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 think the most interesting part here is how LOS is being drawn through this terrain.

Just to check, should we be complaining about this having too many words, or about it being broken? I forgot to check the dakkaforecast this morning.

You are -1 to shoot unless you can see all of a models Hull or Base and no drawn LoS is over the terrain.
If you are in/on the terrain with your opponent then you are not penalized.
If you are within 3" of an Obstacle with this rule when you shoot you are not penalized.

Honestly this is a fine rule, yes its a bit wordy but i understand why. They wanted the ability to hide single man or elite units easier than hordes, but also not be penalized if you and any opponent are point blanks. Over all its actually a well writen rule from GW lol.

The most interesting thing about this is that whoever was given the brief to write about "dense cover" though they needed to make the rule dense too.

If this is what terrain rules are going to look like in 9th, I'm just going to houserule a more simple version instead, because goddamn my brain hurts. Give me some diagrams, some pictures, some bullet points, please!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The most interesting thing about this is that whoever was given the brief to write about "dense cover" though they needed to make the rule dense too.

If this is what terrain rules are going to look like in 9th, I'm just going to houserule a more simple version instead, because goddamn my brain hurts. Give me some diagrams, some pictures, some bullet points, please!

I'm wondering if they're re-typing the rule for the article or if the book will have the usual GW typo bonanza.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Over all its actually a well writen rule from GW lol.

It's not well written if I can't read it. Needs better formatting, and less word soup.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The most interesting thing about this is that whoever was given the brief to write about "dense cover" though they needed to make the rule dense too.

If this is what terrain rules are going to look like in 9th, I'm just going to houserule a more simple version instead, because goddamn my brain hurts. Give me some diagrams, some pictures, some bullet points, please!

They just said on stream that for most rules there will be an "in brief" bullet point below the rule, and that's what you're going to be reading 99% of the time. The full text is only there if there is a disagreement or confusion of what SPECIFICALLY the rules mean.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The most interesting thing about this is that whoever was given the brief to write about "dense cover" though they needed to make the rule dense too.

If this is what terrain rules are going to look like in 9th, I'm just going to houserule a more simple version instead, because goddamn my brain hurts. Give me some diagrams, some pictures, some bullet points, please!

I'm wondering if they're re-typing the rule for the article or if the book will have the usual GW typo bonanza.

I sure hope so, otherwise, I'm probably just going to avoid terrain like the plague or just houserule something more simple. Give me some diagrams, or so help me god.

Interesting too that terrain can have light, heavy or both IN ADDITION to dense.

There may be rules elsewhere in the book that prevent that, but so far, it looks like it could work.

They also said that the rulebook will be chock full of example diagrams to try and reduce edgecases.

When the first talked about terrain traits they talked about how something like the Sector Mechanicus terrain should make it harder to hit you, as the railings and whatnot aren't really the kinds of things that can take incoming shots like a big slab of concrete. This explains this 'dense terrain' rule, something you'd apply to this rather than this.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
If you are within 3" of an Obstacle with this rule when you shoot you are not penalized.

3" seems like a long way, right? Whilst nothing is really to scale, if a Marine is 1" tall and is roughly 7 feet, that's over 6m away from an obstacle.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think the most interesting part here is how LOS is being drawn through this terrain.

Or, more accurately, how LOS is not being drawn. It seems to be less about actual LOS and more about imaginary 1mm lines, and this isn't the first time that some of the #Nu40k rules have referenced this.

Could the Citadel™ LasPointer™ be close to release?

I'm with Smudge – this is hideous. If everything in the rulebook's written/worded this impenetrably, I'm genuinely not sure I can be arsed with 9th.

I have to say, I'm not enjoying the new terrain rules, if only because I don't know how they interact with eachother, what examples there are of each type, and a sore lack of pictures/diagrams. I understand that will come in time, but I'm really not enjoying these walls of text and hyper-legality of these rules.

PenitentJake wrote:
Interesting too that terrain can have light, heavy or both IN ADDITION to dense.

There may be rules elsewhere in the book that prevent that, but so far, it looks like it could work.

Nah, they seem to be compatible to me. Makes for an interesting combination of traits, I actually like that few of them seem exclusive.

Seems like they've swung so far towards trying to remove any possible space for misinterpretation, they've rendered the whole thing borderline unreadable.

I am also extremely hopeful that the base terrain rules will be extremely permissive - allowing all models of all types to pass through terrain and claim cover from terrain by default, with specific traits that limit certain types.

Unlike now, where some unit types just don't tend to interact with terrain at all.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I have to say, I'm not enjoying the new terrain rules, if only because I don't know how they interact with eachother, what examples there are of each type, and a sore lack of pictures/diagrams. I understand that will come in time, but I'm really not enjoying these walls of text and hyper-legality of these rules.

Honestly as of yet they have not even once explained something decently.
The Pts-pricehikes seemed rather random f.e. and we can not really gauge what is going on, yet we know that both vigilus and PA still counts for 9th.
Cover rules as of yet are written in a way that i am fairly sure, even as a non native english speaker, been written more conscise.
Would it have killed to make some pictures?
The faction foci, well, ehhhh.

Vague rules produce more disagreement than exhaustive ones.

As painful as it is, the more 40k approaches legalese levels of rules interaction, the fairer the system becomes. Laws are complicated because grey areas cannot be decided on. Language is required, therefore, to adjudicate gray areas into the either/or scenarios that most games require.

Admittedly this is a lot to take in at first glance, but after a few playthroughs with friends and working out the odd situations I think all of the changes made to terrain will greatly improve the tactical options presented in the game itself.

But definitely some diagrams will become very helpful! Also very much looking forward to all the awesome terrain features that people will come up with. Once we get used to a few combos of "dense light cover" etc....it will work very smoothly, imo.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Over all its actually a well writen rule from GW lol.

It's not well written if I can't read it. Needs better formatting, and less word soup.

As i said it is wordy but it is going what GW wants it to do at face value.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Vague rules produce more disagreement than exhaustive ones.

As painful as it is, the more 40k approaches legalese levels of rules interaction, the fairer the system becomes. Laws are complicated because grey areas cannot be decided on. Language is required, therefore, to adjudicate gray areas into the either/or scenarios that most games require.

Admittedly this is a lot to take in at first glance, but after a few playthroughs with friends and working out the odd situations I think all of the changes made to terrain will greatly improve the tactical options presented in the game itself.

But definitely some diagrams will become very helpful! Also very much looking forward to all the awesome terrain features that people will come up with. Once we get used to a few combos of "dense light cover" etc....it will work very smoothly, imo.

This. Codified explicit rules that are resistant to gaming are much better.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Over all its actually a well writen rule from GW lol.

It's not well written if I can't read it. Needs better formatting, and less word soup.

Though they didn't show them in the excerpt from the stream, the bullet points appear under the rule in the Tyranids Faction focus. If the rule is too wordy, stick to the bullets.

Check out the version in the Tyranid focus; I'm sure you'll like it better.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Over all its actually a well writen rule from GW lol.

It's not well written if I can't read it. Needs better formatting, and less word soup.

Though they didn't show them in the excerpt from the stream, the bullet points appear under the rule in the Tyranids Faction focus. If the rule is too wordy, stick to the bullets.

Check out the version in the Tyranid focus; I'm sure you'll like it better.

Ah, yep - they just added that actually:

Not Online!!! wrote:Honestly as of yet they have not even once explained something decently.
The Pts-pricehikes seemed rather random f.e. and we can not really gauge what is going on, yet we know that both vigilus and PA still counts for 9th.
Cover rules as of yet are written in a way that i am fairly sure, even as a non native english speaker, been written more conscise.
Would it have killed to make some pictures?
The faction foci, well, ehhhh

Exactly - I'm a native speaker, and I struggle to read this. I weep for non-native speakers or people with dyslexia/learning difficulties.

I don't care too much for needing to know what pricehikes are, or really, I don't care what the mechanical changes are, so long as I can understand them!

Nazrak wrote:Seems like they've swung so far towards trying to remove any possible space for misinterpretation, they've rendered the whole thing borderline unreadable.

That's what it seems like to me - and in doing so, they've just stripped out fun (in my opinion) in favour of legalese.
I would much rather have had a more simplistic terrain ruleset that erred more on the side of "you have cover" than this.

Amishprn86 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Over all its actually a well writen rule from GW lol.

It's not well written if I can't read it. Needs better formatting, and less word soup.

As i said it is wordy but it is going what GW wants it to do at face value.

That's no use if I can't understand what the words mean. Sure, it might be accurate and do what GW wants, but if I can't understand it, does it matter what GW wants? Again - hopefully with better formatting/pictures to demonstrate, I'll actually understand what this means.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Over all its actually a well writen rule from GW lol.

It's not well written if I can't read it. Needs better formatting, and less word soup.

Though they didn't show them in the excerpt from the stream, the bullet points appear under the rule in the Tyranids Faction focus. If the rule is too wordy, stick to the bullets.

Check out the version in the Tyranid focus; I'm sure you'll like it better.

Ah yeah that's more like it. Hoping we still get a nice tidy Battle Primer without all the extraneous text.

PenitentJake wrote:
Though they didn't show them in the excerpt from the stream, the bullet points appear under the rule in the Tyranids Faction focus. If the rule is too wordy, stick to the bullets.

Check out the version in the Tyranid focus; I'm sure you'll like it better.

I appreciate the bullet points, but the big wall of text is still there, and I'm fairly sure the bullet points don't cover everything in it.
Guess I'll have to wait.

I don't understand how having english as a second lenguage I can understand without a problem this kind of rules at a first, at most second reading, and people is complaining about it being too complicated?

'When a unit selects a target for shooting, if a straight line drawn from a single point on the attacking model's base cannot reach all parts of the target's base or hull without passing over or through terrain with this keyword, the attacker subtracts 1 from their hit rolls. Ignore any area terrain that the attacker occupies, and any terrain within 3" of the attacker'.

That took me, like, thirty seconds. GW seriously needs a technical writer, this is borderline unreadable. The legalese approach is really not the best way to write rules. The way it's worded is just not intuitive; it sets up the -1 as the default case and then provides the exception of clear LOS, when it should be the opposite, telling you the conditions under which you suffer the penalty.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:Honestly as of yet they have not even once explained something decently.
The Pts-pricehikes seemed rather random f.e. and we can not really gauge what is going on, yet we know that both vigilus and PA still counts for 9th.
Cover rules as of yet are written in a way that i am fairly sure, even as a non native english speaker, been written more conscise.
Would it have killed to make some pictures?
The faction foci, well, ehhhh

Exactly - I'm a native speaker, and I struggle to read this. I weep for non-native speakers or people with dyslexia/learning difficulties.

I don't care too much for needing to know what pricehikes are, or really, I don't care what the mechanical changes are, so long as I can understand them!

Nazrak wrote:Seems like they've swung so far towards trying to remove any possible space for misinterpretation, they've rendered the whole thing borderline unreadable.

That's what it seems like to me - and in doing so, they've just stripped out fun (in my opinion) in favour of legalese.
I would much rather have had a more simplistic terrain ruleset that erred more on the side of "you have cover" than this.

Amishprn86 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Over all its actually a well writen rule from GW lol.

It's not well written if I can't read it. Needs better formatting, and less word soup.

As i said it is wordy but it is going what GW wants it to do at face value.

That's no use if I can't understand what the words mean. Sure, it might be accurate and do what GW wants, but if I can't understand it, does it matter what GW wants? Again - hopefully with better formatting/pictures to demonstrate, I'll actually understand what this means.

You must not understand english then, i'm terrible at it and dyslexic and i understood this rule. Whats your main Language?

 catbarf wrote:
'When a unit selects a target for shooting, if a straight line drawn from a single point on the attacking model's base cannot reach all parts of the target's base or hull without passing over or through terrain with this keyword, the attacker subtracts 1 from their hit rolls. Ignore any area terrain that the attacker occupies, and any terrain within 3" of the attacker'.

That took me, like, thirty seconds. GW seriously needs a technical writer, this is borderline unreadable. The legalese approach is really not the best way to write rules. The way it's worded is just not intuitive; it sets up the -1 as the default case and then provides the exception of clear LOS, when it should be the opposite, telling you the conditions under which you suffer the penalty.

Yeah, the way it is in the previewed rule seems needlessly convoluted.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
You must not understand english then, i'm terrible at it and dyslexic and i understood this rule. Whats your main Language?

English, with no reading or writing difficulties. But thanks for basically saying I'm illiterate, and not maybe seeing that these rules are obtusely written.