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.

the_scotsman wrote:

gungo wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

gungo wrote:

Doohicky wrote:
I wonder what defensible will mean...

That could possibly be a bonus save to units being charged or better overwatch.
Scalable I assume means being able to go up floors
Breachable I would assume means walls etc can be moved through
Exposed position I have no idea as is it more exposed than being in the middle of a street?

The preview said terrain will affect to hit
My guess is defensible is -1 to hit from shooting?

Could be, true.

Also my guess defensible will only be player point paid buildings such as wall of martyrs, aegis defense line, bastion etc...
giving a reason to pay for buildings but no one will do unless the aegis Is dirt cheap

Ruins are Defensible. Whatever it is, it's free.

Well that’s Dumb... there needs to be a reason to buy buildings or people just won’t do it.
We don’t know the rules but I would think something as strong as -1 to hit vs shooting should be mainly attached to defensible terrains like wall of Martyrs and less ruin like

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Hordes are definitely fethed considering that they are keeping the +1 to saving throws

Yup, cover will continue to benefit power armour more than geq or weaker saves. Hordes are going to have it bad.

.

7 editions of people complaining cover saves unfairly benefited low armor save units. 7 editions of people saying a marine in cover should be harder to kill than a guardsmen in cover.

...now we are here.

lol

Well I wasn't one of them, and I play csm. I liked how the old system made marines want to move until the big stuff came out. Marines shouldn't hide from things like lasguns. That's the entire point of power armour.

 addnid wrote:
Perhaps a reason for taking "large units" will be that they cover enough of a terrain piece/area so as to block move any enemy units trying to enter ? But then several small units will achieve the same result (unless a rule appears like "only one unit can enter")

Not if they do the whole "unit of 30 guys costs less than 3 units of 10" gimmick we've seen in a few other systems. That's my hope anyway.

Can monsters and vehicules go through terrain, or not at all, and if they can, under chat conditions ? On a dense table, will it be very hard to reach an objective your opponent will have purposefully placed in the middle of terrain bits so as only infantry can get there ? Quite a few questions about movement + terrain

Shooting we see better now.

For assault, can't remember if they said something like bases can be further appart and still fight one another

 addnid wrote:
Perhaps a reason for taking "large units" will be that they cover enough of a terrain piece/area so as to block move any enemy units trying to enter ? But then several small units will achieve the same result (unless a rule appears like "only one unit can enter")

Yeah, hard to say. They have already done one big thing I wanted - basically, to boil all terrain into two categories that seemingly dictate how you claim cover from the piece (Obstacle and Area). Now, the best thing they can do in my eyes is to make it much more permissive, and to put some kind of rule in place that causes terrain to be beneficial to light troops rather than elites as it currently does.

Cityfight rules in 8th were...decent, but the big issue with them was that elite MSU was even MORE disprorportionately great with cover than it is now. a dev squad on an upper level got +2sv, -1 to hit them, +1AP on all their guns vs everything below them. Bonkers. The universal "Obscured" rule where you basically got intervening cover back was a huge improvement, but I really hated the light/heavy system that gave you even more rewards for being a high-sv unit.want to reduce a marine to a 3+, better have -2AP... Honestly, I'm hugely relieved to see Heavy Cover is not that.

So their attempt at terrain rules are worse somehow than the fairly decent terrain rules from 5th? If tank shock ain't back I can't do it, even command and conquer lets tanks run over infantry... rather than a single grot stopping a baneblade. The pseudo abstract terrain rules interacting with total line of sight just seems silly, I don't love flyers hiding behind los blocking terrain but then again why put them in the game then?

There's a certain principle skinner nature to the terrain rules. We can't let poorly designed/conceived/constructed terrain full of keyholes affect los, no, it's the los that's wrong! This just screams problem. Like sorry, we all bought the cool sector mechanicum refinery terrain only to realize as cool as it looks on the board it really doesn't do much past that for the game save maybe offer a few infantry some cover if you still play a game where terrain matters like 30k. The joke too is given how 5 inch terrain works, the high benefit may be totally gone because they monkeyed too much with los in the abstract direction.





As cool as this thing is, its issues with line of sight are readily apparent by looking at it. GW's route is to re-write los to be subjective as the worse possible way of dealing with objective problems. The answer to bad terrain is having some good terrain too, not have us pretend everything is good los blocking terrain. I mean this terrain piece looks awesome, it should be on a board, just maybe on in the center, get some shipping crates.

 addnid wrote:
Can monsters and vehicules go through terrain, or not at all, and if they can, under chat conditions ?

dunno. All we know is that they seemingly can't (normally) gain cover from Obstacle terrain.

Since area terrain seemingly includes swamps, craters and the like, if you had me guess I"d say vehicles can enter Area by default, and maybe "Breachible' trait is applied to put the usual "Infantry can go thru, tanks cannot" restriction on stuff like ruins.

I would also presume that "impassable' terrain is achieved by making it an obstacle without the scalable trait.

gungo wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

gungo wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

gungo wrote:

Doohicky wrote:
I wonder what defensible will mean...

That could possibly be a bonus save to units being charged or better overwatch.
Scalable I assume means being able to go up floors
Breachable I would assume means walls etc can be moved through
Exposed position I have no idea as is it more exposed than being in the middle of a street?

The preview said terrain will affect to hit
My guess is defensible is -1 to hit from shooting?

Could be, true.

Also my guess defensible will only be player point paid buildings such as wall of martyrs, aegis defense line, bastion etc...
giving a reason to pay for buildings but no one will do unless the aegis Is dirt cheap

Ruins are Defensible. Whatever it is, it's free.

Well that’s Dumb... there needs to be a reason to buy buildings or people just won’t do it.
We don’t know the rules but I would think something as strong as -1 to hit vs shooting should be mainly attached to defensible terrains like wall of Martyrs and less ruin like

Didn't they say something about buildings giving you bonuses? Like Imperial statuary helping with morale or a skull alter helping khorne units somehow.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

gungo wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

gungo wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

gungo wrote:

Doohicky wrote:
I wonder what defensible will mean...

That could possibly be a bonus save to units being charged or better overwatch.
Scalable I assume means being able to go up floors
Breachable I would assume means walls etc can be moved through
Exposed position I have no idea as is it more exposed than being in the middle of a street?

The preview said terrain will affect to hit
My guess is defensible is -1 to hit from shooting?

Could be, true.

Also my guess defensible will only be player point paid buildings such as wall of martyrs, aegis defense line, bastion etc...
giving a reason to pay for buildings but no one will do unless the aegis Is dirt cheap

Ruins are Defensible. Whatever it is, it's free.

Well that’s Dumb... there needs to be a reason to buy buildings or people just won’t do it.
We don’t know the rules but I would think something as strong as -1 to hit vs shooting should be mainly attached to defensible terrains like wall of Martyrs and less ruin like

Didn't they say something about buildings giving you bonuses? Like Imperial statuary helping with morale or a skull alter helping khorne units somehow.

Yeah. No clue how that works into any of this.

the_scotsman wrote:

 addnid wrote:
Can monsters and vehicules go through terrain, or not at all, and if they can, under chat conditions ?

dunno. All we know is that they seemingly can't (normally) gain cover from Obstacle terrain.

Since area terrain seemingly includes swamps, craters and the like, if you had me guess I"d say vehicles can enter Area by default, and maybe "Breachible' trait is applied to put the usual "Infantry can go thru, tanks cannot" restriction on stuff like ruins.

I would also presume that "impassable' terrain is achieved by making it an obstacle without the scalable trait.

Ah yes, I have high hopes that much stuff will be breachable (if your hunch turns out good). I mean I am afraid of vehicle & MC dominance this edition, but I'd rather we move from 8th ED "flying stuff goes everywhere, non flying stuff gets blocked by a brick on the ground". Else it will will be flying vehicle and MC dominance, which is even worse for diversity

Does anyone actually understand the line of sight rules?

I mean, does true line of sight exist at all?

The obscured section would certainly imply that Aircraft and models with 18W and up can be seen even through walls and other obscuring terrain, no matter how high the actual terrain piece is. So, even if you don't see the Knight, you can still always shoot it.

What kind of hybrid LOS are we dealing with? Does everyone else still follow true LOS?

 Therion wrote:
Does everyone else still follow true LOS?

It works well in 30k, provided one uses some los blocking terrain. I mean, I had a bunch of gw ruins with keyholes, I blocked them, instead of trying to write rules around having to model something effectively.

8th being but hurt about los was because 8th lost any sort of wound pool or limitation, you know, only being able to kill what you can see. And gw's been chasing its tail on that one ever since. 30k, if I only see 5 out 30 dudes, I'm only killing 5. Sometimes terrain isn't the only problem, bad rules don't help.

No matter how large your terrain feature, you can't hide a knight. Unless you can somehow get a large enough terrain feature that doesn't have the Obscuring rule? If such things still exist?

I’m starting to notice a pattern of +1-1 on everything. I’m reserving judgment tell I get the full book but it feels like going to need a piece of paper to keep track of all the up down on these 1. What’s the point though if it’s ultimately capt at +-1.

SirGrotzalot wrote:
I’m starting to notice a pattern of +1-1 on everything. I’m reserving judgment tell I get the full book but it feels like going to need a piece of paper to keep track of all the up down on these 1. What’s the point though if it’s ultimately capt at +-1.

Maybe they'll lovingly sell us terrain cards

SirGrotzalot wrote:
I’m starting to notice a pattern of +1-1 on everything. I’m reserving judgment tell I get the full book but it feels like going to need a piece of paper to keep track of all the up down on these 1. What’s the point though if it’s ultimately capt at +-1.

As has been explained multiple times and explicitly called out early on by GW themselves:
Rolls are capped at +/- 1. That does not mean that you cannot cancel out the modifiers however. They also specifically called out that the "+/- 1" cap does not apply to stat blocks. Just to modifiers on rolls.

They specifically used Alaitoc Flyers as an example, citing the -2 to hit from Supersonic and Alaitoc stacking...and then a +1 to hit vs Fly cancelling one of them out, still letting you get a -1 to be hit.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
No matter how large your terrain feature, you can't hide a knight. Unless you can somehow get a large enough terrain feature that doesn't have the Obscuring rule? If such things still exist?

From my understanding, you can still hide models behind cover even if they're over 18 wounds, you just need to be 100% hidden.

So an enormous solid building with no gaps would block the Knight, because even though the obscured rule doesn't work for it, you literally can't draw LOS to it.

Might be wrong though.

 Kanluwen wrote:

SirGrotzalot wrote:
I’m starting to notice a pattern of +1-1 on everything. I’m reserving judgment tell I get the full book but it feels like going to need a piece of paper to keep track of all the up down on these 1. What’s the point though if it’s ultimately capt at +-1.

As has been explained multiple times and explicitly called out early on by GW themselves:
Rolls are capped at +/- 1. That does not mean that you cannot cancel out the modifiers however. They also specifically called out that the "+/- 1" cap does not apply to stat blocks. Just to modifiers on rolls.

They specifically used Alaitoc Flyers as an example, citing the -2 to hit from Supersonic and Alaitoc stacking...and then a +1 to hit vs Fly cancelling one of them out, still letting you get a -1 to be hit.

That was regarding to-hit rolls.

While I like the "Obscuring" terrain to get more straight LoS blocking in there, the rest of it just seems like more rules details, rather than anything that will particularly meaningfully impact many of the game's more pressing issues with lethality and alpha strikes, or taking shots as silly things like banners or sword tips. Hopefully we'll see more detail on that front, and wound allocation.

So, now you have to debate with your opponent about every piece of terrain, which type of cover it gets, and what trait(s) it gets ?? There are two cover types, and at least four traits

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I like the "Obscuring" terrain to get more straight LoS blocking in there, the rest of it just seems like more rules details, rather than anything that will particularly meaningfully impact many of the game's more pressing issues with lethality and alpha strikes, or taking shots as silly things like banners or sword tips. Hopefully we'll see more detail on that front, and wound allocation.

I think there may be more detail about LoS stuff to come later. I want to say I remember something in one of the streams where "Winged Carnifexes" were called out about the wings.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As others have said, just being present on the board has an intrinsic value, regardless of Stats and relative ability.

Cultists, even at 6 points are pretty cheap, especially in their wider army setting (another factor). They’re pretty much ideal for holding backfield objectives, and deflecting charges. That in turn affects what I can do with the rest of my force.

