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.
I have a problem with cover. See, to my mind, units gain the benefits of cover by running and ducking, by breaking up the enemy line of sight, by hiding and hunkering down. In other words, by becoming harder to hit – it's why woods and ruins can offer protection against laser weaponry and semiautomatic rocket-propelled grenade launchers. Yet in the game, cover doesn't make you harder to hit – it boosts your (armor) save. Why?
In theory, -1 to hit shouldn't be any more powerful than +1 to saves, right? They're both a 16% decrease, they just happen at different points. 10 boltgun shots will kill 2.9 Astra Militarum Infantry if they're outside of cover, and they'll kill 2.2 Infantry if they're in cover, regardless of whether that cover gives -1 to hit or +1 to save.
The difference is what those two types of cover reward or punish. +1 to save is useless to Daemons, Harlequins, and anything else that relies on a 5+ or greater Invulnerable save. +1 to save can be "beaten" by high-AP weapons, like meltaguns or lascannons, or mortal wound effects, like sniper rifles. -1 to hit is useful to everybody, unless you're up against stacking rules. It's especially useful against powerful, low-shot weapons, where wounding and beating saves is easy but getting that initial hit is important, but it can be "beaten" by autohit rules, like flamers or Dakka Dakka Dakka.
So the question is: what should cover do for you? What weapons should it protect against, and what should it punish?
Flamers are the archetypal anti-cover weapon. They're useless against +1 save, but very good against -1 to hit.
Cover is traditionally an equalizer for infantry facing powerful weapons like artillery. +1 save is less useful against these weapons than -1 to hit.
Agile warriors with invulnerable saves traditionally benefit from darting behind cover. +1 save is often useless for these fighters, while -1 to hit is useful.
These are all points that fall in favor of -1 to hit cover. However, conversely:
Tanks traditionally benefit less from cover. -1 to hit is very useful for a vehicle, while +1 save is often less useful – either because they already have a high save, or because they're already facing powerful weaponry.
Meltaguns are often presented as "bunker buster" weapons. They are much more useful against +1 save than -1 to hit.
-1 to hit also makes Overcharge more likely... but that's really dumb – about as dumb as +1 to hit making Overcharge impossible – and the rule should just be changed to say "unmodified". So I'm actually going to ignore this one.
My suggestion would therefore be:
Change the core "cover" rule to be -1 to hit in the Shooting phase.
Change various Overcharge rules to trigger on an "unmodified" roll of 1.
Then, make it harder for tanks to benefit from the new cover rule – most likely by borrowing the Baneblade's Steel Behemoth rule: "VEHICLES only gain the benefits of cover if at least half of the model is obscured from the firer."
Finally, while bunker Fortifications already work well to represent the bunker-busting effects of meltaguns, you could also amend Advanced Terrain rules so that barricades give +1 save instead of -1 to hit.
Thoughts? Is there something I've missed?
(I would actually suggest nudging gunlines by making the cover penalty two-way – a unit shooting FROM cover also suffers -1 to hit in the Shooting phase. Or more likely, a unit shooting from cover treats all its Rapid Fire and Assault weapons as Heavy weapons, in order to represent the need to "set up" in a defensive location. That's a separate matter, however.)
The trouble is that negative to hit modifiers are very powerful and stacking them is already a problem in the game, make it impossible to stack them (so cover is useless for some fringe armies) and yea that change sounds great.
-1 to hit is a 20% flat damage reduction against BS 2 against BS4 it's a 33% and 100% against BS6.
-2 wgich woukd become way more common, is a 40% reduction against BS 2+ and 66% against BS4+ That's insane protection.
-1 to hit cares not if it's lasgun at a LoW or lascannon at a cultist.
I get what your trying to get at but putting a battlecannon shell into a building should be bad news for those in said building as your not targeting the model your blowing up the ruin in reality.
Additionally demons shouldn't car about cover in my understanding of lore, same for harlies etc.
Vehicals already only get cover if 50% obscured.
Also your really up for shooting at -3 to hit in cover alitoc rangers? Potentially-4, ie untargetable. Hard No
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/25 10:16:04
Ice_can wrote: +1sv and -1 to hit don't compair the same.
-1 to hit is a 20% flat damage reduction against BS 2 against BS4 it's a 33% and 100% against BS6.
-2 wgich woukd become way more common, is a 40% reduction against BS 2+ and 66% against BS4+ That's insane protection.
-1 to hit cares not if it's lasgun at a LoW or lascannon at a cultist.
Yes, that's the point. That's how cover worked in previous editions, after all – it was a kind of invulnerable save, because it doesn't matter how powerful your lascannon is if you're firing it at the wrong tree. This is how cover is presented in fiction, too, from Gaunt's Ghosts on down – every weapon in 40k is so insanely deadly that outside of your armour it's only duck-and-cover that can protect you. When my genestealers are stealthily stalking through a ruined city, a flamer ought to be the ideal weapon to purge them out – not a lascannon.
(this is also how it works in Kill Team, but that's a very different game)
Also, I don't see how your numbers are any different; +1Sv is a 20% flat damage reduction on a 6+ save, a 33% reduction on a 4+ save, and a 50% reduction on a 3+ save. The numbers are just reversed, with the exception of BS6+ being impossible to hit with. I'd just give everyone the Ork "autohit on 6" rule, in that case – if my lasgun can wound a Baneblade, and blind-firing Orks can hit Alaitoc Rangers in cover with psychic concealment, I don't see why an unmodified 6 shouldn't just be a hit.
Ice_can wrote: Additionally demons shouldn't car about cover in my understanding of lore, same for harlies etc.
It's not so much about whether they, personally, in the fluff, care about cover. When I line up a firing squad of boltguns against a unit of Bloodletters, should I be happy that they're out in the open instead of lurking in a gore-sodden trench? Because right now I don't care. When my Daemonettes dart toward an enemy gunline, should I prefer that they be juking through trees with ululating wails, or sprinting straight through open ground? Because right now I don't care.
Wyches and Harlequins and Ravenwing and similar units make the statement: This unit is very agile, which makes them hard to hit, so they have an Invulnerable save to represent dodging. It doesn't matter how strong your gun is (or how tough their armour is), because even a lascannon shot might be avoided by their incredible agility.
Lictors and Rangers and Stealth Battlesuits and similar units make a similar statement: This unit is camouflaged, which makes them hard to hit, so they have a to-hit penalty to represent being obscured. It doesn't matter how strong your gun is, because even a lascannon shot is more likely to miss an enemy the shooter can't really see.
Then you put a unit in cover, where it is obscured and becomes hard to hit, and it doesn't matter how strong your gun is because the unit might duck into a crater or be behind the wrong tree... and it boosts your armour save.
The behaviour encouraged by cover saves, and the result offered by cover saves, don't match the narrative presented to me by the game. So what's the point of them? It used to be that heavily armoured units didn't give a gak about cover, because it didn't stack with their armour and high AP weapons were rare – this made sense, and matched the narrative of my Terminators marching toward the traitors cowering in trenches, shrugging off gunshots. Now the only units that don't give a gak about cover and ought to march boldly through open terrain are... really lightly armoured, agile, fast units. Or "sneaky" armies like Blood Axes who get the benefits of cover all the time. What? That makes no sense at all.
-1 to hit might not be the way forward, but +1Sv is just nonsensical.
Ice_can wrote: Vehicals already only get cover if 50% obscured.
Only under the Advanced rules for Woods and Ruins.
I think it'd be pretty simple to just add: "A model with 10 or more wounds does not gain the benefits of cover unless at least half of the model is obscured from the shooting model."
Ice_can wrote: Also your really up for shooting at -3 to hit in cover alitoc rangers? Potentially-4, ie untargetable. Hard No
Alaitoc Rangers would need to be modified anyway – right now, their rule is both a -1 to hit and a cover boost. I obviously wouldn't suggest stacking it again. Tactics/Doctrines/Traits like the Raven Guard or Alaitoc would most likely need to be changed to: "This unit always has the benefit of cover against attacks made from more than 12" away."
Then add something else to encourage them to still use actual cover, because that's actually what they should be doing instead of chilling in an open field having a picnic.
(also, Rangers can already reach -4 to hit; Alaitoc, Cameleoline, Conceal, Lightning-Fast Reactions)
Kroem wrote: The trouble is that negative to hit modifiers are very powerful and stacking them is already a problem in the game, make it impossible to stack them (so cover is useless for some fringe armies) and yea that change sounds great.
A fair point. My honest suggestion would be – regardless of this change – to extend the "1 is always a failure to hit" rule to cover "6 is always a successful hit". That's how Ork Dakka works, and this is already the edition of "anything can kill anything". Might as well lean into it.
Maybe make an overall change along the lines of:
Terrain and Cover The battlefields of the far future are littered with terrain features such as ruins, craters and twisted copses. A terrain feature is treated as a special unit that does not belong to either player. It cannot move for any reason, is not treated as a friendly or enemy model, and cannot be targeted or affected by any attacks or abilities. Some terrain features, such as Fortifications, have special abilities and keywords listed in their datasheets.
A unit that is entirely on or within any terrain feature gains cover against incoming fire. Subtract 1 from hit rolls for ranged weapons that target a unit with cover. However, if a unit in cover moved in its preceding Movement phase, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when it fires Rapid Fire or Heavy weapons that turn.
A model with 10 or more wounds does not gain the benefits of cover unless at least half of the model is obscured from the shooting model.
Raven Guard: Shadow Masters Units with this tactic do not suffer a penalty for moving and firing weapons in cover, and always have the benefit of cover against attacks made from more than 12" away.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/25 14:21:26
As modifying to hit is too powerful, and modifying armour is irrelevant to some armies, why not go slightly further afield?
Any model behind cover has +1 Toughness.
this represents the weapon's shot becoming less focussed or slowing down as it goes through branches etc. increasing target toughness is a smoother way to do it than decreasing weapon strength.
This won't interfere with anything, and will accurately represent a powerful weapons ability to just blow it's way through cover (a guardsman in cover is no harder for a lascannon to kill than a guardsman standing in the open. it's for blowing holes in tanks - a tree won't protect you!)
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
some bloke wrote: (a guardsman in cover is no harder for a lascannon to kill than a guardsman standing in the open. it's for blowing holes in tanks - a tree won't protect you!)
Unless the lascannon is aimed at the wrong tree.
I guess that's the disconnect here – I ultimately see cover as being about avoiding getting shot, not about shielding yourself against shots. John Wick ducks behind a table so that his opponent can't aim at him properly, not because he expects the table to deflect bullets. The problem is that there are some kinds of cover – primarily bunkers – that do push the narrative of "you can't shoot me through all this armor" rather than "you can't aim at me to shoot me", and for which a meltagun is a far more appropriate response than a flamer. But those are all Fortifications with their own rules, rather than random terrain.
some bloke wrote: (a guardsman in cover is no harder for a lascannon to kill than a guardsman standing in the open. it's for blowing holes in tanks - a tree won't protect you!)
Unless the lascannon is aimed at the wrong tree.
I guess that's the disconnect here – I ultimately see cover as being about avoiding getting shot, not about shielding yourself against shots. John Wick ducks behind a table so that his opponent can't aim at him properly, not because he expects the table to deflect bullets. The problem is that there are some kinds of cover – primarily bunkers – that do push the narrative of "you can't shoot me through all this armor" rather than "you can't aim at me to shoot me", and for which a meltagun is a far more appropriate response than a flamer. But those are all Fortifications with their own rules, rather than random terrain.
That's actually a valid point... Though this does pose the problem with this combining with other -1 to hit modifiers...
logically, I agree that cover should make you harder to hit. I think there would be scope if the game had a broader range of "to hit" values - for example, if you switched to D12's and doubled every value, you'd have exactly the same statistics but more scope for modifiers. essentially you'd make all the current modifiers "-0.5 to hit".
If you're after realism, you'd need to bring back "go to ground" and move through cover, as you can't be hidden and move freely - you shouldn't get the best of both worlds!
Anyway, as shifting to D12 would never happen, we need a way to decrease the amount of hurt on models in cover without relying on improving saves. My Toughness idea isn't the best, as it will have no effect on some things, I realised. Perhaps -1 to wound, and no effect on models over 10 wounds. Then, as you said, give fortifications rules and allow vehicles +1 save when behind barricades.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
RevlidRas wrote: ...In theory, -1 to hit shouldn't be any more powerful than +1 to saves, right? They're both a 16% decrease, they just happen at different points. 10 boltgun shots will kill 2.9 Astra Militarum Infantry if they're outside of cover, and they'll kill 2.2 Infantry if they're in cover, regardless of whether that cover gives -1 to hit or +1 to save...
In theory. If you do the actual math you'll find that -1 to hit is more effective against people with worse to-hit values; if you give a Space Marine -1 to hit you're taking away 1/4 of his hits, but if you give a Guardsman -1 to hit you're taking away 1/3 of his hits, so it does have a disproportionate effect. Similarly +1 to saves has a disproportionate effect on units with better saves; you're making a model with a 3+ save twice as tough against AP0 since you're taking away half the shots that would have gotten through, but a model with a 5+ save only gets 25% tougher since you're only taking away 1/4 of the shots that would have gotten through.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
some bloke wrote: ...Anyway, as shifting to D12 would never happen, we need a way to decrease the amount of hurt on models in cover without relying on improving saves. My Toughness idea isn't the best, as it will have no effect on some things, I realised. Perhaps -1 to wound, and no effect on models over 10 wounds. Then, as you said, give fortifications rules and allow vehicles +1 save when behind barricades.
I find just playing Cities of Death rules (cover = +2 to saves, but you can get extra AP with elevation) is enough to make cover feel a lot more serious, because it makes it easier to reach and sustain the magic 2+ save.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/25 16:11:10
RevlidRas wrote: ...In theory, -1 to hit shouldn't be any more powerful than +1 to saves, right? They're both a 16% decrease, they just happen at different points. 10 boltgun shots will kill 2.9 Astra Militarum Infantry if they're outside of cover, and they'll kill 2.2 Infantry if they're in cover, regardless of whether that cover gives -1 to hit or +1 to save...
In theory. If you do the actual math you'll find that -1 to hit is more effective against people with worse to-hit values; if you give a Space Marine -1 to hit you're taking away 1/4 of his hits, but if you give a Guardsman -1 to hit you're taking away 1/3 of his hits, so it does have a disproportionate effect. Similarly +1 to saves has a disproportionate effect on units with better saves; you're making a model with a 3+ save twice as tough against AP0 since you're taking away half the shots that would have gotten through, but a model with a 5+ save only gets 25% tougher since you're only taking away 1/4 of the shots that would have gotten through.
This is true, but in general I'm happy with that – so long as hitting on 7+ is avoided with an auto-hit-on-6s rule – because while cover disproportionately benefiting units with good armor doesn't make much sense, it does make in-universe sense for more accurate units to be relatively better at dealing with the obscuring effects of cover.
The problem, of course, is balancing around that conclusion.
RevlidRas wrote: ...In theory, -1 to hit shouldn't be any more powerful than +1 to saves, right? They're both a 16% decrease, they just happen at different points. 10 boltgun shots will kill 2.9 Astra Militarum Infantry if they're outside of cover, and they'll kill 2.2 Infantry if they're in cover, regardless of whether that cover gives -1 to hit or +1 to save...
In theory. If you do the actual math you'll find that -1 to hit is more effective against people with worse to-hit values; if you give a Space Marine -1 to hit you're taking away 1/4 of his hits, but if you give a Guardsman -1 to hit you're taking away 1/3 of his hits, so it does have a disproportionate effect. Similarly +1 to saves has a disproportionate effect on units with better saves; you're making a model with a 3+ save twice as tough against AP0 since you're taking away half the shots that would have gotten through, but a model with a 5+ save only gets 25% tougher since you're only taking away 1/4 of the shots that would have gotten through.
This is true, but in general I'm happy with that – so long as hitting on 7+ is avoided with an auto-hit-on-6s rule – because while cover disproportionately benefiting units with good armor doesn't make much sense, it does make in-universe sense for more accurate units to be relatively better at dealing with the obscuring effects of cover.
The problem, of course, is balancing around that conclusion.
Except auto hitting on 6's means that units with bad BS are lossing less as they pay less points for the same weapons and now both units hit on the same number.
Again you keep using a lascannon as you example.
My example was you don't shell the unit hiding in a bush you just blast the bush/building etc to destruction with a battlecannon shell
RevlidRas wrote: ...In theory, -1 to hit shouldn't be any more powerful than +1 to saves, right? They're both a 16% decrease, they just happen at different points. 10 boltgun shots will kill 2.9 Astra Militarum Infantry if they're outside of cover, and they'll kill 2.2 Infantry if they're in cover, regardless of whether that cover gives -1 to hit or +1 to save...
In theory. If you do the actual math you'll find that -1 to hit is more effective against people with worse to-hit values; if you give a Space Marine -1 to hit you're taking away 1/4 of his hits, but if you give a Guardsman -1 to hit you're taking away 1/3 of his hits, so it does have a disproportionate effect. Similarly +1 to saves has a disproportionate effect on units with better saves; you're making a model with a 3+ save twice as tough against AP0 since you're taking away half the shots that would have gotten through, but a model with a 5+ save only gets 25% tougher since you're only taking away 1/4 of the shots that would have gotten through.
This is true, but in general I'm happy with that – so long as hitting on 7+ is avoided with an auto-hit-on-6s rule – because while cover disproportionately benefiting units with good armor doesn't make much sense, it does make in-universe sense for more accurate units to be relatively better at dealing with the obscuring effects of cover.
The problem, of course, is balancing around that conclusion.
Except auto hitting on 6's means that units with bad BS are lossing less as they pay less points for the same weapons and now both units hit on the same number.
Again you keep using a lascannon as you example.
My example was you don't shell the unit hiding in a bush you just blast the bush/building etc to destruction with a battlecannon shell
And artillery bombardments ahead of a push into No Man's Land were often useless in WWI, because of trenches. Artillery relies on shrapnel, confusion, and shockwaves to do most of its damage, all of which are mitigated by cover.
RevlidRas wrote: ...In theory, -1 to hit shouldn't be any more powerful than +1 to saves, right? They're both a 16% decrease, they just happen at different points. 10 boltgun shots will kill 2.9 Astra Militarum Infantry if they're outside of cover, and they'll kill 2.2 Infantry if they're in cover, regardless of whether that cover gives -1 to hit or +1 to save...
In theory. If you do the actual math you'll find that -1 to hit is more effective against people with worse to-hit values; if you give a Space Marine -1 to hit you're taking away 1/4 of his hits, but if you give a Guardsman -1 to hit you're taking away 1/3 of his hits, so it does have a disproportionate effect. Similarly +1 to saves has a disproportionate effect on units with better saves; you're making a model with a 3+ save twice as tough against AP0 since you're taking away half the shots that would have gotten through, but a model with a 5+ save only gets 25% tougher since you're only taking away 1/4 of the shots that would have gotten through.
