Switch Theme:

Artillery vs Dense Cover  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
[DCM]
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Leicester, UK

In White Dwarf 462 there is an article on terrain rules that details, among other things, how Dense Cover interacts with 'barrage type weapons that target units that are not visible to the firer'. The example given is a Basilisk. In the diagram the Basilisk is behind Area Terrain, targeting a dreadnought that is some distance on the other side and nowhere near any terrain.

The key paragraph in the text reads 'Obscuring terrain has no real effect on the earthshaker cannon, but Dense Cover does. It does not matter that the earthshaker cannon launches shells 'over' the terrain; the line of sight is still drawn 'over or through' that terrain feature so the Dense Cover penalty applies'.

So if the area terrain in front of it has the keyword Dense Cover, the Basilisk suffers a -1 penalty to hit that dreadnought which is out in the open. The Obscuring keyword has no effect.

Now then: this is all very clear and not open to interpretation, so maybe this ain't the place to discuss it.

However

To me this official clarfication represents a break from common sense and a nerf to how many people would have been using artillery had they interpreted the rule(s) differently. The suggestion in the core book (p264) is for ruins to be Obscuring but not Dense Cover - and for ruined walls and woods to be Dense Cover but not Obscuring. Why would the artillery suffer from some woods or a wall in the way, but not a ruin - or indeed a hill or bloody great big rock.

Does this mean that if I place my Basilisk behind a ruined wall at the back of the battlefield, it gets -1 to hit everything on the board?
Please tell me I am missing something here.

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles

 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

 PaddyMick wrote:

Does this mean that if I place my Basilisk behind a ruined wall at the back of the battlefield, it gets -1 to hit everything on the board?


Yes. Unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model’s base (or hull) in the target unit from a single point on the attacking model's base (or hull) without any of those lines passing over or through any part of any terrain feature with this trait.
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




I am really hoping that GW rectifies Indirect fires in the next few months, as this basically throws out most IDF weapons in the game. Mortar squads are hitting on 5's now if passing by dense terrain? Maybe they can fix this by brining back "spotting" which I thought was a thing in 7th? If one model can see the target, the IDF unit get full BS on shooting? Or was that a different game...?
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Leicester, UK

@p5freak
Thanks, thought so :(

@FezzikDaBullgryn
Yep fingers crossed they see sense and FAQ it soon. I can imagine a lot of Guard players discussing terrain before a game, going 'hmmm, that doesn't look very Dense to me'

Extreme example: there is a ruined wall Obstacle in my deployment zone, I deploy my Basilisk behind it to take advantage of the Dense Cover. Even if there is no other terrain anywhere on the board for the enemy to hide, I get -1 to hit him. Ridiculous lol XD

Also silly: if I deploy behind an Area Terrain Wood it's -1 to hit everything, but if I am inside the Wood, there's no penalty.



My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles

 
   
Made in ca
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader






The most recent white dwarf magazine has an article about this, and answers this specific question. If shooting past dense, -1 to hit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/24 12:23:46


Wolfspear's 2k
Harlequins 2k
Chaos Knights 2k
Spiderfangs 2k
Ossiarch Bonereapers 1k 
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




I'm sorry, but this is a dumb rule. It completely defeats the point of IDF in the first place.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

It might reduce the effectiveness of IDF, but it doesn't prevent it. Thus, it doesn't defeat the purpose. You can not like it, but the rules are the rules and there is no exception in the rules for weapons that don't require LOS to not be affected by Dense Cover.
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

I wouldnt get my hopes up that GW makes any terrain rules that make sense, there are quite a lot that are stupid.
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




No, it promotes modeling for advantage to evade rules, ala the flying Repulsors parking on top of buildings.

If the 1mm line rule nullifies it will just promote players to park their basilisks on the highest ground possible, and then declare wobly model. The model itself, or the Earthshaker model, is already like 6-8", so it's not hard to draw a line from the tip top of the model to the tip top of any model on the map
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
No, it promotes modeling for advantage to evade rules, ala the flying Repulsors parking on top of buildings.

If the 1mm line rule nullifies it will just promote players to park their basilisks on the highest ground possible, and then declare wobly model. The model itself, or the Earthshaker model, is already like 6-8", so it's not hard to draw a line from the tip top of the model to the tip top of any model on the map


It almost make you want them to bring back the scatter die and the blast markers.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
No, it promotes modeling for advantage to evade rules, ala the flying Repulsors parking on top of buildings.