It’ll also factor in to how terrain works in the new rules, which I believe is today’s topic?

Consider the humble Gobbo in WHFB. Traditionally they were dirt cheap, because you needed a lot of them. They largely relied on static combat res bonuses, and their Fanatics. But, they were also for a long time highly vulnerable to Routs.

See, it used to be in WHFB that if your General snuffed it, your whole army had to take a panic test. Every unit not immune to breaking had to test. When you had maybe Ld6 at most, that was a real problem for Gobbos.

Then....the death of the general was toned down. And as a result, Gobbos went up in points, because without that interaction, they were a slightly nastier prospect to fit, as I couldn’t ripple panic most of their army off the board.

I am reminded of that battle report where one gobbo fanatic killed over 1000 points.

 Kanluwen wrote:

SirGrotzalot wrote:
I’m starting to notice a pattern of +1-1 on everything. I’m reserving judgment tell I get the full book but it feels like going to need a piece of paper to keep track of all the up down on these 1. What’s the point though if it’s ultimately capt at +-1.

As has been explained multiple times and explicitly called out early on by GW themselves:
Rolls are capped at +/- 1. That does not mean that you cannot cancel out the modifiers however. They also specifically called out that the "+/- 1" cap does not apply to stat blocks. Just to modifiers on rolls.

They specifically used Alaitoc Flyers as an example, citing the -2 to hit from Supersonic and Alaitoc stacking...and then a +1 to hit vs Fly cancelling one of them out, still letting you get a -1 to be hit.

Even if you didn't have the bonus to hit though it's still capped at a -1.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

SirGrotzalot wrote:
I’m starting to notice a pattern of +1-1 on everything. I’m reserving judgment tell I get the full book but it feels like going to need a piece of paper to keep track of all the up down on these 1. What’s the point though if it’s ultimately capt at +-1.

As has been explained multiple times and explicitly called out early on by GW themselves:
Rolls are capped at +/- 1. That does not mean that you cannot cancel out the modifiers however. They also specifically called out that the "+/- 1" cap does not apply to stat blocks. Just to modifiers on rolls.

They specifically used Alaitoc Flyers as an example, citing the -2 to hit from Supersonic and Alaitoc stacking...and then a +1 to hit vs Fly cancelling one of them out, still letting you get a -1 to be hit.

Even if you didn't have the bonus to hit though it's still capped at a -1.

But if it wasn't an Alaitoc flyer, you'd be rolling To Hit as normal.

 p5freak wrote:
So, now you have to debate with your opponent about every piece of terrain, which type of cover it gets, and what trait(s) it gets ?? There are two cover types, and at least four traits

GW terrain will have that all spelled out in the book. Tournaments that use non-GW terrain will have it all spelled out in the tournament pack.

If I'm having a friendly home game, I'm probably not playing against someone I have to debate about that sort of thing anyway.

So by the new obscuration rules this two miniatures can't see each other?

Anyone else notice that Obscuring also turns ruins into big pillars of nope?

That's a fairly solid solution to the wings n' banners problem.Saves you having to specifically call out 'wings and sails and spikes and antennas and sloths and fruit bats and bananas and pool noodles that extend over a model cannot be drawn LOS to"

Imagine just using terrain that obscures los instead of having to write that it does somewhere. I mean why use your eyes when you can argue over whether you guys defined terrain piece x as having obscure rule during y our lengthy pre game discussion of terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
So by the new obscuration rules this two miniatures can't see each other?

Spoiler:

That's my reading of it as well ya.

 Galas wrote:
So by the new obscuration rules this two miniatures can't see each other?

Spoiler:

Correct, assuming that middle thing has "obscuring" and is over 5" high.

the_scotsman wrote:
Anyone else notice that Obscuring also turns ruins into big pillars of nope?

That's a fairly solid solution to the wings n' banners problem.Saves you having to specifically call out 'wings and sails and spikes and antennas and sloths and fruit bats and bananas and pool noodles that extend over a model cannot be drawn LOS to"

I feel that's extra less necessary when it comes to at least the new gw ruin models. even a two level one is massively tall compared to the old gw ruins. If anything this seems to mean making one more than one level isn't very useful.