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.

Hey folks,

Had a game on Monday, and I realized I was a bit out of date on my FAQ's when I tried to make attacks up through a floor and was pointed out I couldn't. So I was just reviewing the Main Rulebook FAQ when I saw this:

Page 248 – Woods
Change the last sentence of the first paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Other units only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model.’

Okay, no big deal. Same kind of deal-ee-o. Infantry get cover if they're all on, regardless of obscurement, everything else needs to be both on and obscured. But then, I also noticed this one for ruins:

Change the third paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Infantry units that are entirely on or within a ruin receive the benefit of cover. Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model.’

Hey... that one specifically calls out other units has having to be both on AND obscured!

Does this mean that a model composed of a single unit, say a Carnifex, that is 50% obscured by a forest, gains the benefits of cover even if it's not actually in that cover!?! Big deal for my group, who used to love forests!

It's inconsistent wording, but I think the rule is intended to be the same.

The 'only' implies to me that the previous clause is still required, it's talking about them as a subset of all units that are on the wood. Therefore I take the extra text on ruins as unnecessary and for clarification purposes only.

Other units (that are entirely on or within a ruin) only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model.

So not only do you have to be in or on a ruin but you also have to be 50% onscured.

Answered my own question. Later in the same document, they call out the situation. Yeah, it's just sloppy writing...

Q: Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters, etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not ctually on or within it?
A: No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).

This ruling can create some bizarre situations. I posted some pics in a different thread showing this, but I can't find it. Not easy on my phone, I will look when I come home.

Keep in mind, if you're just playing with friends you can houserule the cover rules. You can all agree that shooting through cover grants the benefits of cover to obscured models, even if they aren't in cover.

I look at this by comparing low walls to trees. If I can gain cover for being behind a low wall, without actually touching it or being "on or within" it, then it makes sense to my gaming group to give cover for that. Same thing if you're shooting at a knight through a pair of windows... that Knight *should* count as being in cover.

So while I make no argument against the RAW, HIWPI is to grant cover bonuses to any unit that's reasonably obscured, and that's what my gaming group does.

Found the thread with the bizarre cover situation where i posted pics.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/755900.page

Thanks for the illustrations, that's a good way to explain.

This is one of the main things I houserule when playing, as I find it immersion breaking to have to play weird games with my non-infantry to get cover. It’s neither thematic nor is it interesting from a gameplay perspective. Especially if your terrain doesn't have bases.

The situations linked are odd, I agree. However cover is an abstraction. As such, there will be cases that don't make sense when viewed as a simulation.

I'm not at all saying terrain rules can't be improved, they absolutely can be. But I think it's important to remember that where units rest at the end of a turn shouldn't be taken as the be all and end all. A battlefield is constantly moving and dynamic, so just because there is a snapshot with a clear view doesn't necessarily mean the unit had a clear shot for long enough to actually make it without cover coming into play.

As I say, remember it's an abstraction and it makes more sense!

 Stux wrote:
The situations linked are odd, I agree. However cover is an abstraction. As such, there will be cases that don't make sense when viewed as a simulation.

I'm not at all saying terrain rules can't be improved, they absolutely can be. But I think it's important to remember that where units rest at the end of a turn shouldn't be taken as the be all and end all. A battlefield is constantly moving and dynamic, so just because there is a snapshot with a clear view doesn't necessarily mean the unit had a clear shot for long enough to actually make it without cover coming into play.

As I say, remember it's an abstraction and it makes more sense!

That's even better arqument against the current system where you need to micromanage your walkers to have a toe in ruin...

tneva82 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
The situations linked are odd, I agree. However cover is an abstraction. As such, there will be cases that don't make sense when viewed as a simulation.

I'm not at all saying terrain rules can't be improved, they absolutely can be. But I think it's important to remember that where units rest at the end of a turn shouldn't be taken as the be all and end all. A battlefield is constantly moving and dynamic, so just because there is a snapshot with a clear view doesn't necessarily mean the unit had a clear shot for long enough to actually make it without cover coming into play.

As I say, remember it's an abstraction and it makes more sense!

That's even better arqument against the current system where you need to micromanage your walkers to have a toe in ruin...

Well I'd say not actually. The current terrain rule is simple: toe in, you have cover. Not touching, no cover. For an abstraction that's totally fine, you need something clear.

Of course that does get a little undermined with 50% obscurement.

Hey if peeps want the same cover conditions for vehicles as infantry then let’s bring back the Large Target bonuses to balance that out! As far as abstractions go it seens reasonable to me to assume a guy who can hit a man-sized target 2/3 of the time could hit a larger-than-man-sized chunk of vehicle with a similar success rate irrespective of whether it’s partly inside a ruin!

Ultimately, the rules writers pick the abstractions and we run with them. House rule it if a different system makes more sense to your group.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Hey if peeps want the same cover conditions for vehicles as infantry then let’s bring back the Large Target bonuses to balance that out! As far as abstractions go it seens reasonable to me to assume a guy who can hit a man-sized target 2/3 of the time could hit a larger-than-man-sized chunk of vehicle with a similar success rate irrespective of whether it’s partly inside a ruin!

Ultimately, the rules writers pick the abstractions and we run with them. House rule it if a different system makes more sense to your group.

This post is a lot of sense.

 Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
The situations linked are odd, I agree. However cover is an abstraction. As such, there will be cases that don't make sense when viewed as a simulation.

I'm not at all saying terrain rules can't be improved, they absolutely can be. But I think it's important to remember that where units rest at the end of a turn shouldn't be taken as the be all and end all. A battlefield is constantly moving and dynamic, so just because there is a snapshot with a clear view doesn't necessarily mean the unit had a clear shot for long enough to actually make it without cover coming into play.

As I say, remember it's an abstraction and it makes more sense!

That's even better arqument against the current system where you need to micromanage your walkers to have a toe in ruin...

Well I'd say not actually. The current terrain rule is simple: toe in, you have cover. Not touching, no cover. For an abstraction that's totally fine, you need something clear.

Of course that does get a little undermined with 50% obscurement.

What moving and dynamic there is when it\s mm thing.

In fact 40k rules work in assumption that the soldiers are sliding there in stiff poses moving around literally in turn order. It is not abstracted to be moving and dynamic. According to the game one side moves first, then shoots first etc. And soldiers are in the poses the models are posed at.

8th ed is ANTITHESIS of abstracted rules. It's actually quite literal description of battle. Except of course illogical battle but still. It most definitely is NOT abstracted for "fast and moving battle"

tneva82 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
The situations linked are odd, I agree. However cover is an abstraction. As such, there will be cases that don't make sense when viewed as a simulation.

I'm not at all saying terrain rules can't be improved, they absolutely can be. But I think it's important to remember that where units rest at the end of a turn shouldn't be taken as the be all and end all. A battlefield is constantly moving and dynamic, so just because there is a snapshot with a clear view doesn't necessarily mean the unit had a clear shot for long enough to actually make it without cover coming into play.

As I say, remember it's an abstraction and it makes more sense!

That's even better arqument against the current system where you need to micromanage your walkers to have a toe in ruin...

Well I'd say not actually. The current terrain rule is simple: toe in, you have cover. Not touching, no cover. For an abstraction that's totally fine, you need something clear.

Of course that does get a little undermined with 50% obscurement.

What moving and dynamic there is when it\s mm thing.

In fact 40k rules work in assumption that the soldiers are sliding there in stiff poses moving around literally in turn order. It is not abstracted to be moving and dynamic. According to the game one side moves first, then shoots first etc. And soldiers are in the poses the models are posed at.

8th ed is ANTITHESIS of abstracted rules. It's actually quite literal description of battle. Except of course illogical battle but still. It most definitely is NOT abstracted for "fast and moving battle"

No, I think you misunderstood. I'm saying that battle is fast and dynamic, and so any turn based abstraction of that is inherently flawed. So of course there are situations that are absurd if you take them literally, that is a given.

I'm off the view that terrain should only be considered by virtue of how it obscures units, not where they are in relation to it. I know area terrain is supposed to be an abstract representation of imagined obscurities, but to me, that kind of abstraction has no place in a game that chooses to use "true line of sight." The current terrain rules are an hybrid of abstraction and true line of sight, which don't satisfactorily do justice to either.