Switch Theme:

The Densest Most Beautiful Cover, So Dense  [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 gb
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





United Kingdom

Sunny Side Up wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well I did like this rule. They had to throw that 18 wound break point in there didn't they? So a repulsor executioner that isn't fully covered by the piece of terrain is -1 to be hit, and a super heavy tank that is fully covered by it doesn't.

Doesn't do much for big squads of cheap infantry either.


Repulsor will always get -1 to hit (unless the shooter is within 3").

As with all 3D-objects, it's physically impossible to draw a line from point A to every single point on the target object. Some part is always facing directly away (furthermore, in 40K, some part of the model or base is also sitting on the table).


That's a quick way of becoming TFG. It's clearly supposed to be played as "can you see the whole silhouette of the model and the nearest edge of it's base? If no, -1 to hit".

There is not a gaming company in existence that would write rules that require it's models to be wholly transparent or its players have x-ray vision.
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





I'm amused by the people saying this rule is written too complicated. The last 3 (or... 8?) years I read on dakka GW rules are too sloppy and leave too much room for interpretation...
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Afrodactyl wrote:

That's a quick way of becoming TFG. It's clearly supposed to be played as "can you see the whole silhouette of the model and the nearest edge of it's base? If no, -1 to hit".

There is not a gaming company in existence that would write rules that require it's models to be wholly transparent or its players have x-ray vision.


Sure.

And it was clearly supposed to be that you cannot move units after deepstriking. Still took 2 years of FAQ to stop WAAC idiots using Warptime after deepstrike (including several consecutive LVOs, SoCal Opens, etc.. where the current playtesters were almost gleefully ruling against the obvious intent).
And it was clearly supposed to be that a Smash Captain deepstriking on a building would still make a 9" charge, not a 0" charge because it's "vertical" distance. Still took 2 years of FAQ to get it watertight for the WAAC idiots in the game.
Etc..

Just being realistic here.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/23 17:09:25


 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





United Kingdom

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm amused by the people saying this rule is written too complicated. The last 3 (or... 8?) years I read on dakka GW rules are too sloppy and leave too much room for interpretation...


It's not that difficult to comprehend. I read it once at speed and thought it was complicated.

I then read it back as individual sentences and they all make sense and is pretty straightforward.

Granted, English is my first language, so I could understand why someone with English as their second language/other difficulties reading English might find it more of a head scratcher.
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




Sunny Side Up wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

Sigh. It's like a brain virus. He's got the BCB.

....Since BCB isn't answering this question, do you care to answer why it is that an imaginary line that explicitly within the rule references passing through objects is not allowed to pass through parts of a model or base?

Or are you also just going to assume that the 8th edition rules for drawing line of sight for a shooting attack for some reason apply to this other rule that you just read totally unrelated to that purpose?


I assume it because the rule itself implies the possibility that things can also not be (fully) visible.

If the line of sight is not blocked by models or terrain, it would inversely be impossible to not always draw lines to every single part of the model and the condition would be just as pointless.



The rule stipulates you can and will draw a line to any and all points on the hull/base, it doesn't prevent you, what it cares about is if you can 1. See the model in any capacity 2. See the entire base 3. Cross the terrain
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

laws are often poorly written because they often have to abide by archaic language in order to enmesh themselves within the larger "canon" of law. Even if you're writing a law in 2020, chances are its building upon or tied into another law that was written in 1850, etc. which requires you to utilize similar terminology and definitions in order to maintain legal consistency within the established framework. On top of that, certain terms and phrases have taken on precise and different meanings within legal circles than what would be understood in laymans parlance - this is something that basically happens organically and haphazardly over time (to tie it into the hobby, something like "MEQ" or "tripointing" or "wholly within" or even "d3" are terms that have specific meanings within the 40k community which don't necessarily translate to the same meanings in other games or even to the general public, while these terms aren't generally (yet) part of the games "legal framework", i.e. rules, given time they could eventually be) - in the case of the law we're talking hundreds of years and much of that terminology has been long established as a result, such that those terms and phrases are at this point archaic but are still regularly used because they are understood by legal practitioners.

i.e. if the original law you're expanding upon defines an orange as "an orange, or Citrus orantium, together with all the appurtenances thereto of skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, and juice, to have and to hold the said orange together with its skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, and juice" then you also have to define it as such - unless you're replacing the original law in its entirety, and all other laws within which an orange may be defined, simply referring to it as "an orange" in the new law opens it up to legal challenge - i.e. "this new law doesn't apply under xyz conditions because unlike other laws it doesn't define the term orange in the same way and thus this orange is not considered an orange for the purposes of this law."

Under the US (and IIRC UK) law, there is the concept of stare decisis - i.e. the use of legal precedent to interpret modern laws. Thus modern laws as a result tend to hew closer to the language of older laws where it is merited in order to ensure that precedent can hold to the new laws intended outcomes.

The need to account for more variables is also a factor, but not as big as some make it out to be as there are shorter and more precise ways to legally define most terms to produce the desired understanding than what is sometimes seen. Within the US (and perhaps other countries) legal systems, there are certain elements of the Constitution which also essentially encourage a certain degree of specificity (and sometimes vagueness) in terminology used, as concepts like lenity (ambiguity in criminal law will be ruled in the defendants favor) mean that a law intended to prevent something may end up allowing for it anyway under specific circumstances if its not iron tight. Add on top of this the fact that laws are usually intended to last more or less forever (at least until they are revised) and that language evolves over time, the overly specific definitions contained in laws are often put there as a way of guaranteeing that the laws intent will remain in effect even if the colloquial understanding of the words and phrases used shift underneath it.

But I digress.

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Dudeface wrote:


The rule stipulates you can and will draw a line to any and all points on the hull/base, it doesn't prevent you, what it cares about is if you can 1. See the model in any capacity 2. See the entire base 3. Cross the terrain


Yes. But if you take a Warhammer base from your painting table and hold it up in front of you, you'll find it is impossible to see the entire base without turning it.



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/23 17:13:08


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Sunny Side Up wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

Sigh. It's like a brain virus. He's got the BCB.

....Since BCB isn't answering this question, do you care to answer why it is that an imaginary line that explicitly within the rule references passing through objects is not allowed to pass through parts of a model or base?

Or are you also just going to assume that the 8th edition rules for drawing line of sight for a shooting attack for some reason apply to this other rule that you just read totally unrelated to that purpose?


I assume it because the rule itself implies the possibility that things can also not be (fully) visible.

If the line of sight is not blocked by models or terrain, it would inversely be impossible to not always draw lines to every single part of the model and the condition would be just as pointless.



But it would NOT be impossible to draw lines to every single part of the model without passing over or through any part of any terrain feature with this trait.

The rule NEVER says "visible". Never once. Ever. It says "Draw lines without passing through or over" which doesn't just imply but openly states the fact that the line can pass through and never implies that beyond the starting point (the firing model) and the ending point (the target model) the ONLY thing that matters is terrain over 3" in height with the Dense Cover keyword.

Read the rule one mo gain, I posted it in a funny joke earlier in the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Dudeface wrote:


The rule stipulates you can and will draw a line to any and all points on the hull/base, it doesn't prevent you, what it cares about is if you can 1. See the model in any capacity 2. See the entire base 3. Cross the terrain


Yes. But if you take a Warhammer base from your painting table and hold it up in front of you, you'll find it is impossible to see the entire base without turning it.


And it is a damn good thing that SEEING has absolutely NOTHING to do with this rule.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/23 17:11:25


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




the_scotsman wrote:

And it is a damn good thing that SEEING has absolutely NOTHING to do with this rule.


In which case, it will never be possible to not draw a line to every point on every object in the known universe, making the rule just as pointless.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Sunny Side Up wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well I did like this rule. They had to throw that 18 wound break point in there didn't they? So a repulsor executioner that isn't fully covered by the piece of terrain is -1 to be hit, and a super heavy tank that is fully covered by it doesn't.

