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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A slightly more accurate diagram:

Spoiler:

If you can illustrate to me how this rule specifies that a line that is allowed explicitly to pass through the piece of terrain is not allowed to pass thru the model or the atoms of the base, I will say I agree with your little premise here.

The terrain has holes to allow for LOS. Imagine something like a forest where with infinite amount of lines you can draw to some portion of the visible targets base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mothman wrote:
I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers

Following the rules is rules lawyering now? Tell me, do you make your opponents roll to hit when shooting their Boltguns? Yes or No, one word answer please.

Again, the dense terrain rule makes no reference to LOS. Being able to “see” what the line is drawn to is not required.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mothman wrote:
I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers

And if GW thinks they can appease that attitude by trying to write more legalistic rules, they aaaaaaare wrong. People will start talking about "layers of atoms" and alternate definitions of words and whether you can actually draw an imaginary line if you don't have an imaginary pencil - anything to maintain the "thing everyone else thinks is wrong, I am correct" attitude.

Lines don't have a length, they are by definition infinite. The term you want is a Line Segment. Also, lines don't have a width, by definition, they are one dimensional objects (their slope).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mothman wrote:
I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers

Following the rules is rules lawyering now? Tell me, do you make your opponents roll to hit when shooting their Boltguns? Yes or No, one word answer please.

I have not passed through IH and Eldar Flyer spam lists to bandy words with a rules layer like yourself. Go back to the YMDC that awaits you and your master, BCB!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A slightly more accurate diagram:

Spoiler:

I often agree with you, but are you sure you read the rule correctly this time? Because your diagram is kinda useless? The line passes over the terrain = target gains cover.

Great, the stream is just about the inquisition in Pariah and nothing to do with 9th :C
I thought they said they’d be talking about 9th each day until it’s release?

 Mothman wrote:
I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers

Been playing since 2nd. I've had fewer rules arguments in 8th than in any previous edition.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A slightly more accurate diagram:

Spoiler:

If you can illustrate to me how this rule specifies that a line that is allowed explicitly to pass through the piece of terrain is not allowed to pass thru the model or the atoms of the base, I will say I agree with your little premise here.

The terrain has holes to allow for LOS. Imagine something like a forest where with infinite amount of lines you can draw to some portion of the visible targets base. That being said, it might be a case of you can draw lines "though" other models just fine for the purposes of determining terrain, so it's not the situation I described.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mothman wrote:
I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers

Following the rules is rules lawyering now? Tell me, do you make your opponents roll to hit when shooting their Boltguns? Yes or No, one word answer please.

You are making an assumption that the rule cares whether a line that is IMAGINARY passes thru parts of the firing or target model, other pieces of terrain that do not have the DENSE COVER trait, other models that may or may not have that trait, but it does not.

The rule only cares if the line passes through pieces of terrain with the DENSE COVER trait that are more than 3" tall from the highest point. That's it. That's the only thing the line ISNT allowed to pass through. I would imagine that the general rule for targeting Line of Sight will work more like the rule you're imagining here, but most likely it will be permissive (ANY part of the model) rather than exclusive (EVERY part of the model) to avoid this issue.

Holy gak people, GW writes out clearer rules and you complain. Take a good look at yourselves in the mirror.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A slightly more accurate diagram:

Spoiler:

The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain (again, regardless of actually drawing LoS through it)? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mothman wrote:
I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers

And if GW thinks they can appease that attitude by trying to write more legalistic rules, they aaaaaaare wrong. People will start talking about "layers of atoms" and alternate definitions of words and whether you can actually draw an imaginary line if you don't have an imaginary pencil - anything to maintain the "thing everyone else thinks is wrong, I am correct" attitude.

Lines don't have a length, they are by definition infinite. The term you want is a Line Segment. Also, lines don't have a width, by definition, they are one dimensional objects (their slope).

