos' on this point; models are not static. Tracing line of sight through skirmishers doesn't mean you get a clear shot. I mean, it's probably clearer than if you traced it through a rank and file unit, but then again, tracing it through a unit of five knights should be easier than through 50 goblins, and that level of detail is not one I want to deal with.

And as far as how this "IS" better, Nos, I don't think so. And you can't convince me of it. And being final and definitive won't help.

The good job is I dont need to change your mind - just give a strong dissenting view point that states that playing with 3D models is MUCH better, in my opinion, than playing a game which could just as easily use counters for all the actual models as *models* matters.

After all the main attraction for me is playing with actual models. Therefore actually being forced to view the game board at their level makes it a more involving game for me. But I love 5th ed 40k (although 40k has had TLOS for a long time, just various abstractions away from it which are mostly gone in 5th ed) for making you play with actual models.

Sure, sure. And the idea is appealing to me. Tentativeness is the key.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The good job is I dont need to change your mind - just give a strong dissenting view point that states that playing with 3D models is MUCH better, in my opinion, than playing a game which could just as easily use counters for all the actual models as *models* matters.

After all the main attraction for me is playing with actual models. Therefore actually being forced to view the game board at their level makes it a more involving game for me. But I love 5th ed 40k (although 40k has had TLOS for a long time, just various abstractions away from it which are mostly gone in 5th ed) for making you play with actual models.

I'm betting you're not playing the rules as written.
You draw line of sight from the shooting models eyes.
If you're model is looking to the left, or down, he can't see.
If you're model is looking through a gap in dryads, or simply looking through the wispy branches, he can see more than 50% of the treeman model, and the treeman gets no cover.

One rank of dryads just doesn't obscure a treeman.
Dark Elf Corsairs have some heads with an eye patch; which means they have a harder time drawling line of sight to units in cover.
Harpies with wings extended are now better models than harpies with wings folded.

That's just stupid.

HawaiiMatt wrote:Dark Elf Corsairs have some heads with an eye patch; which means they have a harder time drawling line of sight to units in cover.

But they only have an 8" range on handbows! It'd be pretty tough to actually claim cover from another unit that is also within 8" but is not engaging the Corsairs in combat. Besides, who uses handbows in 8th?

Hawaiimatt - you'd lose that bet.

It isnt that tricky to follow the rules. Oh, and before you try it: no, models without eyes still get to fire.

I would rather have a clear, consistent ruleset, where I can imagine my rats are leaping around making it hard to see past them, then having to physically measure whether a 4-foot rat wearing a funny hat that is kinda-sorta stooped over can maybe see past part of a lantern that is swinging from this random stick past a little bit of a guy's arm that is sticking out while he is reloading his bow to a 3.5 foot guy that is holding a stick a little bit to his left or maybe part of the clothing folds for the guy that is holding his sword up to the right, for every model that wants to shoot.

If I need to feel like I'm playing with actual three-dimensional models, I just pick one up, and look at it, and think about how awesome it looks. Sometimes I'll pull out my three-dimensional credit card, or my three-dimensional currency, and marvel at how much of it I use to purchase these small three-dimensional figures.

And the reason abstracted LoS doesn't lead to everyone playing with proxy counters any more than TLOS leads to people playing with paper-thin steam tanks is the same: It is stupid, and nobody would play you.

For the vast majority of easy shooting, both systems work fine. It's when a problem exists, usually in a competitive environment like a tourney, that TLOS breaks down, and leads to overgaming the system via guys being modelled as peeking their heads out of the ground or pancake-flat monsters or dwarves all standing on baby grudge stones so they can see over more stuff. It's only really there because the guys writing the rules this time around didn't want to/know how to abstract for the purpose of smooth gameplay, which is delightfully contradictory because the section on close combats states that it is, in fact, a giant swirling mass of combatants. Maybe we should liberally sprinkle our models together when they charge each other!

MikeMcSomething wrote:and leads to overgaming the system via guys being modelled as peeking their heads out of the ground or pancake-flat monsters or dwarves all standing on baby grudge stones so they can see over more stuff.

Erm, nope. No it doesnt. Already been addressed in earlier posts in fact.

If you attempt to model for advantage, you get called on it.
Either DQ, model(s) removed, or it is used as if it were standard.

Or have you not ever played with hills, where you used TLOS even in 7th? Or have you never played in any 40k tournament for the last 2 years?

All of these are tiny, almost nonexistant problems in reality. The kneeling wraithlord was a joke you know....

Also: what could be more consistent than "if you can see it you can shoot it"? It is waaay more consistent than the series of if thens you had in 7th.....