Doesn't do much for big squads of cheap infantry either.


Repulsor will always get -1 to hit (unless the shooter is within 3").

As with all 3D-objects, it's physically impossible to draw a line from point A to every single point on the target object. Some part is always facing directly away (furthermore, in 40K, some part of the model or base is also sitting on the table).


The rule doesn't state anywhere that you can't cross the model itself. You simply need to not cross the terrain element.

The rule is crystal clear.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/23 17:14:45


 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




Sunny Side Up wrote:
Dudeface wrote:


The rule stipulates you can and will draw a line to any and all points on the hull/base, it doesn't prevent you, what it cares about is if you can 1. See the model in any capacity 2. See the entire base 3. Cross the terrain


Yes. But if you take a Warhammer base from your painting table and hold it up in front of you, you'll find it is impossible to see the entire base without turning it.





Please highlight where it tells me you need line of sight to the rear of the base
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Tycho wrote:
That took me, like, thirty seconds. GW seriously needs a technical writer, this is borderline unreadable. The legalese approach is really not the best way to write rules. The way it's worded is just not intuitive; it sets up the -1 as the default case and then provides the exception of clear LOS, when it should be the opposite, telling you the conditions under which you suffer the penalty.


I was thinking this exact thing. I run a content team, and if one of my technical writers turned this in to me, even as a rough draft, I'd send it back. More and more of these rules are reading like poorly written SAT questions.

As painful as it is, the more 40k approaches legalese levels of rules interaction, the fairer the system becomes. Laws are complicated because grey areas cannot be decided on. Language is required, therefore, to adjudicate gray areas into the either/or scenarios that most games require.


The first part of that statement isn't in any way accurate. Even with the best level of "legalese" possible, you can still have a remarkably unfair play experience. Only now, it's unfair, and impossibly obtuse. Laws are complicated because they have to take into account a significantly higher amount of variables and interactions than the rules in a table top war game. You can have a rule set that suffciently removes as many grey areas as possible, but is still fairly approachable. Other systems don't appear to struggle so hard with this. What's that old saying? "If you can't explain something simply, you probably don't understand it well enough."



Look, you're not wrong, I am just trying to be generous to GW. No doubt this is bad writing, but GW technical writers have clearly demonstrated for 20 years that they cannot be pithy. At least now they are trying to spell out scenarios that we can use as data for adjudicating disputes. Writing short sentences that are definitive is very hard. Technical writing that "distills" without losing "essence" is hard, as I am sure you know




It's REALLY not that hard.

You only have to define a few terms/status.

Occupied Terrain: A unit is considered to be occupying the terrain under x circumstance. A unit that is occupying terrain treats the occupied terrain as Open Ground when tracing Line of Sight.

Open Ground: Completely uninterrupted los.

Dense Terrain: Dense terrain should be a minimum of 3" tall measuring to it's tallest point. A unit within 3" of Dense Obstacle Terrain treats that piece of terrain as Open Ground when tracing line of sight. If a model cannot target a unit without tracing Line of Sight over or through dense terrain they will suffer a -1 penalty to hit with ranged weapons.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/23 17:13:58



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Lance845 wrote:
Tau, Necrons, Eldar, D Eldar.

Vehicles with the Fly Keyword are not rare.

Tau don't want to be in CC and have lost out big with Overwatch being killed as FTGG just became redundant( Aka their factions special rule)
Necrons, we need to see the new rules I could see alot of them loosing fly and picking up the Admech scoripius wording.

Eldar won't care as they are allready rocking -1 to hit.
Drukari maybe.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





What I'm worried about here, is that this can go on obstacles, which in theory is nice because it grants both +1 save and -1 hit. It also means though that if I have a big unit behind a tree, and you shoot with a unit with many models, the game slows down to a crawl becuase you have to shoot model by model and every time remove the casualties trying to make it so that you gain the bonus from the attacker...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/23 17:20:04


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Not all fly units has -1 to hit, many don't even in CWE and DE.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Sunny Side Up wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

And it is a damn good thing that SEEING has absolutely NOTHING to do with this rule.


In which case, it will never be possible to not draw a line to every point on every object in the known universe, making the rule just as pointless.


Um, no? Are you just trolling at this point? Seriously, it gives you a starting condition (model A) and an ending position (model B) and it tells you to draw an imaginary line without passing through specific intervening objects.

How could you ever possibly interpret that as every object in the universe being available?

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Sgt. Cortez wrote:I'm amused by the people saying this rule is written too complicated. The last 3 (or... 8?) years I read on dakka GW rules are too sloppy and leave too much room for interpretation...
As one of the people saying it's too complicated, I never had an issue with GW's previous rules, and had very few experiences of it being sloppy or vague.

It's almost like overlap between people who complained about this rule being obtuse and complained about the previous rules being sloppy is ridiculously small.


They/them

 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Toronto

In which case, it will never be possible to not draw a line to every point on every object in the known universe, making the rule just as pointless.


Correct.
Does one of those lines go through a piece of Dense Terrain? If it does, apply the -1 to hit penalty.

That's all this measurement is checking for. It's not checking line of sight, its not checking distance, it's not checking ANYTHING else. The ONLY thing it cares about if if a piece of Dense Terrain in in between two points.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/23 17:26:53


   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Amishprn86 wrote:
Not all fly units has -1 to hit, many don't even in CWE and DE.


This. Actually Drukhari have a -1 native to their Venoms and Mandrakes (as well as Airplanes, of course).

Craftworld have to give up their chapter tactic to get it (just like AdMech Stygies, etc..).

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Spoletta wrote:
What I'm worried about here, is that this can go on obstacles, which in theory is nice because it grants both +1 save and -1 hit. It also means though that if I have a big unit behind a tree, and you shoot with a unit with many models, the game slows down to a crawl becuase you have to shoot model by model and every time remove the casualties trying to make it so that you gain the bonus from the attacker...


Obstacles don't automatically grant +1 sv.

Obstacle and Area are the two different rulesets for how you claim whatever cover rules the terrain has. From context clues from the new Dense Cover rule, we can say that it *most likely* works like this:

Obstacle: Claim cover by being 3" away and the terrain is closer to the firer than the target.

Area: Claim cover by being on or within.

What kind of cover the terrain grants is entirely dictated by its various terrain keyword benefits. So far, we know of Light Cover (+1sv vs shooting), Heavy Cover (+1sv vs melee except if charged), Dense Cover (-1 to hit), and Defensible (+1 to hit in melee if you get charged this turn, OR +1 to hit with the Overwatch stratagem)

Also, the Dense Cover rule is applied at the point that the firing unit declares their attack. The only point it slows the game down is when you determine which of the firing models incur the penalty. Attacking one model at a time I don't think would have any particular point.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Sunny Side Up wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

And it is a damn good thing that SEEING has absolutely NOTHING to do with this rule.


In which case, it will never be possible to not draw a line to every point on every object in the known universe, making the rule just as pointless.


You're trying to hard to find fault and creating a problem that doesn't exist.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Oi. It does appear the the 40k team is trying to write rules free of misinterpretation or oversights, but they just don't understand how to achieve that. On top of the tortured sentences are unnecessary variables that only add more for players to process.. Why the distinction between "dense" terrain and "area" terrain? Citadel Woods represent an area more dense than 3 trees! I would expect that -1 to hit to disproportionately help elite units, as well.

What GW could have done is:

AREA TERRAIN

A unit may draw Line of Sight to an enemy unit within Area Terrain, but not through Area Terrain.


AREA TERRAIN that does not block Line of Sight is LOW AREA TERRAIN.

This is also another reason why I would like to see an Evasion stat that a model or unit's Ballistic Skill is compared with to determine the minimum number to hit. Occupying AREA TERRAIN could simply double that number.

