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 this was originaly part of the Beyond the Gate of 40k project (Located here https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/733472.page ). I have had a few games that have utilized this recently and it works great so it should also work well in normal 40k. A lot of this is ripped from Beyond the Gates of Antares and then adapted to fit within the context of 8th 40k.


Line of Sight Rules

You can trace Line of Sight from any part of your model to any part of the target unit. For the purpose of targeting I recommend using 7ths targeting rules (I.E. wings, antennae, banners) do not count as a part of the model, meaning you cannot draw los from or too these bits. That is just my personal preference, do what you want.

Targeting Occupied Terrain Occupied Terrain is any terrain that has a unit within the terrain feature. Units that occupy a Terrain feature can see and be seen through it. Units that Occupy Terrain gain Cover from the terrain. A unit is considered to be occupying the terrain if all of it's models bases are at least partially within the terrain or meet it's other requirements. Models that do not have a base must be at least 50% within the terrain to be considered to Occupy it.

Intervening Terrain Intervening terrain is any terrain that sits between you and the target unit but is not occupied by the target unit. You can trace LoS over a single piece of Light terrain. A second piece of Light terrain and/or Dense terrain will block LoS normally. Targeting a unit over intervening Terrain confers a -1 to hit penalty.

High Ground If your unit is on a piece of raised terrain they may have high ground. A unit with high ground can ignore all terrain and los blocking terrain features when targeting units on a lower level so long as they can still actually trace line of sight to the unit. To repeat, you still need to be able to trace line of sight, but the target unit would gain no benefit from any intervening terrain. I personally use a lot of the Mantic Battlezones. So each layer up in my terrain is 3". So we use that 3" marker to determine height. Again, do what you want.

Intervening Units If you cannot trace LoS to your target unit without tracing a line through an enemy unit the intervening unit counts as Light Terrain. That means if your target unit is behind both an enemy unit and a piece of Light terrain that unit is untargetable because your LoS is blocked (just like 2 pieces of light terrain). For this you are counting the entire unit and the spaces between models as 1 object. You cannot trace LoS between models in the same unit to get around this. You would need to actually be able to trace LoS around the entire unit to not be effected by the unit.

Monsters, Vehicles, and Titanic When targeting any unit with the MONSTER or VEHICLE Keyword you ignore any intervening units when tracing Line of Sight treating them as Open Ground. When targeting any unit with the TITANIC keyword you ignore all intervening units and Light Terrain treating them as Open Ground. In addition treat all Dense Terrain as Light Terrain for the purpose of tracing LoS on TITANIC units.

Flier Units with the Flier battlefield role can be targeted freely treating all terrain and intervening units as Open Ground so long as you can still trace Line of Sight. Do the same for any LoW with the FLY Keyword.

Terrain

All terrain has 3 features.

1) Line of Sight
2) Cover
3) Difficulty

1] Line of Sight

There are 3 degrees of effect terrain has on LoS.

-Open Ground: No effect on LoS. This terrain piece can be shot over as though it was not there. Example: A water pool or river.

-Light: Blocks LoS to some extent. You can draw Line of Sight over a single piece of light terrain. A unit cannot draw LoS over 2 pieces of light terrain. Barricades, grassy hills, light copse of trees, smaller ruins/

-Dense: Dense Terrain blocks LoS entirely. Dense cops of trees, ruined whole buildings.

2) Cover

All terrain has a cover value that is a bonus to your Sv roll (Ex. +1). This bonus is granted to any unit entirely within or meets the requirements of the terrain feature.

3) Difficulty

All terrain has a difficulty value. This value is a penalty to the Movement Value of any unit that enters or attempts to move through the terrain. It is possible the Difficulty of the terrain is a 0 meaning it does not impact movement at all. They may also have special considerations such as "Impassible to VEHICLES".


So for example, the baricades that make of a Aegis Defense Line and thus AGLs themselves would be

LoS: Light
Cover: +1 - The unit must be within 1" or within 1" of a model from their unit that is within 1" of the terrain to occupy the terrain. This unit only gains the benefit of cover from units targeting them from the opposite side of the terrain.
Difficulty: 1

Thus tracing LoS over these baracades would impose a -1 to hit to any unit that is not occupying it. Provides a +1 Sv bonus to any unit that is occupying it, and eat up 1" of Movement to cross over it.

Ruined Building could be.

LoS: Dense
Cover: +1
Difficulty: 1 non-INFANTRY

You could not target units on the other side of the building even if you could trace LoS. Units that occupy the terrain gain a +1 SV bonus and any noninfantry would loose 1" of movement by entering or trying to pass through the terrain. Driving some bikes over the rough surface of the ruins is hard on them and the ruins make navigating the landscape difficult for anything that is too big and/or lacking the dexterity that Infantry have.

In addition. I propose that Character Targeting is changed to make it so a character cannot be targeted with shooting if the character is not the closest visible unit and within 3" of another friendly unit. This way they need to maintain a semi unit coherency to keep their protection AND a closer unit behind some LoS blocking terrain won't save them.

Any unit with Sniper Weapon/rules will also ignore intervening units when tracing LoS.

See into, or out of ruins, but not through them, unless both the observer and unit being observed are taller than the ruin.

line of sight through area terrain that would grant cover to units within it, also grants cover

Units partially in terrain get partial cover - i.e. models in cover get the bonus, those outside it do not. up to the owning player how they allocate hits

leopard wrote:
See into, or out of ruins, but not through them, unless both the observer and unit being observed are taller than the ruin.

line of sight through area terrain that would grant cover to units within it, also grants cover

Units partially in terrain get partial cover - i.e. models in cover get the bonus, those outside it do not. up to the owning player how they allocate hits

See, I think it's a bad idea to say things like "taller". You then either need to assign size values to every unit or you open up the door for "modeling for advantage" bull gak.

Because this utilizes the -1 to hit for being behind light terrain I don't want to then make it best to be only partially in terrain. Giving you both the -1 to hit AND the +1 sv for models sitting inside the terrain.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, what about terrain that either slows movement/charges, or DECEASES a save? Hiding in a river is pretty hard. What if, while you are in it, a river had a negative modifier to your armor save? For example, a Space Marine being caught in a river would have a 4+ armor save.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, what about terrain that either slows movement/charges, or DECEASES a save? Hiding in a river is pretty hard. What if, while you are in it, a river had a negative modifier to your armor save? For example, a Space Marine being caught in a river would have a 4+ armor save.

The movement thing is actually in this! And the negative armor could be. Just assign those values.

Whats in the OP is a basic framework for LoS and Terrain. Grab your terrain pieces and assign them their LoS, Cover, and Difficulty values. Get your opponents to agree. Positioning and terrain will matter a whole hell of a lot more.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, what about terrain that either slows movement/charges, or DECEASES a save? Hiding in a river is pretty hard. What if, while you are in it, a river had a negative modifier to your armor save? For example, a Space Marine being caught in a river would have a 4+ armor save.

That makes absolutely no sense.

What, is power armor softer when wet or something?

If anything, it would just be a bonus to hit them in the first place, which may not even be desirable.

I personally would never assign an armor penalty to any terrain. But again, whats really nice about this frame work is your free to design the rules quickly and simply for your own terrain pieces.

There are universal categories that have simple to understand and remember impact on units. Just fill in the blanks and get playing.

I always felt you should be harder to hit rather than get better saves when using cover, with each bit agreed upon before the game to determine the penalty.
However, the problem is the game is currently balanced using the current terrain rules. Even a slight tweak can have a massive impact on armies such as Orks, or gun lines who rely on one or two decent turns of firing before the inevitable close combat assault.

Doing terrain right is simple enough.

If the unit is in terrain or behind terrain but visible, then +1 armour.
If the unit is a vehicle in or behind terrain but at least 50% obscured, then +1 armour.

Moving through terrain halves the units movement score (minimum of 1).

Sounds like this would really favour cover hugging armies! Look out for those Nids around every bush!

One thing I like about 8th is the simplicity of the rules. If I were to build some terrain and make rules for it I'd be sure to keep them very tight and simple.

For example, one thing I always did when doing the pregame terrain talk was to point out things I considered to be area terrain. Things like ruins or forests that cover a wide area but due to modelling concessions aren't as thickly covered. Any terrain piece that was considered area terrain conferred it's terrain bonus/penalty to any model/unit that was on top of the terrains base. This way you could represent a large forest or ruin that provided lots of cover and LOS blockage without having to worry about things like removable sections.

I do like the LOS drawing rule from 7th where you had to target a body part on the model. Simple, tight and works.

To create the effect of LOS blocking due to terrain density, like in a forest, I would simply apply a -1 to hit modifier unless within a certain distance. Intervening terrain through the LOS shouldn't really be considered because that should only come into play if the intervening piece actually blocks LOS. If you give intervening terrain a cover bonus you will never take an unmodified shot and that seems like it would just slow things down. That would mean that a Predator tank parked a foot behind a wall would receive a cover bonus from a guardsman firing at the tank from a foot away from the wall on the other side. In reality, yes the tank would receive some minimal protection. But this is simply too much of an elaboration on the physics of the game itself.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
That being said you can always write whatever rules you want into your own terrain pieces and certainly it can be fun to experiment.

Of course, some battles do take place in extremely dense terrain, so if you wanted to represent that I say go for it. But I wouldn't try to use such rules to balance anything as a general fix. One, it simply isn't needed, and two it would be more fun to use such rules in say a campaign or scenario.

Also, the old old Catachan supplement had some really great rules for fighting in jungles which may interest people looking to simulate such battles themselves. I'm sure a little spit shine would have those rules usable for this edition..

Less about favoring cover hugging armies and more.... Well you can screen against shooting in the same way that you can screen against melee. If say... unit A is sitting behind unit B that is also behind a light terrain you cannot target A. But if you move into the terrain not only do you gain the cover bonus but now B has no protection at all and A has become targetable.

Sometimes that -1 is nice. But letting your opponent occupy the terrain is also a drawback.

Units like venomthropes who provide buffs but are not characters are currently completely exposed. Now they can gain some measure of protection from intervening units/terrain.

Snipers become a bit more valuable. Because not only do they hit those characters hard, but they can also hit those units that are being screened whether they are characters or not.

These rules add a lot of depth to positioning.

I've been using these rules to great effect with my group. They work especially well when only models that are actually visible to the shooters can be selected as casualties. This forces units to maneuver to get better shooting angles.

I'd like to add your rules to the Basic d6 version of Beyond the Gates of 40K (I'm calling it Konflikt 40K to set it apart).

Yeah man. Do it. Whatever makes more people have more fun.

I like black lobsters rules. Keep it simple. The OP rules are really too complicated for me. I never had an issue with the old 1st/2nd edition rules. Negatives to hit. Hard and soft. Area terrain is applied anyone who is in it. Vehicles need to be 50% obscured.

Things like 50% obscured are too vague in most cases. Terrain isn't made up of a bunch of square walls. What happens with a bunch of trees? Uneven ruins? Who determines 50%?

The players in the game?

Yeah which one? The player trying to reap a benefit or the one trying to kill you? You have never had it be a source of disagreement?

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah which one? The player trying to reap a benefit or the one trying to kill you? You have never had it be a source of disagreement?

Back in 7th when there was a disagreement and it was truly hard to tell who was right we would let the dice gods decide and have a roll off, the person who rolled higher decides, or assign a result on 4+ and a result on 3 or less.

I like it. Though, I might simplify it a tad for my own use.

What do you think of the Cities of Death rules though? They already have the "high ground" bonus you suggested. Also, If a unit doesn't move and stays in cover, they get +2 to their save. Roads increase movement by 2" or 4" if advancing. Grenades do auto 6 attacks when thrown in a ruin.

I've been using them as much as possible and they do add some tactical depth. I think the road rule at least would be an interesting addition to this list.

Although I rarely used it in past editions of 40k, having roads increase movement both makes sense, and adds to the game.

As someone else wrote in another terrain thread:

If the target is in or behind a soft cover => -1 to hit
If The target is in or behind a hard cover => -1 to hit AND +1 armour save.

Move or charge through difficult terrain => -2 movement

Simple and deep enough

Dandelion wrote:
I like it. Though, I might simplify it a tad for my own use.

What do you think of the Cities of Death rules though? They already have the "high ground" bonus you suggested. Also, If a unit doesn't move and stays in cover, they get +2 to their save. Roads increase movement by 2" or 4" if advancing. Grenades do auto 6 attacks when thrown in a ruin.

I've been using them as much as possible and they do add some tactical depth. I think the road rule at least would be an interesting addition to this list.

I enjoy bits and pieces of all the advanced rules. Grenades rule is great as is the high ground (hence it's inclusion). I think the roads rule is so situational to the board that it just doesn't matter overly much.

I have used and enjoy the hunkering down into cover to double bonus too. Not sure how much it would matter in this system.

If you have suggestions for simplification throw them out here. I am always happy to have things simplified and tweaked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
As someone else wrote in another terrain thread:

If the target is in or behind a soft cover => -1 to hit
If The target is in or behind a hard cover => -1 to hit AND +1 armour save.

Move or charge through difficult terrain => -2 movement

Simple and deep enough

When I was first working on this I was looking at the -1 to apply in cover too. But it feths orks over hard.

This system makes it so your most viable target is always nearest one. In effect it allows you to screen your infantry for shooting in much the same way that a person currently screens against melee. If it was ALWAYS a -1 to hit to be in or behind cover then your forward most units in cover would NOT be the most viable target, the unit behind them with only a -1 to hit would be. And again, orks. Totally screwed.

When designing these rules you need to consider what they do to the outliers. The extremes in both cases.

I liked the terrain rules in LotR:SBG, which has the advantage of being a GW game.

simply, roll to hit as usual without any modifiers, then if you hit, and only if you hit, you now need to roll to get past everything in the way, in turn (units, walls whatever), if you fail you have instead hit that thing - in 40k if its not a unit who cares, with blasts you would just have put the marker where the thing is - no need these days

@ Lance 845: i'm sorry but I dont understand your reply. Why Orks should be more screwed than others?

A -1 penalty is the same for every unit or race, so is a +1 bonus to the target's armour.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
@ Lance 845: i'm sorry but I dont understand your reply. Why Orks should be more screwed than others?

A -1 penalty is the same for every unit or race, so is a +1 bonus to the target's armour.

Because going from a 5+ to a 6+ is worse than going from 3+ to 4+. One of those looses half its hits, the other doesn't.

The same goes for armour, the modifier is the same for everyone, but the effect isn't.

Has anybody tried hard cover like walls, craters etc giving a +2 to your cover save?

In terms of terrain in general, we've been playing that ruins are LoS blocking when between an attacker and their target, unless either unit is within 1" of the walls at which point it functions as per the barricades rule in the advanced rules section of the brb.

This means that positioning becomes more important to get fire lanes around terrain but then you can take up position at the walls to attack while receiving cover. It's worked well in the games so far

Jorim wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
@ Lance 845: i'm sorry but I dont understand your reply. Why Orks should be more screwed than others?

A -1 penalty is the same for every unit or race, so is a +1 bonus to the target's armour.

Because going from a 5+ to a 6+ is worse than going from 3+ to 4+. One of those looses half its hits, the other doesn't.

The same goes for armour, the modifier is the same for everyone, but the effect isn't.

That's hard to believe.
In both cases you loose a 16.66% chance to hit. It does not matter if you loose half your hits or only 1/4, the penalty is the same for both.

I honestly think cover is handled in this edition way better than in other. Just a plus 1 to your armor save is great. The only issue I have with it is vehicals and monsters have a really hard time getting cover. Shooting through a tiny hole in a wall should provide the same benefit as an infantry hunkering down in a ruin. Locally - me and my friend just use 50% obstruction rule even for things that are out in the open.

The Deer Hunter wrote:

Jorim wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
@ Lance 845: i'm sorry but I dont understand your reply. Why Orks should be more screwed than others?

A -1 penalty is the same for every unit or race, so is a +1 bonus to the target's armour.

Because going from a 5+ to a 6+ is worse than going from 3+ to 4+. One of those looses half its hits, the other doesn't.

The same goes for armour, the modifier is the same for everyone, but the effect isn't.

That's hard to believe.
In both cases you loose a 16.66% chance to hit. It does not matter if you loose half your hits or only 1/4, the penalty is the same for both.

It's not that hard to believe really.

An Ork only hits on a 5+. That's two out of six. They then get nerfed so they only hit on a 6+, which is one out of six.
Two minus one is one. That also happens to be 50%.
A Space Marine hits four times out of six, which reduces to three out of six.
Four minus one is three. That, however, is only 25% of their potential lost.

Yes, you're losing another face on the dice, but that can mean different things to different factions.
Let's scale this up a bit.
Say I have a D100, and one model has a 1/50 chance of passing. Aka, they need to get either 99 or 100.
The other model has a 98/100 odds - aka, they just need to not roll a 1 or 2.

They both suffer a -1 to their roll. The latter model now needs to hit on anything but a 1, 2 or 3. However, they've only lost 1/98 of their starting numbers: not a massive loss.
The other model, the one who has 1/50? Well, now they can't hit on a 99. That's 1 out of their TWO starting number gone, a full half, and now needs 1/100.

They both lost one number from their roll, but for one, it mattered a hell of a lot more.

Not only that but if an ork is shooting someone in cover coupled with say... An army wide -1 to hit chapter tactic, the ork is just incapable of hitting all together.