There's no problem with a 1mm thick line outside of geometry (hint, if we're already defining a width we're obviously talking about lines in the more colloquial everyday sense that word is understood). Ultimately, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I think it's been shown just from reading the rule that it doesn't require LoS and does seem to function perfectly well.

Nothing new today. They're discussing Inquisitors in the Pariah book.

At one point he actually said that Inquisitors have "total freedom to do what is necessary". That made me laugh given that Inquisitors are one of the most hamstrung lists when it comes to weapon options and actual choices.

 McGibs wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A slightly more accurate diagram:

Spoiler:

The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.

Yes, because imagine in a dynamic battle, the people aren’t static on the sections of base they’re glued to. These dudes would be standing side on and as close to the cover as possible, essentially standing on the small portion of base that is covered by the dense terrain.

So, if I am understanding correctly (and if the terrain has the DENSE keyword), this should make nearly all indirect fire weapons a -1 to hit?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nothing new today. They're discussing Inquisitors in the Pariah book.

At one point he actually said that Inquisitors have "total freedom to do what is necessary". That made me laugh given that Inquisitors are one of the most hamstrung lists when it comes to weapon options and actual choices.

Yeah, I remember when Inquisitors had access to all sorts of really cool stuff specifically so you could take your radical Ordo Xenos Inquisitor with all their weird and wonderful tech.

Kind of weird decisions from GW over their recent streams. Last week we had two on painting/models and now we get two on Pariah. Kind of implies they don't think there's much to talk about with 9th edition, especially when you consider they dedicated an entire stream to the Blast rule. If you can stretch out discussion of a single rule that far I'm sure you can find enough discussion to fill the next 4 weeks or so.

 puma713 wrote:
So, if I am understanding correctly (and if the terrain has the DENSE keyword), this should make nearly all indirect fire weapons a -1 to hit?

Yes please.

FWIW, on stream they heavily implied Sector Mechanicus terrain and Forests would have the Dense keyword.

 McGibs wrote:
The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain (again, regardless of actually drawing LoS through it)? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.

That's not what he's saying.

Look at the line again:

"... subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack... unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base..."

It says "every part" of the base. Given you can never draw a line to the other side of the model's base, because it's own base blocks itself, it's impossible to ignore dense terrain. And that's not even factoring in that the model itself will block LOS to some of the base, meaning it remains impossible to draw a straight line to "every part" of the base.

 puma713 wrote:
So, if I am understanding correctly (and if the terrain has the DENSE keyword), this should make nearly all indirect fire weapons a -1 to hit?

We really don't have much info on how (or even if) indirect fire weapons have changed. They may completely ignore intervening terrain for all we know, but come with an inbuilt -1 to hit modifier when firing out of LoS.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A slightly more accurate diagram:

Spoiler:

I often agree with you, but are you sure you read the rule correctly this time? Because your diagram is kinda useless? The line passes over the terrain = target gains cover.

My point is the "every part of at least one model's base" is an impossibility because the base itself blocks those lines, unless the lines can go though models.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain (again, regardless of actually drawing LoS through it)? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.

That's not what he's saying.

Look at the line again:

"... subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack... unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base..."

It says "every part" of the base. Given you can never draw a line to the other side of the model's base, because it's own base blocks itself, it's impossible to ignore dense terrain.

Where in the rule does it say that an IMAGINARY line cannot pass thru things?

is that part hidden behind the part where the rule says it CAN pass through terrain pieces with the DENSE COVER keyword?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain (again, regardless of actually drawing LoS through it)? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.

That's not what he's saying.

Look at the line again:

"... subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack... unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base..."

It says "every part" of the base. Given you can never draw a line to the other side of the model's base, because it's own base blocks itself, it's impossible to ignore dense terrain.

Where does it say a line can’t pass through objects? It doesn’t. This particular imaginary line isn’t the same as the imaginary line used for LOS.

For dense terrain it doesn’t matter if the line passes through other models, other terrain, the front of the base to reach the back of the base. The only thing that matters is whether or not it passes over or through dense terrain of 3” or higher.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain (again, regardless of actually drawing LoS through it)? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.

That's not what he's saying.

Look at the line again:

"... subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack... unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base..."

It says "every part" of the base. Given you can never draw a line to the other side of the model's base, because it's own base blocks itself, it's impossible to ignore dense terrain. And that's not even factoring in that the model itself will block LOS to some of the base, meaning it remains impossible to draw a straight line to "every part" of the base.

Again, please point out where in the rules it says the base blocks the lines from passing through it? It doesn't actually say that at all. The rule seems to have been written to be independent of the rules for LoS.

they're chatting about the new terrain rules on stream now. They just said that Sector Mechanicus terrain would get this rule, and heavily implied that it would not get "Light Cover"

"Don't hide behind a chain link fence if someone is shooting a boltgun at you it won't work."

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A slightly more accurate diagram:

Spoiler:

I often agree with you, but are you sure you read the rule correctly this time? Because your diagram is kinda useless? The line passes over the terrain = target gains cover.

My point is the "every part of at least one model's base" is an impossibility because the base itself blocks those lines, unless the lines can go though models.

You sure about that bolded part? Doesn't seem like it to me just from the way the rule is worded. You're confusing how LoS currently works with what this rule is actually saying. They're different.

Slipspace wrote:
Again, please point out where in the rules it says the base blocks the lines from passing through it? It doesn't actually say that at all. The rule seems to have been written to be independent of the rules for LoS.

To be fair, the rules would have to say that the lines can pass through the miniature/the base. Rules are permissive. "It doesn't say you can't" isn't a valid argument.

Having said that, I can see where you are coming from, as the rules focuses on straight lines not touching the cover, rather than the model's base/hull.

It's still a(nother) shockingly worded rule, and another rule that divorces Line of Sight from shooting in a weird way.

blimey these terrain trait rules....

Is it just me, but i find my self reading these rules about 4 times over in places to get the gist of what they are trying to say?

perhaps its just new rule syndrome, anyone else getting this?



so in very simple terms if terrain is dense and you fire at models in or behind it and all the models are in or behind it. its -1 to hit

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain (again, regardless of actually drawing LoS through it)? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.

That's not what he's saying.

Look at the line again:

"... subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack... unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base..."

It says "every part" of the base. Given you can never draw a line to the other side of the model's base, because it's own base blocks itself, it's impossible to ignore dense terrain. And that's not even factoring in that the model itself will block LOS to some of the base, meaning it remains impossible to draw a straight line to "every part" of the base.

Look. I did it.


This rule is nothing about checking visibility. It's not LoS. This line measurement is just to check if terrain is intervening between two models, that's IT.

Isn't the rule being debated a terrain rule? Meaning it has to be applied to a piece of terrain?

And the lines can't go through said terrain?

I feel like I'm missing something about this discussion.

 Mothman wrote:
I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers

Nah, this was a thing even on 5th where people argued that models that didn't have eyes can't fire weapons.

Clearly the "every part" clause is talkimg about in a straight lone between the first and the defending model, which excludes the back of the base or tank from being considered. Basically the correct way the rule works allows for any small amount of cover, even if the model isn't fully protected by it, to generate a -1 to be hit.

I know BCB is just trying to be their usual self, but their weird insistance on how rules work always causes more confusion than it does to make the game better.

 Latro_ wrote:
blimey these terrain trait rules....

Is it just me, but i find my self reading these rules about 4 times over in places to get the gist of what they are trying to say?

perhaps its just new rule syndrome, anyone else getting this?

Spoiler:

Yeah, they actually mentioned on-stream just now that there are going to be two forms that the rules take, and this is the longform "full rule". there will also be brief bullet point summaries that mention in short form how the rule works. Probably something like

"If a terrain piece with this trait is 3" or taller, shooting attacks that pass over or through it suffer a -1 penalty to hit rolls. Models claiming Cover from a terrain piece with this trait do not suffer the penalty for that terrain piece."