OBSTACLES

Walls, crates, hedges, etc. Units in base contact with an OBSTACLE do not count that OBSTACLE when determining Line of Sight.

But noooooooooooo, GW has to do everything the hard way and cause more problems than they solve.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/23 17:37:05


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





the_scotsman wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
What I'm worried about here, is that this can go on obstacles, which in theory is nice because it grants both +1 save and -1 hit. It also means though that if I have a big unit behind a tree, and you shoot with a unit with many models, the game slows down to a crawl becuase you have to shoot model by model and every time remove the casualties trying to make it so that you gain the bonus from the attacker...


Obstacles don't automatically grant +1 sv.

Obstacle and Area are the two different rulesets for how you claim whatever cover rules the terrain has. From context clues from the new Dense Cover rule, we can say that it *most likely* works like this:

Obstacle: Claim cover by being 3" away and the terrain is closer to the firer than the target.

Area: Claim cover by being on or within.

What kind of cover the terrain grants is entirely dictated by its various terrain keyword benefits. So far, we know of Light Cover (+1sv vs shooting), Heavy Cover (+1sv vs melee except if charged), Dense Cover (-1 to hit), and Defensible (+1 to hit in melee if you get charged this turn, OR +1 to hit with the Overwatch stratagem)

Also, the Dense Cover rule is applied at the point that the firing unit declares their attack. The only point it slows the game down is when you determine which of the firing models incur the penalty. Attacking one model at a time I don't think would have any particular point.


Yep - this is why the blob of text encompasses more than the bullets - there's an ecosystem of rules in the book that link together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Oi. It does appear the the 40k team is trying to write rules free of misinterpretation or oversights, but they just don't understand how to achieve that. On top of the tortured sentences are unnecessary variables. Why the distinction between "dense" terrain and "area" terrain? Citadel Woods represent an area more dense than 3 trees! I would expect that -1 to hit to disproportionately help elite units, as well.

What GW could have done is:

AREA TERRAIN

A unit may draw Line of Sight to an enemy unit within Area Terrain, but not through Area Terrain.


AREA TERRAIN that does not block Line of Sight is LOW AREA TERRAIN.

This is also another reason why I would like to see an Evasion stat that a model or unit's Ballistic Skill is compared with to determine the minimum number to hit. Occupying AREA TERRAIN could simply double that number.

But noooooooooooo, GW has to do everything the hard way and cause more problems than they solve.


I think we just lack the insight of the full rule set.

There is already "Area Terrain" and "Obstacles".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/23 17:36:29


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Spoiler:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
What I'm worried about here, is that this can go on obstacles, which in theory is nice because it grants both +1 save and -1 hit. It also means though that if I have a big unit behind a tree, and you shoot with a unit with many models, the game slows down to a crawl becuase you have to shoot model by model and every time remove the casualties trying to make it so that you gain the bonus from the attacker...


Obstacles don't automatically grant +1 sv.

Obstacle and Area are the two different rulesets for how you claim whatever cover rules the terrain has. From context clues from the new Dense Cover rule, we can say that it *most likely* works like this:

Obstacle: Claim cover by being 3" away and the terrain is closer to the firer than the target.

Area: Claim cover by being on or within.

What kind of cover the terrain grants is entirely dictated by its various terrain keyword benefits. So far, we know of Light Cover (+1sv vs shooting), Heavy Cover (+1sv vs melee except if charged), Dense Cover (-1 to hit), and Defensible (+1 to hit in melee if you get charged this turn, OR +1 to hit with the Overwatch stratagem)

Also, the Dense Cover rule is applied at the point that the firing unit declares their attack. The only point it slows the game down is when you determine which of the firing models incur the penalty. Attacking one model at a time I don't think would have any particular point.


Yep - this is why the blob of text encompasses more than the bullets - there's an ecosystem of rules in the book that link together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Oi. It does appear the the 40k team is trying to write rules free of misinterpretation or oversights, but they just don't understand how to achieve that. On top of the tortured sentences are unnecessary variables. Why the distinction between "dense" terrain and "area" terrain? Citadel Woods represent an area more dense than 3 trees! I would expect that -1 to hit to disproportionately help elite units, as well.

What GW could have done is:

AREA TERRAIN

A unit may draw Line of Sight to an enemy unit within Area Terrain, but not through Area Terrain.


AREA TERRAIN that does not block Line of Sight is LOW AREA TERRAIN.

This is also another reason why I would like to see an Evasion stat that a model or unit's Ballistic Skill is compared with to determine the minimum number to hit. Occupying AREA TERRAIN could simply double that number.

But noooooooooooo, GW has to do everything the hard way and cause more problems than they solve.


I think we just lack the insight of the full rule set.

There is already "Area Terrain" and "Obstacles".


Yes, Area Terrain and Obstacles exist in 9th. But their rules are written poorly. We don't need the insight of the full ruleset- which is only tweaking 8th- to spot poor rules.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/23 17:39:25


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





the_scotsman wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
What I'm worried about here, is that this can go on obstacles, which in theory is nice because it grants both +1 save and -1 hit. It also means though that if I have a big unit behind a tree, and you shoot with a unit with many models, the game slows down to a crawl becuase you have to shoot model by model and every time remove the casualties trying to make it so that you gain the bonus from the attacker...


Obstacles don't automatically grant +1 sv.

Obstacle and Area are the two different rulesets for how you claim whatever cover rules the terrain has. From context clues from the new Dense Cover rule, we can say that it *most likely* works like this:

Obstacle: Claim cover by being 3" away and the terrain is closer to the firer than the target.

Area: Claim cover by being on or within.

What kind of cover the terrain grants is entirely dictated by its various terrain keyword benefits. So far, we know of Light Cover (+1sv vs shooting), Heavy Cover (+1sv vs melee except if charged), Dense Cover (-1 to hit), and Defensible (+1 to hit in melee if you get charged this turn, OR +1 to hit with the Overwatch stratagem)

Also, the Dense Cover rule is applied at the point that the firing unit declares their attack. The only point it slows the game down is when you determine which of the firing models incur the penalty. Attacking one model at a time I don't think would have any particular point.


If the current rules for resolving the attacks are kept, then you have to resolve each attacking model on its own. This means that I get to remove models between one model attacking and the next model attacking. This will change which models are affected by the -1 to hit,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way GW, I'm never been so happy that harpies and Chrones are not aircrafts...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/23 17:41:16


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Spoletta wrote:


If the current rules for resolving the attacks are kept, then you have to resolve each attacking model on its own. This means that I get to remove models between one model attacking and the next model attacking. This will change which models are affected by the -1 to hit,


No. The rule is either on the unit or it is not. If you can draw unobstructed to any model in that unit then the unit does not benefit.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm amused by the people saying this rule is written too complicated. The last 3 (or... 8?) years I read on dakka GW rules are too sloppy and leave too much room for interpretation...


The way it's written is still pretty sloppy. Believe it or not, you CAN have a well written rule set that is approachable but eliminates so much of the grey area GW rules tend to cause. You'll never totally eliminate the grey areas, but it seems so often like GW's rules pretty much live in the grey area. This rule probably has less room for interpretation, but is now written like an overly verbose word problem on a high-school multiple choice test. It's worded in a needlessly convoluted fashion, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the way it's currently written causes problematic interactions later when we see the rest of the rule set.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Blastaar wrote:

Yes, Area Terrain and Obstacles exist in 9th. But their rules are written poorly. We don't need the insight of the full ruleset- which is only tweaking 8th- to spot poor rules.


These are pretty far beyond what I'd call tweaks.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/23 17:54:00


 
   
Made in us
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




From the perspective killteam, 90% of the time you glance down and immediately know they're obscured or in the open. And that was when EVERY piece of terrain obscured. Now its only in terrain with this key word (and a 3" antenna lol).

I think people will try this in game and find it pretty intuitive.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: