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.

Overall design goals: Strengthen the impact of terrain on the battlefield in games of warhammer 40,000, reduce the burden on event organizers and players to provide terrain that matches the exact physical specifications required to result in a quality game experience, and simplify the way terrain works from the current keyword system to allow for a wider variety of terrain setups to function.

Changing Characteristics: Modifiers versus Conditions.

Characteristics in Warhammer 40,000 can by altered by various rule systems, either voluntarily or involuntarily. These rules are divided into two categories: Modifiers and Conditions.

Modifiers include the effects of:

-Terrain rules

-Taking certain types of movement before firing certain types of ranged weapon

-Attacking at certain ranges

-The Armor Piercing value of weapons

Conditions include the effects of:

-Army-wide rules, including rules that are always active and rules that are only available if all units in an army or detachment share the same Faction keywords.

-Psychic powers, both cast by friendly and opposing psykers

-Datasheet abilities from friendly or opposing models

-Stratagems

-Relic Wargear

-Warlord Traits

-Traits which may be purchased for Points

Conditions affecting hit rolls, wound rolls, save rolls, armor piercing, strength, toughness and the generation of bonus hits or wounds can only change those values by a maximum of +1/-1. When determining the final value of a stat under the effects of both Modifiers and Conditions, apply modifiers first, then apply Conditions up to the cap.

Errata Change: Any rules that reference "Modifiers" in the current rules, change language to "Modifiers and Conditions."

Example:

Extraneous Features: Warhammer 40,000 is a game of heroically posed, detailed miniatures where hobbyists spend large amounts of time and effort personalizing their collections. Where at all possible, these personalizations should not convey any in-game advantages or disadvantages

Weapons, banners, antennae, wings, modeled effects (e.g. Smoke or Fire), bases, or basing features (e.g. rocks or flocking) are considered Extraneous Features and should be ignored for the purposes of drawing line of sight and the effects of terrain described throughout this section. Additionally, if a model has been reposed from its original positioning in the model kit or alternative pieces have been substituted on the model, the posing depicted on the official box art should be used. When possible if there is any doubt whether a feature should be considered extraneous or an alternative posing or model should be ignored, this should be discussed between the players prior to the beginning of the game.

Large Terrain Features:

Any terrain feature taller than all models in the target unit is considered to be Large.

Line of Sight

To draw Line of Sight from an attacking model to an enemy unit, players draw imaginary lines between the base of the attacking model to any model in the target unit.

If all possible imaginary lines can be drawn to a model in the target unit without crossing any terrain features or models other than those in the attacking or target unit, no modifiers apply to that shooting attack.

If no model in the target unit is fully visible in this way, the target unit is considered to be in Cover, and a +1 modifier to all normal save rolls made by that unit apply.

If a unit in Cover is within 1" of a Large terrain feature, a -1 modifier to all hit rolls made by the attacking unit also applies.

If at least one imaginary line drawn between the attacking model and all models in the target unit can pass through a Large terrain feature not within 1" of the attacking or target unit, that unit is out of Line of Sight and cannot be attacked.

Fast Rolling and Cover

The rules for Fast Rolling allow for all weapons of the same type in an attacking unit to be resolved together. For the purposes of this rule, models in the attacking unit under the effects of different Modifiers should be considered to be using different weapons.

Additionally, if at any point during the resolution of a shooting attack a target unit qualifies for the benefits of Cover, the +1 modifier to save rolls may be used. If during the resolution of a shooting attack the target unit is no longer in Line of Sight, all remaining wounds are discarded and no additional saves must be taken. This may occur as models from the target unit are removed as casualties.

Terrain bases:

Some pieces of terrain have inbuilt bases that serve to denote the boundary of that terrain piece on the battlefield. These bases are considered part of the battlefield surface, and a model wholly on top of the base of a terrain feature is considered to be within 1" of that terrain feature for the purposes of Line of Sight and Cover.

Terrain and Movement:

INFANTRY, SWARM and BEASTS units can move through terrain as well as moving over it. If a move or charge is declared that will move through a piece of terrain, subtract 2" from the move characteristic or charge roll result.

Long Range:

Attacks with ranged weapons that target enemy units where all models are over 1/2 of the maximum range of the attacking model's weapon suffer a -1 modifier to that weapon's Strength value.

Defensible Cover:

If a unit declares that it will make a Charge and selects any unit as a target of that charge that would benefit from Cover prior to the charge move being made, that charging unit may not be selected to fight before all other units are selected to fight.

I think you failed to simplify the way terrain works. I think maybe if you used BS modifiers in core rules you could avoid having to invent conditions.

If your rules aren't good enough to describe what can and cannot be used for LOS purposes then I don't think your rules are good enough to use. The most important rule already exists, I'd have a more favourable view of your suggestion if you just removed the suggestion to discuss which parts of models count for LOS.

Bikes being able to move through impassable terrain seems odd. Counting 2" for each 1" moved through a piece of terrain is a hassle because you have to measure the distance moved through terrain + your base size because both front and back have to move through.

I think your rules might allow bikes to hop unto the second floors of buildings and allows tanks to do stunt driving with one wheel on the table and the rest leaning on a ruin.

-1 S isn't going to impact weapons that auto-wound or melta guns which are most destructive within half range already or flyers that can get up close turn 1 and ignore the penalty while also being unafraid of a counter-charge from most units. Consider a range nerf under certain circumstances instead. I don't hate your suggestion and have no good idea how it'd work in practice after it was playtested and pts changes were implemented to balance things out.

If I was reworking cover I think I'd go back to cover granting a pseudo-invulnerable save to promote Guardsmen taking cover and Space Marines being conspicuous and charging out into the open.

I would go for a far simpler change to terrain.
I like different keywords on terrain, they add flavor to the game. You just need to make all terrain relevant, or indeed you will just see obscuring ruins everywhere.



Simple changes:

Light cover (craters, ruined walls, trenches): For ranged attacks, it turns AP-1 into AP0 and AP-2 into AP-1.
Represents a cover which you can punch through with weapons, but they will lose momentum.

Dense cover (vegetation, industrial ruins): -1 to hit for ranged attacks.
Represents a cover which makes it hard to target an enemy.

Heavy cover (containers, sturdy walls, barricades): Ignore wounds on a 5+++.
Represents a cover which can stop lights attacks and makes bigger ones less damaging, even exotic attacks (mortal wounds).

All kind of covers work like the current dense cover. Trace a line base to base and if you partially pass over a cover, you apply the modifiers. Different cover types stack.
All non-titanic non-flyers models can benefit from cover.
Infantry gets a +1 to save while within any terrain feature.

Simple, easy to apply and makes all kinds of cover more useful and partially applicable to non-infantry models. Makes it also very difficult to attack models when there are 2 or more terrain elements in the way.

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 barricades that make up 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 is what I have been using for a few years. Works great.

Spoletta wrote:
I would go for a far simpler change to terrain.
I like different keywords on terrain, they add flavor to the game. You just need to make all terrain relevant, or indeed you will just see obscuring ruins everywhere.



Simple changes:

Light cover (craters, ruined walls, trenches): For ranged attacks, it turns AP-1 into AP0 and AP-2 into AP-1.
Represents a cover which you can punch through with weapons, but they will lose momentum.

Dense cover (vegetation, industrial ruins): -1 to hit for ranged attacks.
Represents a cover which makes it hard to target an enemy.

Heavy cover (containers, sturdy walls, barricades): Ignore wounds on a 5+++.
Represents a cover which can stop lights attacks and makes bigger ones less damoaging, even exotic attacks (mortal wounds).

All kind of covers work like the current dense cover. Trace a line base to base and if you partially pass over a cover, you apply the modifiers. Different cover types stack.
All non-titanic non-flyers models can benefit from cover.
Infantry gets a +1 to save while within any terrain feature.

So your solution to current terrain rule issues is to:

1) Nerf light cover.

That's what this is right? A nerf to a thing that's already less powerful than it needs to be, by making it not work on AP-3 or better?

IMO one of the big issues with terrain in general is how anti tank weaponry is now incredibly good at sniping very fragile vehicles from downtown, making tanks feel far flimsier than elite infantry packing invulnerable saves. I think this might exacerbate that a bit.

2) leave dense cover the same

The main issue with Dense cover is the stat cap, coupled with (similar to all terrain rules) the fact that it is immensely difficult to claim terrain compared to how incredibly permissive the rules are when granting line of sight. That leads to a lot of situations where Dense, which is objectively the strongest defensive boost in the game from terrain beyond obscuring, just does nothing.

3) change heavy from an anti melee defense to...the best cover in the game by FAR.

I mean, ok. It gets me what I'm looking for. I do think though your Light+Heavy makes the Fuel Pipe /Defense Line strangely the best terrain type in the game, and a model standing behind a huge sector mechanicus structure is much less protected than a model behind a fuel pipe.

4) I guess leave Defensible as-is as a fairly unimpactful offensive buff.

Personally I might put the 5+ fnp here if you're going to add it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't mean to sound overly snarky I do think it's an improvement over how cover operates now, and combined with a "can't kill what you can't see" might solve the worst of the games current woes. I just think you could go a bit farther.

Maybe dense could be -1BS as another poster suggested. The same but immune to the mod cap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

vict0988 wrote:I think you failed to simplify the way terrain works. I think maybe if you used BS modifiers in core rules you could avoid having to invent conditions.

If your rules aren't good enough to describe what can and cannot be used for LOS purposes then I don't think your rules are good enough to use. The most important rule already exists, I'd have a more favourable view of your suggestion if you just removed the suggestion to discuss which parts of models count for LOS.

Maybe. I do believe the current situation is "most people cant keep track of the dozen or so traits or the intricasies of how the different types of terrain interact, so mostly default to 'everything is ruins' and as a result many terrain traits/rules dont come into play at all, since ruins only have Light/Obscuring as the rules that matter.

in terms of the LOS rules...tbh I dont know if you're talking about my rules, or the rules as currently written by GW, which are 100% permissive when it comes to targeting via and to any part of the enemy model. Most people do not interpret 'the most important rule' as 'ignore any of the rules we write which cause at least one player to lose a sense of realism.' It is worth noting that many instances of the rules (for example, terrain traits) currently feature the "talk to your opponent if you're not certain" caveat like I've included in the Extraneous Features section.

Bikes being able to move through impassable terrain seems odd. Counting 2" for each 1" moved through a piece of terrain is a hassle because you have to measure the distance moved through terrain + your base size because both front and back have to move through.

I think your rules might allow bikes to hop unto the second floors of buildings and allows tanks to do stunt driving with one wheel on the table and the rest leaning on a ruin.

Point taken on the 2" for 1" rule, I'll probably alter that section to essentially apply current "Breachable" to all terrain features but combine with "Difficult Ground" - Infantry Swarms and Beasts can pass thru terrain, but if a move is declared that does so, deduct 2" from movement or charge roll results.

in theory, sure. I think any given rule system is going to allow for some moves which do not seem realistic, in which case I believe it's generally better to default to 'can' than 'can't'. Looking over the current rules, I believe I was under the mistaken impression that vehicles currently could not pass over any terrain, but there is allowance for all units to ignore terrain under 1" tall as if it were not there, so this rule section in general does seem unnecessary.

-1 S isn't going to impact weapons that auto-wound or melta guns which are most destructive within half range already or flyers that can get up close turn 1 and ignore the penalty while also being unafraid of a counter-charge from most units. Consider a range nerf under certain circumstances instead. I don't hate your suggestion and have no good idea how it'd work in practice after it was playtested and pts changes were implemented to balance things out.

If I was reworking cover I think I'd go back to cover granting a pseudo-invulnerable save to promote Guardsmen taking cover and Space Marines being conspicuous and charging out into the open.

Primarily, this was a meta choice revolving around the fact that many currently powerful weapons (e.g. dark lances) are at Strength 8, while Strength 9 weapons like lascannons largely get nothing out of the extra pip of strength, as most targets are T7. Additionally, multi-meltas outside of 12" are still quite a bit more powerful than double lascannons due to the price and the pip of AP matters vs non-invuln targets while the point of strength generally doesn't.

I do think a range nerf on the tiny board sizes is probably the least important suggestion here. Most important is the fact that cover NEEDS to be more permissive and applicable if LOS is going to be as permissive as it currently is. If a foot of one model can draw LOS to the hand of another, cover should be very, very easy to claim, and currently its quite fiddly and difficult and requires 100% all of your models to be fulfilling various conditions.

@The_Scotsman: I like everything you've suggested here except for two things that you've already addressed, but I'm going to explain my problems with them in order to add to this discussion, which is a very important one, and I'm glad you continue to bring it up:

1: The -1S modifier for firing at +50% of range. I don't like this because the current wounding table is and it won't always have an impact because of it. Example: My chaincannon Havocs are targeting a squad of Guardsmen, Wychs, [insert T3 unit here] at 24" - they don't care, they're still wounding on 3s regardless. Similar edge cases can be found: S10 would only care if the target unit was T5, S6 only if it was T5 or T3, etc. So unless the wounding table is fixed, I think a -1 to hit when firing at 50%+ range would be more impactful, especially if combined with your suggestions to change the cap on modifiers.

2: The moving through terrain at 2" for every 1" of movement: I don't think this would fix what you want it to. In another thread you mentioned this stopping terrain from being a "no movement" zone for big models like Baneblades, Monoliths, and Knights. Well, it would help Knights, which have M12 and are about 4 1/4" at the "narrow" side of their base, but it won't help Baneblades, Monoliths, etc, as their movement is not significantly greater enough than their actual size. My Fellblade is basically the same size as a Baneblade, and is about 8 1/2" long depending on how you measure (does the engine at the back count?) and is M10, so very little help. I'd just allow TITANIC units to ignore terrain of 3" for movement instead of 1", similar to the recent FAQ to how they can ignore DIFFICULT GROUND of 3" or less.

Other than that agreed on all points. Keep up the suggestions and arguments on these topics.

 the_scotsman wrote:
... simplify the way terrain works from the current keyword system to allow for a wider variety of terrain setups to function.

Changing Characteristics: Modifiers versus Conditions.

I think the modifiers/conditions change alone probably makes your proposal more complicated than the current GW rules. Currently, we just have to count up our plusses and minuses and figure out which end of the equation is bigger. With your proposal, we'd have to remember which rules are stackable and which aren't, compare those two categories of rules, and then add an uncapped and capped number together to get a final BS modifier. I feel like what you're going for here might be better handled by just letting to-hit modifiers stack to a max of + or - 2. Or just allow a single self-inflicted penalty and a single enemy-inflicted penalty. Either of those would require less memorization and math.

Additionally, if a model has been reposed from its original positioning in the model kit or alternative pieces have been substituted on the model, the posing depicted on the official box art should be used.

I feel like this is pretty unworkable. Like, if I pose my model uniquely or do a kitbash, how am I supposed to utilize the box art's pose? Do I have to have a "proper" model ready to use as a stand-in for my customized model just to work out LoS? Does that imply I have to maintain the same pose ratios as the models in the official box? So if I bought some tau fire warriors second-hand, I need to make sure I have the officially approved number of standing and crouching dudes?

Seems like you're sort of going for a silhouette measuring system or something, but as written, this could make my modest conversions and kitbashes totally unplayable. If someone is modeling for advantage so hard that you feel the need to address it with this kind of rule, you're probably better off not playing against that person at all.

Large Terrain Features:

Any terrain feature taller than all models in the target unit is considered to be Large.

This has weird implications. I have a piece of terrain that is literally a street lamp. It is taller than marines and very skinny. This street lamp can apparently block line of sight to my squad of marines.

If at least one imaginary line drawn between the attacking model and all models in the target unit can pass through a Large terrain feature not within 1" of the attacking or target unit, that unit is out of Line of Sight and cannot be attacked.

Our units are in single-file lines. A lamp post stands between them. They can't draw line of sight to each other. The lamp post is impressively good at obscuring vision.

My unit is standing base to base with a clump of oddly-placed lamp posts. They're almost forming a partial wall there are so many of t hem. The lamp posts only impose -1 to hit instead of obscuring sight.

INFANTRY, SWARM and BEASTS units can move through terrain as well as moving over it. If a move or charge is declared that will move through a piece of terrain, subtract 2" from the move characteristic or charge roll result.

Long Range:

Attacks with ranged weapons that target enemy units where all models are over 1/2 of the maximum range of the attacking model's weapon suffer a -1 modifier to that weapon's Strength value.

Defensible Cover:

If a unit declares that it will make a Charge and selects any unit as a target of that charge that would benefit from Cover prior to the charge move being made, that charging unit may not be selected to fight before all other units are selected to fight.

These all seem like they're better handled by the keyword system currently in place. A mud puddle could reasonably be difficult terrain, but it's probably not providing to-hit penalties or bonuses to armor saves. Some bushes might make you harder to hit, but they're probably not making flakk armor better at resisting bolter rounds.

Also, the strength penalty thing seems like a bad way to go. Lasguns would wound fire warriors on a 5+, but fire warriors would still wound guardsmen on a 3+? If you're specifically trying to buff lascannons, this seems like a weirdly roundabout way to do it. (And I'd argue that wounding T8 targets on a 3+ from an extra 12" away compared to a dark lance is nothing to sneeze at even if the dark lance is still the better weapon overall.)

I'm afraid I can't see myself using your proposal. Keywords seem simpler and more flexible. Something probably ought to be done about the current to-hit modifier cap, but this doesn't seem like the best option.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
... simplify the way terrain works from the current keyword system to allow for a wider variety of terrain setups to function.

Changing Characteristics: Modifiers versus Conditions.

I think the modifiers/conditions change alone probably makes your proposal more complicated than the current GW rules. Currently, we just have to count up our plusses and minuses and figure out which end of the equation is bigger. With your proposal, we'd have to remember which rules are stackable and which aren't, compare those two categories of rules, and then add an uncapped and capped number together to get a final BS modifier. I feel like what you're going for here might be better handled by just letting to-hit modifiers stack to a max of + or - 2. Or just allow a single self-inflicted penalty and a single enemy-inflicted penalty. Either of those would require less memorization and math.

not actually how it's intended to function here. Realistically the only change from the present system would be that Conditions allow hit rolls to change past the +1/-1 cap. You dont count up all the modifiers, apply the cap, then add conditions. A unit that stacks up +3 to hit via powers/strats whatever and then suffers a -1 to hit from cover would still be at +1, not +0.

The ONLY change from present state is that if you are at multiple negatives from terrain/movement/whatever you can get into -2 -3 etc territory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:


If at least one imaginary line drawn between the attacking model and all models in the target unit can pass through a Large terrain feature not within 1" of the attacking or target unit, that unit is out of Line of Sight and cannot be attacked.

Our units are in single-file lines. A lamp post stands between them. They can't draw line of sight to each other. The lamp post is impressively good at obscuring vision.

My unit is standing base to base with a clump of oddly-placed lamp posts. They're almost forming a partial wall there are so many of t hem. The lamp posts only impose -1 to hit instead of obscuring sight.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I would go for a far simpler change to terrain.
I like different keywords on terrain, they add flavor to the game. You just need to make all terrain relevant, or indeed you will just see obscuring ruins everywhere.



Simple changes:

Light cover (craters, ruined walls, trenches): For ranged attacks, it turns AP-1 into AP0 and AP-2 into AP-1.
Represents a cover which you can punch through with weapons, but they will lose momentum.

Dense cover (vegetation, industrial ruins): -1 to hit for ranged attacks.
Represents a cover which makes it hard to target an enemy.

Heavy cover (containers, sturdy walls, barricades): Ignore wounds on a 5+++.
Represents a cover which can stop lights attacks and makes bigger ones less damoaging, even exotic attacks (mortal wounds).

All kind of covers work like the current dense cover. Trace a line base to base and if you partially pass over a cover, you apply the modifiers. Different cover types stack.
All non-titanic non-flyers models can benefit from cover.
Infantry gets a +1 to save while within any terrain feature.

So your solution to current terrain rule issues is to:

1) Nerf light cover.

That's what this is right? A nerf to a thing that's already less powerful than it needs to be, by making it not work on AP-3 or better?

IMO one of the big issues with terrain in general is how anti tank weaponry is now incredibly good at sniping very fragile vehicles from downtown, making tanks feel far flimsier than elite infantry packing invulnerable saves. I think this might exacerbate that a bit.

2) leave dense cover the same

The main issue with Dense cover is the stat cap, coupled with (similar to all terrain rules) the fact that it is immensely difficult to claim terrain compared to how incredibly permissive the rules are when granting line of sight. That leads to a lot of situations where Dense, which is objectively the strongest defensive boost in the game from terrain beyond obscuring, just does nothing.

3) change heavy from an anti melee defense to...the best cover in the game by FAR.

I mean, ok. It gets me what I'm looking for. I do think though your Light+Heavy makes the Fuel Pipe /Defense Line strangely the best terrain type in the game, and a model standing behind a huge sector mechanicus structure is much less protected than a model behind a fuel pipe.

4) I guess leave Defensible as-is as a fairly unimpactful offensive buff.

Personally I might put the 5+ fnp here if you're going to add it.

Hmm, I think that I didn't describe it really well if that's what you understood of it.

No, it is a straight buff to all 3, especially light cover.
Note that I said that an infantry model in any terrain elements gets a +1 to its save.
Currently the light cover is +1 save vs ranged for infantry. The way I proposed it, it is AP reduction for everyone and +1 save for infantry (not limited to ranged).

Ah, interesting.

That seems workable, but I do think it would skew the game even further towards elite infantry being king while vehicles/monsters would be mostly still going up like firecrackers.

But you know what I think would be workable, if we're talking about giving infantry/swarms/beasts their own specific/generic "They get an extra bonus if theyre actually in terrain" would be as another poster suggested, bringing back old-style "terrain = 4++ save" situation, and then just moving Light to "+1 save still, but now also using the Dense Cover claiming rules"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me hit you with this, a "keep the current keyword system" proposal:

Core rule change 1: My "if during any shooting attack a unit goes out of LOS, no further damage is done and no further saves have to be made" rule.

Core rule change 2: any INFANTRY, SWARMS or BEASTS fully within 3" of an Obstacle terrain piece (current rules, with the 'draw a line' distinction) or fully on or within area terrain gain a 4+ invulnerable save.

Core rule change 3: Dense, Light, Heavy, and Obscuring now all use the same rules for claiming cover, i.e. if LOS is drawn to the unit and no single model is fully exposed, then they get to claim the cover rule.

Dense: now a -1BS modifier, rather than -1 to hit. Just to skirt the cap.

Light: Still +1Sv, but now can be claimed by any models not just infantry/swarms/beasts

Heavy: Now either a 5+ wound shrug or a 'can only be wounded on a 4+' effect. Whatever one GW wants to make the most common on 'highly durable' units so that it can't stack with them and make super-durability-skewed units. Main purpose being: This is what you should try to park your tanks behind to avoid AT fire.

Defensible: INFANTRY SWARMS BEASTS only, gives them a Fight Last effect if wholly on or within and they get charged.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Ah, interesting.

That seems workable, but I do think it would skew the game even further towards elite infantry being king while vehicles/monsters would be mostly still going up like firecrackers.

But you know what I think would be workable, if we're talking about giving infantry/swarms/beasts their own specific/generic "They get an extra bonus if theyre actually in terrain" would be as another poster suggested, bringing back old-style "terrain = 4++ save" situation, and then just moving Light to "+1 save still, but now also using the Dense Cover claiming rules"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me hit you with this, a "keep the current keyword system" proposal:

Core rule change 1: My "if during any shooting attack a unit goes out of LOS, no further damage is done and no further saves have to be made" rule.

Let me rephrase it "During the wound assignment step, you cannot assign wounds to models that are not visible to the attacker. If a wound cannot be assigned, then it is not resolved".

Core rule change 2: any INFANTRY, SWARMS or BEASTS fully within 3" of an Obstacle terrain piece (current rules, with the 'draw a line' distinction) or fully on or within area terrain gain a 4+ invulnerable save.
We would fall again into the mistake that was the 6/7th edition cover rules. Too good for light infantry. Also, high damage/strenght/AP weapons should be Capable of nailing targets in cover. Invuln saves are IMO not the correct way to model a cover. I prefer save and AP modifiers.

Core rule change 3: Dense, Light, Heavy, and Obscuring now all use the same rules for claiming cover, i.e. if LOS is drawn to the unit and no single model is fully exposed, then they get to claim the cover rule.
Ok for light dense and heavy, but cannot work for obscuring. If you apply that to obscuring I can park a tank with a toe behind obscuring and he is obscured while perfectly capable of firing.

Dense: now a -1BS modifier, rather than -1 to hit. Just to skirt the cap.
I would prefer if the heavy/assault weapon penalties were actually modifers to BS. Same concept though.

Light: Still +1Sv, but now can be claimed by any models not just infantry/swarms/beasts

Heavy: Now either a 5+ wound shrug or a 'can only be wounded on a 4+' effect. Whatever one GW wants to make the most common on 'highly durable' units so that it can't stack with them and make super-durability-skewed units. Main purpose being: This is what you should try to park your tanks behind to avoid AT fire.
Agree

Defensible: INFANTRY SWARMS BEASTS only, gives them a Fight Last effect if wholly on or within and they get charged.
Fight last effects can be terribly abusive and unfun against some factions, I would like to avoid making them this common. Maybe a -1 to be hit in meele?

These proposed rules have fallen into the trap that GW gets into when it swings their balance pendulum.

The current rules are too complex and achieve very little, so let's reduce them to virtually nothing, make them simplistic, remove all vestiges of flavour/colour/variety in favour of super-streamlined and easier rules.

"Let me rephrase it "During the wound assignment step, you cannot assign wounds to models that are not visible to the attacker. If a wound cannot be assigned, then it is not resolved"."

I like that, that's good. The intent of the restriction is to prevent or at least make much less beneficial the practice of "Rhino sniping" - i.e., moving one of your own pieces to allow you to make only a heavy weapon or a sergeant visible.

In that instance, I want there to be the OPTION for the defending player to just keep removing models the attacker can't see, but also the option to just sacrifice the one model and waste the rest of the shooting attack, if they want. Put the cards in the hand of the defender, and I dont think that particular little stunt would have much teeth behind it.

"We would fall again into the mistake that was the 6/7th edition cover rules. Too good for light infantry. Also, high damage/strenght/AP weapons should be Capable of nailing targets in cover. Invuln saves are IMO not the correct way to model a cover. I prefer save and AP modifiers."

interesting. Personally, I see this as modeling 'hunkering down and hiding partially from view' and I think the natural weapon you should be reaching for to dislodge light infantry in hard cover is something explosive (would be a good rules lever to put in to make Blast more relevant, if it ignored that rule) or something like a flamethrower, or send in assault troops to clear out the building.

Most light infantry wouldnt actually be benefitting from this at all unless you threw AP at them, because recall the Sv bonus from Light is still in place and you've got a GEQ at a 4+sv anyway. what it would really do is allow you as an elite infantry player to have some counter to mass AP-2/AP-3 D2 weaponry (see Dissie Spam Meta) other than "dont be on the board."

"I would prefer if the heavy/assault weapon penalties were actually modifers to BS. Same concept though."

Por que no los dos? Both get the same result of decoupling baic on-the-board modifiers from the typical on demand modifiers like strats rules etc.

"Fight last effects can be terribly abusive and unfun against some factions, I would like to avoid making them this common. Maybe a -1 to be hit in meele?"

I hear this, I get this, I do just want to point out with the recent FAQ this would not *actually* put you on fight last, it would put you on fight normal, since you would be charging.

oh, what if scoring a hit with a grenade weapon on the unit before charging removed the Defensible rule? That would bring back a bit of the old 'youre at I1, no ive got frag grenades" bit.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Heavy: Now either a 5+ wound shrug or a 'can only be wounded on a 4+' effect. Whatever one GW wants to make the most common on 'highly durable' units so that it can't stack with them and make super-durability-skewed units. Main purpose being: This is what you should try to park your tanks behind to avoid AT fire.

If that's what you're going for, maybe -1 to wound? That way it doesn't stack with things like Transhuman Physiology, and would actually help T8 vehicles when S8 weapons are shot at them.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Heavy: Now either a 5+ wound shrug or a 'can only be wounded on a 4+' effect. Whatever one GW wants to make the most common on 'highly durable' units so that it can't stack with them and make super-durability-skewed units. Main purpose being: This is what you should try to park your tanks behind to avoid AT fire.

If that's what you're going for, maybe -1 to wound? That way it doesn't stack with things like Transhuman Physiology, and would actually help T8 vehicles when S8 weapons are shot at them.

Yeah, that's true... I do want to just go through with the group as a quick reminder what traits appear on what features though:

Ruins: Light, Defensible, Obscuring

Craters: Light

Armored Container: Light

Barricade/Fuel Pipe: Light, Heavy, Defensible

Woods: Dense

Ruined Walls: Dense, Defensible

Statuary: Light

Industrial Structure: Dense, Defensible

Debris: Nothing.

So the current weird thing is...Heavy Cover in the actual core rules appears only on one terrain type. Fuel Pipes/Barricades. Obscuring as well, only one terrain type which is why you see just ruins everywhere everything is ruins.

So I dont think we could just alter keywords without also altering which keywords appear on which terrain types by default. Here's my proposal for that:

Vegetation only giving Dense and nothing else defensive: Great.

Ruins: I'm actually going to say Heavy rather than Light. I think an intact ruin is what you want to park a vehicle or a heavy unit behind.

Craters: I'd actually remove Light. I think if we're adding a bonus for Infantry/Swarms/Beasts that get in cover, then that's perfect for craters to have that and Difficult and nothing else.

Defense Line/Pipes: This seems like textbook Light Cover to me. I'd take off Heavy and keep Light+Defensible.

Ruin Walls: I do like having an urban option to get Dense on the table, so I'd keep as-is. I think with buffed terrain traits we'd want to be SUPER careful about stacking two traits on any one type, and instead make the kind of shot where youre benefitting from dense AND light AND heavy to be one of those "shooting all the way across the board at a target you cant see well" scenarios

Statuary and I'd add "Rocks" to the description: I'm gonna say Heavy. I think this is a good way to get more Heavy in there. Park a big model behind a big rock or a statue and youd have good protection from antitank fire, whether we go with FNP or -1 to wound or Transhuman.

Industrial Structure: I think this one needs some kind of buff. I think Dense+Light, given how these are often HUGE terrain pieces and end up taking up a ton of real estate for relatively low game impact, since theyre not obscuring, and I'd remove Defensible. These things arent intended to be defensive structures like a barricade, and theyre open, youre not trying to climb in windows like a ruin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Heavy: Now either a 5+ wound shrug or a 'can only be wounded on a 4+' effect. Whatever one GW wants to make the most common on 'highly durable' units so that it can't stack with them and make super-durability-skewed units. Main purpose being: This is what you should try to park your tanks behind to avoid AT fire.

If that's what you're going for, maybe -1 to wound? That way it doesn't stack with things like Transhuman Physiology, and would actually help T8 vehicles when S8 weapons are shot at them.

Could do. I think any of the suggestions so far would work. End of the day, as you see in my post above: it just needs to exist, and be readily claimable, as it currently is neither.

On second thought your system is much simpler and I think the system might avoid arguments about what traits terrain should use, that's cool.

TITANIC units should probably all just have pseudo-FLY during movement to represent them running over or through any terrain. I don't understand how Knights can function on a GW table.

Partial Visibility Errata Suggestion
In order to target an enemy unit one of the following must be true:
*At least one model in that unit must be within range (i.e. within the distance of the Range characteristic) of the weapon being used and be wholly visible to the end of one of the barrels of the weapon being fired, meaning no parts of the model can be hidden behind terrain or other models
*At least one model must be partially visible to any part of the firing model and within more than 6" range (i.e. within 18" if the weapon's Range characteristic is 24" or 30" if the weapon's Range characteristic is 36").

For the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its unit and the target unit.

This would make range, terrain and body-blocking more important and would make getting vision with every gun on a tank more important. This is more of a thought experiment, I don't think the core rules need changing at the moment.

 vict0988 wrote:
On second thought your system is much simpler and I think the system might avoid arguments about what traits terrain should use, that's cool.

TITANIC units should probably all just have pseudo-FLY during movement to represent them running over or through any terrain. I don't understand how Knights can function on a GW table.

Partial Visibility Errata Suggestion
In order to target an enemy unit one of the following must be true:
*At least one model in that unit must be within range (i.e. within the distance of the Range characteristic) of the weapon being used and be wholly visible to the end of one of the barrels of the weapon being fired, meaning no parts of the model can be hidden behind terrain or other models
*At least one model must be partially visible to any part of the firing model and within more than 6" range (i.e. within 18" if the weapon's Range characteristic is 24" or 30" if the weapon's Range characteristic is 36").

For the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its unit and the target unit.

This would make range, terrain and body-blocking more important and would make getting vision with every gun on a tank more important. This is more of a thought experiment, I don't think the core rules need changing at the moment.

Interesting. If I'm understanding rule intent correctly - the last 6" of your weapon range you need full visibility to a target model, and can't target a unit if at least one model isnt fully visible?

The only problem I'd have with sight being based on the tip of weapon barrels is that people would naturally be poking weapon barrels out around corners, but I do think it's an improvement over the break in versimilitude that is a model shooting from its foot or a tank tread.

I wonder if "the rough center of mass" of a model would make the most sense for determining a single targeting point with a range as varied as 40k. If you use "the top" then you have the banner/antenna problem we have right now. If you put it up to argument between the players, then you've got complaints about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
These proposed rules have fallen into the trap that GW gets into when it swings their balance pendulum.

The current rules are too complex and achieve very little, so let's reduce them to virtually nothing, make them simplistic, remove all vestiges of flavour/colour/variety in favour of super-streamlined and easier rules.

It has been my near-universal experience across 5 editions of 40k that players most often want a cover system that is impactful, quick, easy to implement and universal. "Everything is X" has been a common refrain across every edition i've played.

The rules proposed here do not remove variety as very little variety exists now. Different terrain pieces are named differently, but the bonuses from them are both highly similar to one another and very difficult to actually make impact your game.

You can see in comments below, I'm not married to abandoning the keyword system, it could be altered into something more usable/impactful by buffing various keywords and the various rules used to claim cover and then reorganizing which terrain traits go on which terrain types. You could even keep the keyword system and design it for Narrative play, while also adding a universal, simplified and standardized system for Matched and Open play that allows for quick access and standardized setups.

For example: in Matched play, maybe Large terrain features are simply any terrain feature over 4" tall, and in Open play maybe it's '2x the height of the target model' as originally proposed, since in matched you have more concerns about modeling for advantage and tournament organizers want to create these instantly understandable standardized setups.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Heavy: Now either a 5+ wound shrug or a 'can only be wounded on a 4+' effect. Whatever one GW wants to make the most common on 'highly durable' units so that it can't stack with them and make super-durability-skewed units. Main purpose being: This is what you should try to park your tanks behind to avoid AT fire.

If that's what you're going for, maybe -1 to wound? That way it doesn't stack with things like Transhuman Physiology, and would actually help T8 vehicles when S8 weapons are shot at them.

Could do. I think any of the suggestions so far would work. End of the day, as you see in my post above: it just needs to exist, and be readily claimable, as it currently is neither.

Agreed. Limiting vehicles to only Obscuring and Dense Cover, and then imposing the cap on modifiers to hit, was a bad move for vehicles. "Hey, that tank is hiding behind those trees! Go ahead and move that lascannon team into the best possible position for the shot! It'll all even out. What? It's deploying smoke as well? That won't make any difference. Just aim for the smoke guys!".

vict0988 wrote:TITANIC units should probably all just have pseudo-FLY during movement to represent them running over or through any terrain. I don't understand how Knights can function on a GW table.

Could you explain what you mean by "pseudo-FLY"?

probably just 'can move over terrain pieces as though they aren't there.'

Honestly, the whole 'why can my gretchin move through this crumbling ruin but my tank/giant armored motorcycle can't' was the whole reason why I initially proposed "anybody can move through terrain if they need to but they halve their move or charge roll result if they do so"

Everybody can ignore terrain features below 1" in height already (a basic rule I actually did not know about which does actually solve quite a few problems) but terrain is still quite a strange impediment for vehicles. a small barricade is basically impossible for a huge tank to cross.

Pseudo-FLY is just FLY but you cannot land on top of buildings with it. The problem with the 1" thing is that it doesn't stop 1,5" barricade from being impassable to my 8" Monolith, 3" to get up and down and I'm 6" long so I cannot get over it without advancing. I only use .99" barricades in my games for this reason, you even subtract an additional 2" for going over them, it's completely insane. If you could place them outside your DZ they'd be insane for defensive armies.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Interesting. If I'm understanding rule intent correctly - the last 6" of your weapon range you need full visibility to a target model, and can't target a unit if at least one model isnt fully visible?

Yes, that was the intent, I tried to come up with better wording but I ended up just cheating by giving two examples and letting people figure it out by themselves instead of writing something that actually makes sense.

 vict0988 wrote:
Pseudo-FLY is just FLY but you cannot land on top of buildings with it. The problem with the 1" thing is that it doesn't stop 1,5" barricade from being impassable to my 8" Monolith, 3" to get up and down and I'm 6" long so I cannot get over it without advancing. I only use .99" barricades in my games for this reason, you even subtract an additional 2" for going over them, it's completely insane. If you could place them outside your DZ they'd be insane for defensive armies.

Yeah, I know the feeling. As I previously mentioned, my Fellblade moves 10" and is 8 1/2 long, so those 1.5 barriers stop it as well. That's why I proposed that TITANIC units should be able to ignore any terrain of 3" or less instead of the normal 1". I'm not sure about letting TITANIC units just move over everything. That could be a bit much. And it would devalue the TITANIC units that actually have FLY, like the big Eldar grav tanks. Ignoring a 3" barrier sounds okay, but entire buildings might be too much.

So, I ran my first test of the 'unified system' yesterday. We did

1) you cant kill what you cant see, also cover kicks in mid-resolution of shooting attack if needed

2) Large Terrain = double the height of a normal model in the target unit

3) Wholly On/In Terrain = Fight Last if you charge into melee

my opponent was my buddy with an unexpectedly competitive Admech list (meaning, he was building it well before the 'dex came out, so it's quite powerful but not FULLY optimized because he didnt actually know what would be super strong before the book dropped) and I took basically just the toughest possible list I could come up with mixing Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons.

I had: unkillable big bird, 20x Pinks with a banner and roughly 150 points for splitting horrors, Changeling, 5x flamers, exalted flamer, then a cult of time detachment with exalted sorceror on disk with chatterfowl, 2x5 rubrics in a rhino, 5x scarabs, heldrake, las-defiler.

He had: 2x10 vanguard, 2x marshals, 10x ruststalkers, 5x infiltrators, 1x5 and 1x10 rangers, manipulus, 2x Onagers, 2x3 breachers, stratoraptor, 5x ranger cavalry, 5x sterylyzors, and 3x balistarii (1 las 2 autocannon)

Amazingly...it was a great game. Overly complicated? Yes, anything involving the admech's current rules is gonna be. But even just adding the 'you cant kill what you cant see' and +1sv cover being available to all unit types and using the same claiming rules as Dense worked wonders when it came to unit longevity. Game turned out to be an amazingly close 73-73 tie (GT pack) with about 500pts left on the board for me and 700pts left for him at the end of turn 5 (though I didnt bother with shooting any of his stuff bottom of turn 5, as there was no way to score any points by doing so and we were pressed for time)

If it's helpful (you tell me!), I'll note a few of the things we're doing in ProHammer that I'd be curious to see how it ports over to an improved cover/shooting process for 9th edition.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Defined model "Body" or "Hull"
We define a figurine model's "body" as the head, torso (including any pack packs or jump packs), legs, and arms. The following do not count towards providing LoS: hands, feet, weapons, claws, wings, banners, spiky bits, fins, tentacles, and other smaller appendages don't count. For vehicles, the "hull" is the primary shell enclosure of the vehicle. And so protrusions outside of the hull (e.g. fins, banners, weapon barrels, exhaust pipes, etc.) don't count either.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Defined "Point of View" for drawing Line of Sight
Point of view is drawn from the "head" (or approximately equivalent) of a shooting figurine model. For vehicles, PoV is drawn from the pivot point / mounting location of a weapon and may be subject to firing arc restrictions. Obviously the latter part doesn't apply to 9th normally.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Defined "Targetable Area" of models
This is essentially the "body" or "hull" (as defined above) of a model that is visible to a shooting model from their point of view.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Determined how Line of Sight is blocked or obscured

Dense Cover (aka Area Terrain with a base): Dense cover blocks any Line of Sight that extends more than 6" from the edge of the area terrain, up to the height of the tallest primary feature of the terrain piece. Models within 6" from edge of area terrain may be shot or shoot out. Models being shot when in area terrain count as being obscured and receives a cover save. Models can shoot out of area terrain without impact, so long as the target is outside of the same area terrain.

Intervening Terrain: These are non-dense terrain features such as walls, barricades, craters, ruined city walls (that aren't part of larger area terrain features, etc.). A model counts as obscured if any part of its targetable area is blocked relative to the point of view of any model in the firing unit shooting at it.

Intervening Models: Ignore models in own unit. Vehicles (friend or foe) are treated as an intervening terrain obstacle. Other enemy figurine units may screen a unit behind them if all of a shooting unit's potential lines of sight must pass through or between gaps in bases of the the non-targeted unit in front.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Effect of being obscured

Obviously, classic 40k uses a cover save system that's different from 8th/9th edition. Hard cover provides a 4+ save, soft cover a 5+, Bunkers a 3+, and very light cover a 6+. This could translate to +1 or +2 to armor saves for 8th / 9th, or manifest as a to-hit modifier depending.

For screening, we have it currently setup in ProHammer that for each successul hit on a screened unit, you roll a D6. On a 4+ you hit the intended target, otherwise it hits the screening unit. This could be translated into a cover save alternatively.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Resolving Shooting Attacks

ProHammer is designed so that all of the shooting attacks from one unit against another unit MUST be fast-rolled, even if there are different weapon profiles, attacks, mixed target toughness or armor or cover save conditions, etc. It's really robust and works like this:

(1) Determine which models can shoot. Each model must be in range and within Line of Sight of at least one target model in order to shoot.

(2) Determine "hittable" models in the target unit. To be hittable it must be in range and in LoS of at least one shooting enemy model.

(3) Assemble dice corresponding to all shooting attacks from the attacking unit that target a given enemy unit. Roll to hit for all of these in one roll. Note: ProHammer doesn't have hit modifiers, but this would need to be factored into the roll for 8th/9th)

(4) Roll to wound for all hits using the strength of each weapon vs. the MAJORITY toughness in the target unit.

(5) Allocate wounds. Wounds are allocated as evenly as possible by the defender to hittable models in their unit.

(6) Determine and roll saving throws. Wound dice are rolled based on how the wounds were are assigned, in order to determine a number of "unsaved wounds" the unit suffers. Models that are obscured with respect to any shooting models can claim a cover save (even if the exact wound it was allocated was from a position that might not have granted a save). Roll all the saving throws.

(7) Apply wounds and remove casualties. This is really key!!![i] Once a total number of unsaved wounds is determined, the defender applies those wounds to ANY model in the target unit, regardless of what save it might have taken or whether it was a hittable target it or not. The following caveats apply: (A) Unsaved wounds must be applied sequentially to already wounded models first (for those with more than 1 wound). (B) The defender is never forced to apply wounds to non-hittable models. So if all hittable models are removed as a casualty and excess unsaved wounds remain, those may be ignored. Conversely, a defender may choose to apply an unsaved wound to a non-hittable model in order to keep a hittable model alive on the board.

This has been working out super well. It's clean, it's easy.

I'm a bit confused about one point.

What does step 5 do, exactly?

Because it sounds like what youre going for is "allocate wounds to models, then roll saves for the models that got wounds and remove the ones that fail their saves" but then afterwards in step 6 it seems more like youre just going for a 9e-style 'roll saves and then defender removes the models he wants to remove"

im also not a huge fan of:

1) dense cover requiring a base, and the 'must be 6" thick' restriction, since most terrain pieces are not actually that deep and in most cases this just results in a Dense Cover rule that is not particularly functional. Also, some big ruin buildings do not have bases. A lot of them actually.

2) theres a whole lot here that works great between two people 'on the same page' (which is the case for a lot of classic 40k rules I know) but isnt as clearly defined as in other rule systems.

For example - how do I know what is very light, soft, hard, or a bunker? What kind of terrain obstacle is an intervening model? Is a guardsman considered "soft" while a space marine is considered 'Hard"?

Basically any system is going to work well between people who are both 'being reasonable' and basically granting the benefit of the doubt to their opponent WRT claiming cover and such. I also prefer a modifier system to a flat cover save system due to the somewhat strange interactions it forces - i.e. how it is far more important for a monster to seek out cover saves vs anti-tank weapons than it is for a soldier to seek cover vs basic anti-infantry weaponry.

Let me see if I can clarify.... and in ProHammer itself this is all spelled out in more detail.

Step 5 lets you allocate wounds for purposes of determining what saving throw to use. This means that units with mixed armor saves, or where some models are in cover and others aren't, or where some weapons penetrate armor and others don't, etc... you have a one-step way to roll saving throws proportionally based on the different types of saves. You don't end up in situations where you're one model short of the squad counting as being in cover, or where you're compelled to roll single attacks, one at a time, to maximize/force better saves, etc. You just roll everything all at once.

When it comes to removing wounds, it IS exactly what you describe. Essentially, the rolling for saves and "what models actually take the wound" are separated. Yes - this does mean that if, for example, you got shot with a single lascannon, you could have one model that happened to have an invulnerable save take the save, fail the save, but then remove a different model. We LIKE this because it's a major tool for reducing lethality. It's logically counter-intuitive, but it could represent all sorts of battlefield things (the hero with ++ save jumping in front to take the shot, but it deflecting off the shield and hitting another model, etc.).

(1) Area terrain/dense cover does not NEED to be 6" thick, it can be skinnier than that. It's just that it automatically blocks line of sight anywhere that it is MORE than 6" thick. As for bases, if players setup ruins or whatever and want to say the area between them is part of the dense terrain, even if there's no physical base, that's fine. Even if there is no base, it would still count as intervening cover and grant a cover save.

A point I may have missed here is that with area terrain you do still need to be able to draw some valid LoS to the target to shoot at it and/or for determining hittable models. If you have a section of dense cover that's ruins, and there is a section of solid opaque wall with models behind it, if those models can't be seen at all, even if within 6" of the edge they aren't a hittable model. But the models in front of the wall but still within the area of dense terrain, they'd get a cover save even if not physically obscured by a part of the terrain.

(2) We define what level of cover different terrain provides when selecting terrain pieces before we've rolled for the mission. Typically that means vegetation is a 5+, ruins/light buildings a 4+, bunkers a 3+, etc. We then define whether a group of terrain constitutes area terrain or not and what features within it are LoS blocking.

Intervening models are as I described above, but I didn't lay out all the detail. Intervening vehicles count as hard cover (provides a 4+ cover save to the target). Intervening friendly figurine (aka non-vehicle) models are ignored for LoS purposes (it's assumed the shots are taken around / before the friendly unit moves into place). Intervening enemy figurine units may trigger a "screen" if they block all lines of sight to the target model. After rolling to hit a screened unit, for each hit you roll a D6, and on a 1-3 the shot hits the screening unit.

I think the ProHammer system could be adapted to the 8th/9th style modifier system. Although I'm not sure where modifiers are best applied. Should cover represent difficult of being HIT or actually provide PROTECTION? Both? As it is, the 9th edition rules are too prone to inconsistency in how the terrain "traits" are applied. It's messy. Their examples on page 264 and 265 are awful. It's needlessly complex and fiddly IMHO.

As a general nerf to lethality for 9th, I'd say that any sort of intervening or area terrain should count as "dense cover" in the 9th ed language and confer a -1 to hit. From there, I would say "soft cover" always gives +1 to your armor save. Hard cover gives a +1 to your armor save AND reduces the AP value of a weapon by 1. Something like that. The modifying AP notion could be used with fortifications and such to provide higher levels of AP reduction, while still not granting the model some overly high net armor save.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
FWIW - I do prefer the old armor OR cover save method combined with the AP system. I think it makes for more interesting thresholds in decision making, as opposed to a modifier system where it's always beneficial to be in cover. I LIKE that Power Armor works at full efficiency (3+ save) against the majority of small arms fire, meaning that marines don't need to be hugging cover, unless of course they are facing weapons that simply penetrate their armor outright.

The old cover and armor save system helps reduce lethality too.

Ideally you would have a concrete building have concealment (how much it is obscuring the forces within it represented by a “to hit modifier” and then you would have the building itself as a destroyable target with X amount of wounds with a toughness/save value.

For example you have guardsmen hiding 100% behind a concrete building. The building has 10 wounds toughness 5 with a 3+ save. So in order to shoot through the concrete and kill the guardsmen you would need to have have shots that wound the concrete and defeat its armor by having AP2 which would outright ignore it. Once causing 10 wounds. The concrete wall would be considered totally destroyed and offer no “to hit” modifier or require any walls to be defeated. So you’d need “to hit” with a -2 and also need to defeat the concrete armor value with high AP weapons or to simple blast 10 wounds out of the wall with volume of fire from lesser weapons.

So a lasgun would be impossible to penetrate the wall and also injure the guardsman because it’s AP5 does not defeat the wall outright. But a massive volume of them would eventually cause 10 wounds to the wall and blast the cover apart. High AP weapons like maybe an auto cannon would penetrate the wall but then the guardsmen would get a -2 to hit and a +2 to save or something according to the weapon being used and the level of armor protection.

This would mean infantry could become very difficult to dislodge from certain types of cover. Then you would be incentivized to use assault troops which would have abilities for storming these types of buildings with flame throwers and grenades and blast weapons. Imagine a flamethrower auto hitting every target inside a room with bonus damage to troops in nonenclosed armor. Or a fragmentation missile flying into a window an auto hitting everyone inside because the blast is magnified and contained inside an enclosed space.

There could also be weapons specifically designed for destroying terrain. Earth shaker artillery would get bonuses for blowing up buildings. Bonuses to the damage they do to buildings. The terrain should very much influence the strategy and army list. As time goes on more and more of our warfare becomes dependent on taking snd holding city areas that are built up. Or even underground areas.