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.

So will light/dense cover forests be the new terrain meta? -1 to hit with a +1 to your save seems like it'll be fairly strong.

Throw in obscuring and they'll break LoS too.

Ice_can wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
updated the article with this

Really, they are going all in on just destroying terrain as anything but a hindrance to 18+ wound model's.
I hope they have suitably considered this and not actually raised their points at this point as so far they are gaining nothing and loosing out of in all the rules previews.

My thoughts exactly. What was wrong with the 50% obscured rule for super heavys benefiting from cover?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So will light/dense cover forests be the new terrain meta? -1 to hit with a +1 to your save seems like it'll be fairly strong.

Throw in obscuring and they'll break LoS too.

Assuming that forests are both light and dense, I can imagine they would be. It does seem like they're pitching dense cover as an "instead" system - Ruins for example don't seem to have Dense.

Personally I imagine at least among the 9 basic types, Dense and Light appearing together will be somewhat rare as - as you said - it would be a very potent combo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
updated the article with this

Really, they are going all in on just destroying terrain as anything but a hindrance to 18+ wound model's.
I hope they have suitably considered this and not actually raised their points at this point as so far they are gaining nothing and loosing out of in all the rules previews.

My thoughts exactly. What was wrong with the 50% obscured rule for super heavys benefiting from cover?

We still don't know the exact wording of the Obstacles or Area rules, which presumably are where they hide the general rule for benefitting from cover. All we have seen is a vague statement form the original terrain rule that 'Objects are great for footsloggers, as INFANTRY BEASTS and SWARMS benefit from cover when Objects are between them and the firer"

We just know that 18+ wound models are explicitly barred from the Dense and Obscuring rules.

Honestly superheavies being punished and discouraged out of 40k is very fine for me. Go back to Apoc.

the_scotsman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So will light/dense cover forests be the new terrain meta? -1 to hit with a +1 to your save seems like it'll be fairly strong.

Throw in obscuring and they'll break LoS too.

Assuming that forests are both light and dense, I can imagine they would be. It does seem like they're pitching dense cover as an "instead" system - Ruins for example don't seem to have Dense.

Personally I imagine at least among the 9 basic types, Dense and Light appearing together will be somewhat rare as - as you said - it would be a very potent combo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
updated the article with this

Really, they are going all in on just destroying terrain as anything but a hindrance to 18+ wound model's.
I hope they have suitably considered this and not actually raised their points at this point as so far they are gaining nothing and loosing out of in all the rules previews.

My thoughts exactly. What was wrong with the 50% obscured rule for super heavys benefiting from cover?

We still don't know the exact wording of the Obstacles or Area rules, which presumably are where they hide the general rule for benefitting from cover. All we have seen is a vague statement form the original terrain rule that 'Objects are great for footsloggers, as INFANTRY BEASTS and SWARMS benefit from cover when Objects are between them and the firer"

We just know that 18+ wound models are explicitly barred from the Dense and Obscuring rules.

So far every rule that's been previrwed explicitly excludes 18+ wound models right now they are getting 110%stick and 0 carrot from these new terrain rules.
And as to that calling out keywords malarkey great now non of my Tau suits get the benifit of cover either Thanks GW.

Looking more like both my armies are going to spend 9th playing aroudn Terrain will gaining less than they loose while the faction that has been through so much flandarisation I can't stand them (Marines) get nothing but buffed by even the Terrain rules.

Ice_can wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So will light/dense cover forests be the new terrain meta? -1 to hit with a +1 to your save seems like it'll be fairly strong.

Throw in obscuring and they'll break LoS too.

Assuming that forests are both light and dense, I can imagine they would be. It does seem like they're pitching dense cover as an "instead" system - Ruins for example don't seem to have Dense.

Personally I imagine at least among the 9 basic types, Dense and Light appearing together will be somewhat rare as - as you said - it would be a very potent combo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
updated the article with this

Really, they are going all in on just destroying terrain as anything but a hindrance to 18+ wound model's.
I hope they have suitably considered this and not actually raised their points at this point as so far they are gaining nothing and loosing out of in all the rules previews.

My thoughts exactly. What was wrong with the 50% obscured rule for super heavys benefiting from cover?

We still don't know the exact wording of the Obstacles or Area rules, which presumably are where they hide the general rule for benefitting from cover. All we have seen is a vague statement form the original terrain rule that 'Objects are great for footsloggers, as INFANTRY BEASTS and SWARMS benefit from cover when Objects are between them and the firer"

We just know that 18+ wound models are explicitly barred from the Dense and Obscuring rules.

So far every rule that's been previrwed explicitly excludes 18+ wound models right now they are getting 110%stick and 0 carrot from these new terrain rules.
And as to that calling out keywords malarkey great now non of my Tau suits get the benifit of cover either Thanks GW.

Looking more like both my armies are going to spend 9th playing aroudn Terrain will gaining less than they loose while the faction that has been through so much flandarisation I can't stand them (Marines) get nothing but buffed by even the Terrain rules.

They didn't actually provide the text of the Obstacle rules. I can see terrain having a two-tiered system like it does in 8th edition, something like:

Area Terrain: INFANTRY, BEASTS, and SWARMS gain cover if they are on or within

All other keywords gain cover if they are on or within and 50% obscured

Obstacle terrain: INFANTRY, BEASTS and SWARMS gain cover if line of sight can only be drawn through or over any part of the terrain piece

All other keywords gain cover if line of sight can only be drawn through or over any part of the terrain piece and the target model is within 3".

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
updated the article with this

wow they really hate the Triumph of St Katherine.

In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.

I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.

Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
updated the article with this

wow they really hate the Triumph of St Katherine.

In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.

I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.

Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.

Uh, sorry, what?

Can you tell me how I can make a piece of terrain that causes a -1 to hit in shooting that doesn't reduce a 3+ rerollable hit roll by 12% and a 5+ hit roll by 45%?

or, how about, a piece of terrain constructed in such a non-euclidean way as to be easier to claim with a larger unit than a smaller one?

that's the two things at play here.

I think at this point we really just have to accept that, for whatever reason, GW absolutely wants to get rid of big units in 40k. Every single change we have seen so far - every single one - penalizes large units and rewards small ones. I don't think that's just some big coincidence. They're made a clear choice to try to get rid of units of more than 11 models from the game.

It's possible this is all some big bluff and they've deliberately chosen to paint a misleading picture of the edition only to drop something at the 11th hour that changes it all, but why? Until that happens, I think we'd probably save ourselves a lot of grief if we just accept that 9th is the anti-horde edition and stop being surprised that every new change yet again penalizes large units.

Bases on terrain feel like they're more important in thr new edition for sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think at this point we really just have to accept that, for whatever reason, GW absolutely wants to get rid of big units in 40k. Every single change we have seen so far - every single one - penalizes large units and rewards small ones. I don't think that's just some big coincidence. They're made a clear choice to try to get rid of units of more than 11 models from the game.

It's possible this is all some big bluff and they've deliberately chosen to paint a misleading picture of the edition only to drop something at the 11th hour that changes it all, but why? Until that happens, I think we'd probably save ourselves a lot of grief if we just accept that 9th is the anti-horde edition and stop being surprised that every new change yet again penalizes large units.

Save for anything that specifically targets MSU it is impossible to reward large units without rewarding MSUs that much more.

Targetted auras and horde bonuses would help swing it the other way but we'll have to see what they do.

That said, if we don't see a horde bonus I'll be sending in an email about hordes nedding bonus attacks for larger units like AoS does.

the_scotsman wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
updated the article with this

wow they really hate the Triumph of St Katherine.

In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.

I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.

Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.

Uh, sorry, what?

Can you tell me how I can make a piece of terrain that causes a -1 to hit in shooting that doesn't reduce a 3+ rerollable hit roll by 12% and a 5+ hit roll by 45%?

or, how about, a piece of terrain constructed in such a non-euclidean way as to be easier to claim with a larger unit than a smaller one?

that's the two things at play here.

First of all, we do not know that reroll auras haven't changed to singular units. If so, that has nothing to do with terrain and more to do with the reroll mechanic. Don't move the goalposts. You want your Orks to hit better? Play a different faction. Dense Cover strictly explains that it interferes with target acquisition, which means it needs to modify the chances to hit. You want to add a FNP which is damage caused, you're simply barking up the wrong tree.
With true LOS games, you can't have a half in half out approach with units, it gets too gamey, becomes time consuming etc. Then you have dumb mechanics of a massive unit in your face getting the benefit of cover because 1 model that is 12" further back is touching a piece of area terrain. I much prefer the whole in or out approach. If your unit is too big, make bigger terrain. there should be a mix on the table anyway.

As for horde viability, did we forget about the strategic reserves rule? Not all of your army will have to footslog it up the board dodging 4" ruins in the hopes to not get obliterated by blast weapons.

 bullyboy wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
updated the article with this

wow they really hate the Triumph of St Katherine.

In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.

I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.

Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.

Uh, sorry, what?

Can you tell me how I can make a piece of terrain that causes a -1 to hit in shooting that doesn't reduce a 3+ rerollable hit roll by 12% and a 5+ hit roll by 45%?

or, how about, a piece of terrain constructed in such a non-euclidean way as to be easier to claim with a larger unit than a smaller one?

that's the two things at play here.

First of all, we do not know that reroll auras haven't changed to singular units. If so, that has nothing to do with terrain and more to do with the reroll mechanic. Don't move the goalposts. You want your Orks to hit better? Play a different faction. Dense Cover strictly explains that it interferes with target acquisition, which means it needs to modify the chances to hit. You want to add a FNP which is damage caused, you're simply barking up the wrong tree.
With true LOS games, you can't have a half in half out approach with units, it gets too gamey, becomes time consuming etc. Then you have dumb mechanics of a massive unit in your face getting the benefit of cover because 1 model that is 12" further back is touching a piece of area terrain. I much prefer the whole in or out approach. If your unit is too big, make bigger terrain. there should be a mix on the table anyway.

As for horde viability, did we forget about the strategic reserves rule? Not all of your army will have to footslog it up the board dodging 4" ruins in the hopes to not get obliterated by blast weapons.

it may surprise you to learn that ork players actually do not LIKE running their boyz as a deep striking unit. That many, myself included in fact, would prefer their horde infantry to be able to function viably by running forward with support units, rather than making every light infantry unit a deep strike unit.

I haven't forgotten strategic reserves, I also haven't forgotten Rok Strike and Da Jump, two things we have access to right now if we want deep striking boyz blobs.

"hey, all these rules we've had previewed so far seem to disproportionately nerf larger sized units"

"but what about the rules we HAVEN'T seen so far? THOSE rules will probably disproportionately nerf small elite units!"

^This is getting older and older and older with every single preview that screws over light infantry units.

They literally advertised this rule that disproportionately nerfs hordes as a rule that benefits hordes. The ork article yesterday touted how geat Blasts are going to be FOR ORKS.

that doesn't inspire confidence. I'm sorry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also

*directly responds to your point about "just make better terrain 4head"*

"B-But what if all auras change because of this previewed ability? DONT MOVE THE GOALPOSTS"

Lol.

Wait, was that last jumble of words actually a point or coherent sentence? Not sure.

Bottom line, the terrain rules so far are a huge improvement to the game, people just want to see negatives all the time. I've seen many 40K games, most people's terrain sucks, it really does. It would go a long way to spend a little time on this now that they have relevance in the game.

I think anyone expecting "targeted auras" is going to be extremely disappointed. It defeats the whole purpose of auras to have them be targeted.

You might have auras becoming stratagems or activated via Command Points or something, but "targeted auras" is feeling like a roundabout way for people to be saying "granted abilities"...which is basically "Guard Orders" and people won't shut up about how 'broken' they feel that Orders are.

Auras are a space marine trick. They're unlikely to go anywhere.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Auras are a space marine trick. They're unlikely to go anywhere.

Maybe not all of them but they opened that design space so we could see a large shift in how the game works.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I think anyone expecting "targeted auras" is going to be extremely disappointed. It defeats the whole purpose of auras to have them be targeted.

You might have auras becoming stratagems or activated via Command Points or something, but "targeted auras" is feeling like a roundabout way for people to be saying "granted abilities"...which is basically "Guard Orders" and people won't shut up about how 'broken' they feel that Orders are.

Yeah, it was just a whatabout distraction. They're not remaking every aura to be targeted at the start of 9th from what they are now to targeted because of one ability shown from one unit.

I like the new terrain ruleset. I like that it's more extensive, I like that it's easier to claim cover benefits in general, and I like that cover is more diverse. I make tons and tons and tons of terrain, it's great overall.

...That does not change the fact that I feel this edition is shaping out to make it so that the types of models that I generally like to play, cheaper infantry units, are getting pretty heavily beaten on in what is already a hyper-elite competitive meta.I can simultaneously ignore both the positives and negatives, while not pretending that "better rules in general" does automatically translates to "better rules for the way I tend to play."




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Auras are a space marine trick. They're unlikely to go anywhere.

Maybe not all of them but they opened that design space so we could see a large shift in how the game works.

You mean like they opened that design space in Codex: Necrons in 8th edition? Which was what, the second one released? Third?

the_scotsman wrote:

I like the new terrain ruleset. I like that it's more extensive, I like that it's easier to claim cover benefits in general, and I like that cover is more diverse. I make tons and tons and tons of terrain, it's great overall.

I'm kind of wondering if obstacles are going to be mandated a little bit more in how they're set up. Maybe a certain number of pieces have to be present in order for it to get the rules for that terrain or they need to be set up a certain way?

The Reanimator opens up a targeted buff with a range limit for the unit to stay within to benefit from, something 40k didn't jave in 8th.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
updated the article with this

wow they really hate the Triumph of St Katherine.

In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.

I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.

Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.

This is the most accurate depiction I have read here since many pages, about terrain issues. People in some clubs and some tournament organisers need to stop taking shortcuts about terrain elements.
They are often flimsy, too small in area. Two or three little trees on a CD sized patch does not make a proper forest. As a forest is huge by nature, for representing it, one has to put many trees on at least 12" or even 15" large cardboard patch.
Similarly, a ruin should not only consist of single L-shaped randomly tall blocks (looking like slashed RPG folding screens by the way) randomly sprinkled on the table. A ruin element should represent the fact that there was a proper building in the place. So that's 4 L-shaped corners, or two U-shaped blocks, with proper size, and a base, with rubble on it if possible. The base is crucial for granting the troops the cover rules, on a bigger area and providing clear reference for who has the benefits and who is outside benefits. And 5mm thick cardboard is cheap in art stores, can be carved quite easily, so there is no excuse.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Reanimator opens up a targeted buff with a range limit for the unit to stay within to benefit from, something 40k didn't jave in 8th.

Debatable...Reanimation Beam takes place during the Command Phase, so this is likely the kind of thing that would have been "until the end of the phase..." targeted buffs.

Darkstrider, off the top of my head, with his Structural Analyzer granted a targeted buff that lasted just for your Shooting Phase would have been a good example of this.

 Ravajaxe wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
updated the article with this

wow they really hate the Triumph of St Katherine.

In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.

I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.

Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.

This is the most accurate depiction I have read here since many pages, about terrain issues. People in some clubs and some tournament organisers need to stop taking shortcuts about terrain elements.
They are often flimsy, too small in area. Two or three little trees on a CD sized patch does not make a proper forest. As a forest is huge by nature, for representing it, one has to put many trees on at least 12" or even 15" large cardboard patch.
Similarly, a ruin should not only consist of single L-shaped randomly tall blocks (looking like slashed RPG folding screens by the way) randomly sprinkled on the table. A ruin element should represent the fact that there was a proper building in the place. So that's 4 L-shaped corners, or two U-shaped blocks, with proper size, and a base, with rubble on it if possible. The base is crucial for granting the troops the cover rules, on a bigger area and providing clear reference for who has the benefits and who is outside benefits. And 5mm thick cardboard is cheap in art stores, can be carved quite easily, so there is no excuse.

I like your thinking. The smallest piece of terrain on any of the boards at my LGS is the size of a CD and it happens to be a guard tower using a CD for it's base. The forest bases are all rectangular or similar shape, are at least 5" deep and 8" wide with some being 10x12 and the ruins are all proper ruined buildings, not some random girder or flooring bit on it's own being called a "ruin".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Reanimator opens up a targeted buff with a range limit for the unit to stay within to benefit from, something 40k didn't jave in 8th.

Debatable...Reanimation Beam takes place during the Command Phase, so this is likely the kind of thing that would have been "until the end of the phase..." targeted buffs.

Darkstrider, off the top of my head, with his Structural Analyzer granted a targeted buff that lasted just for your Shooting Phase would have been a good example of this.

Reread that rule. It lasts until your next command phase.

 Ravajaxe wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
updated the article with this

wow they really hate the Triumph of St Katherine.

In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.

I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.

Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.

This is the most accurate depiction I have read here since many pages, about terrain issues. People in some clubs and some tournament organisers need to stop taking shortcuts about terrain elements.
They are often flimsy, too small in area. Two or three little trees on a CD sized patch does not make a proper forest. As a forest is huge by nature, for representing it, one has to put many trees on at least 12" or even 15" large cardboard patch.
Similarly, a ruin should not only consist of single L-shaped randomly tall blocks (looking like slashed RPG folding screens by the way) randomly sprinkled on the table. A ruin element should represent the fact that there was a proper building in the place. So that's 4 L-shaped corners, or two U-shaped blocks, with proper size, and a base, with rubble on it if possible. The base is crucial for granting the troops the cover rules, on a bigger area and providing clear reference for who has the benefits and who is outside benefits. And 5mm thick cardboard is cheap in art stores, can be carved quite easily, so there is no excuse.

So are you volunteering to to purchase, build, and paint all of these elements for events going forward?

Practicality matters and unfortunately one casualty of that is you're never going to get ideal terrain setups for more than super small events. Sure, cardboard is cheap and carved easily, but getting enough cardboard for 50+ tables isn't cheap, carving it for 50+ tables isn't easy, and painting it isn't quick.

Hopefully the new rules will make the practical restraints of reality less burdenous, but to say 'no excuse' in this case, is nothing more than the privilege of someone who doesn't plan to actually contribute anything.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Reanimator opens up a targeted buff with a range limit for the unit to stay within to benefit from, something 40k didn't jave in 8th.

Debatable...Reanimation Beam takes place during the Command Phase, so this is likely the kind of thing that would have been "until the end of the phase..." targeted buffs.

Darkstrider, off the top of my head, with his Structural Analyzer granted a targeted buff that lasted just for your Shooting Phase would have been a good example of this.

Reread that rule. It lasts until your next command phase.

I'm aware of that. My example was meant to point out that the Command Phase is a phase in and of itself, so Reanimation Beam might just be our first example of how they'll be reducing the number of "until the end of the phase..." styled buffs, instead pushing for these kinds of things. The whole reason to introduce the Command Phase, per their own explanations, is to add some more interactivity/upkeep tracking rather than just having 'always on' abilities or things happening in weird sequences.

ERJAK wrote:

 Ravajaxe wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
updated the article with this

wow they really hate the Triumph of St Katherine.

In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.

I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.

Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.

This is the most accurate depiction I have read here since many pages, about terrain issues. People in some clubs and some tournament organisers need to stop taking shortcuts about terrain elements.
They are often flimsy, too small in area. Two or three little trees on a CD sized patch does not make a proper forest. As a forest is huge by nature, for representing it, one has to put many trees on at least 12" or even 15" large cardboard patch.
Similarly, a ruin should not only consist of single L-shaped randomly tall blocks (looking like slashed RPG folding screens by the way) randomly sprinkled on the table. A ruin element should represent the fact that there was a proper building in the place. So that's 4 L-shaped corners, or two U-shaped blocks, with proper size, and a base, with rubble on it if possible. The base is crucial for granting the troops the cover rules, on a bigger area and providing clear reference for who has the benefits and who is outside benefits. And 5mm thick cardboard is cheap in art stores, can be carved quite easily, so there is no excuse.

So are you volunteering to to purchase, build, and paint all of these elements for events going forward?

Practicality matters and unfortunately one casualty of that is you're never going to get ideal terrain setups for more than super small events. Sure, cardboard is cheap and carved easily, but getting enough cardboard for 50+ tables isn't cheap, carving it for 50+ tables isn't easy, and painting it isn't quick.

Hopefully the new rules will make the practical restraints of reality less burdenous, but to say 'no excuse' in this case, is nothing more than the privilege of someone who doesn't plan to actually contribute anything.

How can you say I'm not contributing to anything ? I'm contribute to making W40k tables, so games, better in my association, which is already nice and significant.
I'm resolutely committed to making more and better terrain elements for my club, in which I'm not alone doing it. I'm getting material expenses refunded by my association. For sure it requires a great deal of work, but it is worth it.
So now I'm honoured to host about twenty participants in our yearly tournament, in very pleasing conditions. There will be certainly more at some point in the future, but we don't fish for huge mega attendance (with hastily built tables).

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Reanimator opens up a targeted buff with a range limit for the unit to stay within to benefit from, something 40k didn't jave in 8th.

Debatable...Reanimation Beam takes place during the Command Phase, so this is likely the kind of thing that would have been "until the end of the phase..." targeted buffs.

Darkstrider, off the top of my head, with his Structural Analyzer granted a targeted buff that lasted just for your Shooting Phase would have been a good example of this.

Reread that rule. It lasts until your next command phase.

I'm aware of that. My example was meant to point out that the Command Phase is a phase in and of itself, so Reanimation Beam might just be our first example of how they'll be reducing the number of "until the end of the phase..." styled buffs, instead pushing for these kinds of things. The whole reason to introduce the Command Phase, per their own explanations, is to add some more interactivity/upkeep tracking rather than just having 'always on' abilities or things happening in weird sequences.

I think it'll be used for all "until end of turn" or "at the startnof the turn" effects, but "until end of the phase" effects can still trigger inside of that phase.

My point was the nature of an aura that targets a single unit is new design space and if GW uses with some frequency we could see a reason to have more hordes on the table.

Hmm... the Sector Imperialis Objectives are no longer available.

There are other terrain sets that you can't get, but those are all listed as temporarily out of stock. This one though is no longer available online.

Wonder if that means anything for 9th.

Probably a rebox.

 Ravajaxe wrote:

Spoiler:

ERJAK wrote:

 Ravajaxe wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
updated the article with this

wow they really hate the Triumph of St Katherine.

In all fairness, the Triumph already has a -1 to hit roll so this wouldn't stack in most circumstances anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to Orks and other large units not benefiting from these rules, I think the answer has to be similar to other game systems. Improve your terrain. Why does a copse of woods have to be the size of a CD? Make larger patches of area terrain, etc. Get away from the so called "blob" terrain that populates many tables. For terrain rules to be effective, you need to spend time making effective terrain.

I used to play FOW a lot, and the big issues with most terrain were these blobs of trees or houses, etc, that armies just skirted around. They did nothing to obscure LOS etc.

Same applies here. make better terrain. GW provides, lots of ruins, you just need to accumulate them on a decent sized base and now all of your Orks can get Dense Cover benefits. But if you just place a tiny L shaped ruin on the table and complain about lack of cover, that's on you.

This is the most accurate depiction I have read here since many pages, about terrain issues. People in some clubs and some tournament organisers need to stop taking shortcuts about terrain elements.
They are often flimsy, too small in area. Two or three little trees on a CD sized patch does not make a proper forest. As a forest is huge by nature, for representing it, one has to put many trees on at least 12" or even 15" large cardboard patch.
Similarly, a ruin should not only consist of single L-shaped randomly tall blocks (looking like slashed RPG folding screens by the way) randomly sprinkled on the table. A ruin element should represent the fact that there was a proper building in the place. So that's 4 L-shaped corners, or two U-shaped blocks, with proper size, and a base, with rubble on it if possible. The base is crucial for granting the troops the cover rules, on a bigger area and providing clear reference for who has the benefits and who is outside benefits. And 5mm thick cardboard is cheap in art stores, can be carved quite easily, so there is no excuse.

So are you volunteering to to purchase, build, and paint all of these elements for events going forward?

Practicality matters and unfortunately one casualty of that is you're never going to get ideal terrain setups for more than super small events. Sure, cardboard is cheap and carved easily, but getting enough cardboard for 50+ tables isn't cheap, carving it for 50+ tables isn't easy, and painting it isn't quick.

Hopefully the new rules will make the practical restraints of reality less burdenous, but to say 'no excuse' in this case, is nothing more than the privilege of someone who doesn't plan to actually contribute anything.

How can you say I'm not contributing to anything ? I'm contribute to making W40k tables, so games, better in my association, which is already nice and significant.
I'm resolutely committed to making more and better terrain elements for my club, in which I'm not alone doing it. I'm getting material expenses refunded by my association. For sure it requires a great deal of work, but it is worth it.
So now I'm honoured to host about twenty participants in our yearly tournament, in very pleasing conditions. There will be certainly more at some point in the future, but we don't fish for huge mega attendance (with hastily built tables).

Don't sweat it, he must be one of those "if its not a 50+ player tournament, its not worth talking about" guys. As if that tiny percentage of 40k play should dictate everything within the rules. Please.
Last 2 LVOs had better terrain than many games I've seen in stores, so yes, no excuse. Be better.