This is true, but in general I'm happy with that – so long as hitting on 7+ is avoided with an auto-hit-on-6s rule – because while cover disproportionately benefiting units with good armor doesn't make much sense, it does make in-universe sense for more accurate units to be relatively better at dealing with the obscuring effects of cover.
The problem, of course, is balancing around that conclusion.
Except auto hitting on 6's means that units with bad BS are lossing less as they pay less points for the same weapons and now both units hit on the same number.
Again you keep using a lascannon as you example.
My example was you don't shell the unit hiding in a bush you just blast the bush/building etc to destruction with a battlecannon shell
And artillery bombardments ahead of a push into No Man's Land were often useless in WWI, because of trenches. Artillery relies on shrapnel, confusion, and shockwaves to do most of its damage, all of which are mitigated by cover.
Not exactlly true, plenty of units were destroyed in trenches if they weren't warned in time, they only survived because of bunkers
Also if your fighting in a built up environment you don't need to kill everything directly when you can use a 155m to level the dang building, ruins walls etc won't be able to stop you being flattened by the building your in being dropped on you.
Cover protects you from small arms, congratulations your hiding behind wall number 2, If I put a javlin into said wall the wall isn't going to be able to stop it, infact often that wall just became extra shrapnel.
IE large armour penetrating rounds won't care what your hiding behind, if the opponent knows where you are.
You seem to have it in your head that just because space clowns jump behind a building a marine wouldn't know where they are, they might not know exactly, but they're not going to randomly be shooting at the wrong building. Bolters might be stopped by said wall if you have heavy AT your just going to weaken the building to drop it on them instead.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok I'm probably being too negative due to never wanting to play against a flat -3 to hit space cheesedar list.
Making cover a -1 to hit rolls is fine on the condition that all current minus to hit rulea and cover rules become universal wording.
Camoclocks etc a unit.
Units equiped with this item that didn't "deepstrike",move, fallback, charge, pilein or consolidate during it's turn, may claim the benifit of cover in the opponents subsequent turn, even while in the open.
Units with this subfaction trait that didn't "deepstrike",move, fallback, charge, pilein or consolidate during it's turn, may claim the benifit of cover in the opponents subsequent turn, even while in the open. *units that all ready have this ability also may claim the benifit of cover if they move when attacked by a unit from a range greater than 12 inches from this unit.
Rangers obviously loose their additional -1 to hit as flat -2 to hit is just dumb.
Finge benifit is we no longer have fieldcrafting supersonic flyers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/25 21:01:04
I liked cover in the olden days - a flat save, which couldn't be modified. ruins: 5+. Barricades: 4+. trees: 6+
What if they simply state that cover prevents armour being reduced below X. so a unit in ruins cannot have it's save reduced below 5+. A unit in trees cannot be reduced below 6+.
I think the current cover rules are not that great - they result in 3+ save models using cover as 6+ save models not caring about it - which is the opposite of what it should be! light infantry should be relying on cover, and marines, immortals etc should be happy to walk out of it (unless there's a lot of powerful guns out there).
bringing back old cover (essentially an invulnerable save vs shooting) would work better with the current system of AP modifying your save. whether you walk out of cover is dependant on what you're facing, like it used to be.
This would give marines a kick up the arse to actually get out there and do some marining instead of sitting behind a wall playing who's the prettiest wannabe terminator.
I think that having static saves and modified saves would go a long way to adding flavour back to the game. stay in cover to never go below 4+ or break cover to change position. "sit in cover with a 2+ save" is too good for people to consider doing anything else!
An alternative would be to add another roll for cover saves.
IE:
roll to hit
roll to see if cover stops the hit
roll to wound
roll saves
roll FnP equivalent
so it's a fnp for hits instead of wounds.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
Lance845 wrote: 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 visible 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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/26 12:57:27
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