If the 1mm line rule nullifies it will just promote players to park their basilisks on the highest ground possible, and then declare wobly model. The model itself, or the Earthshaker model, is already like 6-8", so it's not hard to draw a line from the tip top of the model to the tip top of any model on the map
What would that do? How high a model is has no impact on Dense Terrain.
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Leicester, UK

I can live with the rule but imagine trying to explain it to a new player, or question someone who is playing it differently - ie. in a way that makes sense both for the game and for what we are trying to simulate.
Gonna haveta carry a copy of that WD around innit.

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






of a curiosity, does this mean that if the basilisk is placed such that the barrel of the gun is extending over the wall, the LOS can be drawn as the gun is on the other side of the wall (so the line isn't passing over the wall, it starts on the other side of it)?

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!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






The text provided doesn't seem to support the claim "basilisk within area terrain with dense cover trait suffers -1 to hit" as it is a direct contradiction of the explicit provisions as per dense cover rule from BRB.

BRB defines the limitations imposed by dense cover, and when it is not.
Dense Cover
...Models that are on or within an Area Terrain feature with this trait do not suffer this penalty if the only terrain feature these lines pass over or through is the terrain feature that the attacking model is on or within...

If the basilisk is parked inside the Area Terrain with Dense Cover trait, and it is the only Terrain feature that is in play when determining line of sight, then it does not suffer -1 to hit. Note that Dense Cover does not have conditions for activation like Light & Heavy Cover ("when receiving benefit of cover")

If we were to disseminate the excerpt 'Obscuring terrain has no real effect on the earthshaker cannon, but Dense Cover does. It does not matter that the earthshaker cannon launches shells 'over' the terrain; the line of sight is still drawn 'over or through' that terrain feature so the Dense Cover penalty applies'. it simply means that because Earthshaker Cannon ignores standard TLOS when shooting, so Obscuring can never come into play for these types of weapons. However, Dense Cover still applies because it deals with whether or not the terrain in question intervenes.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/24 17:12:03


 
   
Made in nl
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





 PaddyMick wrote:
I can live with the rule but imagine trying to explain it to a new player, or question someone who is playing it differently - ie. in a way that makes sense both for the game and for what we are trying to simulate.
Gonna haveta carry a copy of that WD around innit.

It is a bit weird that indirect fire gets the penalty but the other way around imdirect fire also allows me to fire at units with a roof over their head despite that not making any sense either. We lose a bit of "realism" but if that makes the game moe along faster I'm alright with it.
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Leicester, UK

 skchsan wrote:
The text provided doesn't seem to support the claim "basilisk within area terrain with dense cover trait suffers -1 to hit"


I don't think anyone is claming that. The basilisk can benefit from an Obstacle with the Dense Cover keyword though, and then suffer the -1 to hit if firing over it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Castozor wrote:

It is a bit weird that indirect fire gets the penalty but the other way around imdirect fire also allows me to fire at units with a roof over their head despite that not making any sense either. We lose a bit of "realism" but if that makes the game moe along faster I'm alright with it.


Yeah I understand that sometimes realism needs to be sacrificed - I just don't get it in this case. I don;t think the rule speeds up the game. If anything, being so counter-intuitive, it slows the game down as players look up and try and make sense of the rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/24 18:51:30


My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 Castozor wrote:
 PaddyMick wrote:
I can live with the rule but imagine trying to explain it to a new player, or question someone who is playing it differently - ie. in a way that makes sense both for the game and for what we are trying to simulate.
Gonna haveta carry a copy of that WD around innit.

It is a bit weird that indirect fire gets the penalty but the other way around imdirect fire also allows me to fire at units with a roof over their head despite that not making any sense either. We lose a bit of "realism" but if that makes the game moe along faster I'm alright with it.


I think being able to fire at units with a roof over their head is because in reality they could switch to direct fire if necessary, and even in the event that they could not, what usually constitutes a "roof" in 40k terrain would never withstand a direct hit from an Earthshaker Cannon or much any of the IDF guns. There's a reason they are called "Artillery" and "Big Guns" or aptly named like "Earthshaker" and it isn't because the thin metal flooring of a ruin or even a concrete bunker could withstand multiple hits from them. If anything, units trying to hide in buildings would have to deal with shrapnel and debris raining down on them along with the force of the blast itself, which is also fairly lethal at close range.
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Leicester, UK

If the intention is to make indirect fire less accurate, then just giving it a blanket -1 to hit is a much better rule.

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 PaddyMick wrote:
If the intention is to make indirect fire less accurate, then just giving it a blanket -1 to hit is a much better rule.


I'm pretty sure it already has a blanket -1 to hit if it doesn't have LoS on the target.

Should bring back spotters imo, cuz that was a cool lore friendly rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, in the rules it says:

A hit roll can never be modified by more than -1 or +1. This means that if, after all the cumulative modifiers to a hit roll have been calculated, the total modifier would be -2 or worse, it is changed to be -1. Similarly, if, after all the cumulative modifiers to a hit roll have been calculated, the total modifier would be +2 or better, it is changed to be +1.

So under normal circumstances, if you are using the IDF ability to shoot something because you can't see it, then it doesn't matter what cover is in between the two. It only matters if you have some bonus to hit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/24 19:08:26


 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Leicester, UK

Okay cool cheers Sergent - but do you know where the rule is that says IDF is always -1 to hit? I've not come across it anywhere.

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Nope, I just looked for it and can't find it. I'm probably remembering something from a previous edition. And I didn't mean always -1 to hit, just when firing without LoS. Still, I can't find it so unless someone does, consider it a moot point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/24 19:17:02


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 PaddyMick wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
The text provided doesn't seem to support the claim "basilisk within area terrain with dense cover trait suffers -1 to hit"
I don't think anyone is claming that. The basilisk can benefit from an Obstacle with the Dense Cover keyword though, and then suffer the -1 to hit if firing over it.
It was a response to the quote below:
 PaddyMick wrote:
Does this mean that if I place my Basilisk behind a ruined wall at the back of the battlefield, it gets -1 to hit everything on the board?
Please tell me I am missing something here.
Don't forget the other part of the exception when applying Dense Cover:
"models within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature with this trait do not suffer this penalty if the only terrain feature these lines pass over or through is the terrain feature that the attacking model is within 3" of."
So no, you do not suffer -1 to hit if you are hugging the Obstacle. See my other post for the exception regarding models within Area Terrain feature.

The only way the penalty is imposed is if:
1. the attacking model is not within Area Terrain with the trait, and a line is drawn through said terrain
2. the attacking model is not within 3" of Obstacle with the trait, and a line is drawn through said terrain
3. the attacking model is within Area Terrain or within 3" of Obstacle, and a line is drawn through another terrain with the trait

So if you parked your basilisk outside the Area Terrain, then every time it attacks through the said terrain, it suffers -1 to hit. If it's Obstacle and you're within 3", then you don't suffer the penalty.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/03/24 20:45:06


 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Leicester, UK

Ah okay, thank you skchsan for clearing that up, I had missed something after all.

Am I still correct in thinking that if the target is saying 40'' away, and there is a ruined wall with the Dense cover keyword 20'' away, and between me and the target, I get -1 to hit with my Mortar?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To answer my own question from what you've said, and another reading of the rules and example: the answer is a yes.

That about wraps up the thread then, thanks all

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/24 20:15:28


My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles

 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

As you surmised, yes. This causes a bit of cognitive dissonance when replacing that Dense Terrain with Obscuring Terrain means the hit penalty disappears. It feels wrong that it is easier to hit a target you can’t see than one you cannot.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Again, it simulates stuff getting in the way of the shell as much as it does ‘visibility’, so you can square it away mentally that way.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




Is this also stacking? As light cover saves can now apparently stack (Whole other thread), can dense cover saves now stack a -2 to hit?
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

To hit and to wound modifiers stack, but they count as +/-1 if they are higher.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 alextroy wrote:
As you surmised, yes. This causes a bit of cognitive dissonance when replacing that Dense Terrain with Obscuring Terrain means the hit penalty disappears. It feels wrong that it is easier to hit a target you can’t see than one you cannot.
You can assign both Obscured and Dense Cover to a terrain. It doesn't necessarily need to replace the other. It's not like Obscuring is higher form of dense cover.

Obviously, you would rarely be able to apply dense cover in such case, but it DOES kick in when non-LOS weapons come in play.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is this also stacking? As light cover saves can now apparently stack (Whole other thread), can dense cover saves now stack a -2 to hit?
That's an opinion of 4-5 people on this forum. RAW you dont know if it stacks or not. Opinion of the few does not remove the ambiguity of the letters.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/24 22:29:31


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

Dense Cover cannot stack because the wording of this terrain feature has the modifier apply if "any terrain feature with this trait" is interposing. The Light Cover rule uses "this terrain feature" in the wording, opening the possibility (intended or not) that multiple terrain features can provide the bonus.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

No light cover saves can't stack please don't bring another thread into this one. When the first was circular it's still open argue it there not that you will convince anyone.

It's also disingenuous to say light cover can stack when that was by no means the conclusion of that thread - it wouldn't be 7 pages if it was. But a clear argument was made that benefits of cover was an aura and didn't stack between obstacles and area terrain while stealthy doesn't stack because it is explicitly clarified in the rare rules section that this means counting as being in light cover even when your not.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/03/25 02:15:02


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: