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.

First a question... Does area terrain affect line of sight to units either in it or behind it? I know it confers a 5+ cover save to units in it, but does it give units behind it a 5+ as well?

Now for how I think the rule SHOULD be.... My friends and I often end up debating on whether or not a unit in area terrain can see out of it in order to shoot. Similarly, can units see into area terrain to shoot at a unit there? It seems to me, that the rules should be further defined to describe the difficulty a unit would have seeing out of a forest if they are not close to the edge of it. The new rule might require firing models to be within 3" of the edge of area terrain (depending on the type) in order to fire out of it. I realize this is something we could resolve by developing house rules amongst ourselves but I'd like to see this rule represented in a more realistic way in the rulebook.

All models less than 75% obscured from the line of sight of the unit shooting may be shot at, models more than 75% onscured are too hard to spot and therefor ignored. Everyone else get the 5+ save, representing them diving into the floor to avoid getting shot because they were in the open.

The rule you propose is pretty decent, actually - It's just really time consuming the use. Think about how you need to look at each specific model to see who can and cannot be hit, it would be a nightmare! Regardless, it would make sense - If models are too far into, say, a wood, most opponents wouldn't want to waste shot into terrain, and especially not if said weapon is some heavy duty anti-tank. It would help many units against big guns too (SCREW YOU, BATTLE CANNON). Keep in mind that a lot of terrain rules in 40K are really, really sketchy, and as such some terrain will be very tough to use like this. What about Ruins, then? Does height do any difference? What if you are hiding something like a Wraithknight behind a forest barely scratching its crotch?

Still decent rule though, and if I recall right Warmahordes has a similar rule aswell and it helps stalkers and lightly armoured units to survive in that game, so go nuts.

The problem with turning area terrain (like trees) into LOS blocking terrain is that most area terrain shouldn't block LOS. A "forest" on a 40k table isn't vast distances of trees, it's this:

All models less than 75% obscured from the line of sight of the unit shooting may be shot at, models more than 75% obscured are too hard to spot and therefor ignored.

It's the 75% obscured part that I have a problem with. How do you determine what is 75% obscured on a piece of ill-defined swamp, bush, or forest? Especially with models of varying size and height as you mentioned with the Wraithknight .

But I guess Peregrine's comment solves that problem. The picture is comically descriptive and quite useful in deciding this question. I suppose we should just assume that all area terrain is sparsely covered with vegetation and units in it (or hiding behind it) can easily be seen. The only benefit of it is the 5+ save.

Though, I still think the rules should be amended to account for what might happen in dense area terrain.

Of course if you planted a few pine trees, shrubs or similar there, you may not be able to see anything on the other side. Fill the area with tall grass like you find in the tropics and you'll see nothing on the other side either.

Or, you could just use true line of sight, instead of trying to convince opponents to buy into the completley abstracted system this would inevitably become. If my guy can see over the wall, he can shoot. If your guy can see my guy, i can get shot. *Queue Jim Gaffigan's 1920's mobster impersonation,* "It's so simple..."

Can't we all just agree that the Cover Rules are rather stupid right now? I'd just like some sort of Hard Cover/Soft Cover rule and then let that decide on it instead of having to look at each specific model and how much you can see it.

I go over two things on cover/LoS with my opponent before each game. It generally goes something like this and takes 30 seconds:

Woods are 5+ area terrain, Ruins 4+, any infantry model touching a toe in gets cover, right? How about we give the same area cover to vehicles, but requires 25% of the model to be in it, good? Is cover convery to a unit not in the woods but behind it? Do they block line of sight after 3" 6" ever?

Next,I also confirm how high a hill is to skip TLoS BS. The hill is tall enough to block LoS to a Rhino, agreed? how about to a dreadnught? No, ok so a dread naught can be seen from behind and shoot over a hill. With a further clarification that two levels blocks everything. This is excepted if there are extra tall models like a NDK/WK/Riptide/Titan of course. This can take a bit longer as you see people mentally calculating what they gain and lose from models that are just a bit taller than the rather small hills we use vs what the other guy has. Anything other than a 25mm/40mm base gets a quick confirmation... Oh you want him to be able to see, how about the rhino top mounted storm bolter/pintle guys who are they same height popping out the top hatch, so they can they see too to fire plasma/plasma cannon too then, right? Oh, skip both my rhino and your dread? OK...

If we get the terrain box with a river I also clarify if it is difficult, dangerous, both, to vehicles too and how big a vehicle can actually fit on the bridge.

I go over two things on cover/LoS with my opponent before each game. It generally goes something like this and takes 30 seconds:

But wouldn't it be great if the rules were specific enough that you would not have to go over anything? LoS is so central to the game that the rules need to be easily and widely understood. We should not have to go over them with every new opponent just to make sure we are on the same page.

True line of sight could be a good way to do it but I find that it invites just as many arguments. Particularly when area terrain is involved. Area terrain is not accurately represented on the board. It can't be. The level of complexity required to make a truly realistic swamp or forest cannot be attained on the gaming table. Therefore, true line of sight is a flawed idea from the start.

To me, the rules need to say either, area terrain does not block line of sight (for simplicity's sake), or it does. If it does block line of sight, there has to be some more specific rules regarding the depth and density of the terrain to standardize how it is played for everyone.

 Powerfisting wrote:
Or, you could just use true line of sight, instead of trying to convince opponents to buy into the completley abstracted system this would inevitably become. If my guy can see over the wall, he can shoot. If your guy can see my guy, i can get shot. *Queue Jim Gaffigan's 1920's mobster impersonation,* "It's so simple..."

That's how it is now and it's terrible.

Meanwhile Warmachine uses a completely abstract system and it is hailed as the best competitive wargame.

The funny part is that Warmachine copy/pasted its terrain rules wholesale from 40k 4th edition.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:
Or, you could just use true line of sight, instead of trying to convince opponents to buy into the completley abstracted system this would inevitably become. If my guy can see over the wall, he can shoot. If your guy can see my guy, i can get shot. *Queue Jim Gaffigan's 1920's mobster impersonation,* "It's so simple..."

That's how it is now and it's terrible.

Meanwhile Warmachine uses a completely abstract system and it is hailed as the best competitive wargame.

The funny part is that Warmachine copy/pasted its terrain rules wholesale from 40k 4th edition.

It does? Did they have a system for Hard and Soft Cover and the "if within 1'' of some cover, you gain the cover bonus" rule? Why would they remove that then I wonder...

@The Wise Dane.
GW plc changed the rules to the awful 'true line of sight ' (the GW version) , simply to sell over priced laser pointers.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:
Or, you could just use true line of sight, instead of trying to convince opponents to buy into the completley abstracted system this would inevitably become. If my guy can see over the wall, he can shoot. If your guy can see my guy, i can get shot. *Queue Jim Gaffigan's 1920's mobster impersonation,* "It's so simple..."

That's how it is now and it's terrible.

Meanwhile Warmachine uses a completely abstract system and it is hailed as the best competitive wargame.

The funny part is that Warmachine copy/pasted its terrain rules wholesale from 40k 4th edition.

Somewhat off-topic. 4th ed terrain rules were absolutely perfect and, like the rest of the book, probably the best balance I've encountered. I don't get why they had to change to this TLOS / measure from the gun-barrel gak.

Lanrak wrote:
@The Wise Dane.
GW plc changed the rules to the awful 'true line of sight ' (the GW version) , simply to sell over priced laser pointers.

Heh. I'd love if they had some kind of rules like the Heralds of Ruin Kill Team terrain rules... Those work very well I´d say.

Actual true line of sight works fine with games where all terrain is in scale with the minatures.
But as 40k has about 15 to 1 ratio between the vertical and horizontal scale, you HAVE to acknowledge the abstraction in the game.

Here is my quick attempt at terrain rules ...

There are two types of terrain;-
Area terrain which is NOT to scale, but just represents the area the type of terrain occupies.(Eg a wood.)

Models within X" of the edge of area terrain can be seen , and see out of it.But the models in the area terrain can claim cover from it.
Models further inside the area terrain than X" can not be seen , and can not see out of the area terrain .
Models inside area terrain further than x" apart can not see each other .

Obstacles, which are in scale and represent the actual feature in the same scale as the minatures.(Eg a wall/vehicle.)

If the obstacle is large enough for the model to hide in/behind,(Including models kneeling down if they are able .) The model may chose to hide and not make any attacks .Or may choose to make attacks ,(if there is suitable firing positions,) and claim cover from the obstacle.

As vehicles can not kneel or lay down, any terrain feature that obscures at least 1/4 of the model from view, will let the vehicle claim cover.

if every other war game I play can explain the interaction of models and terrain without any issues.Why does GW manage to completely mess up something so easy to get right?

Oh yeah, to sell laser pointers...

In 5-6 we used some old variant of woods area terrain. If there's at least 3' of woods on the bullet's way, you get cover. If not, well, you should have done the hiding better. It eliminated such annoying situations like:



Luckily, true los and lack of area terrain resolves this issues. It's not perfect though. But the current system is at very least easy to understand.

 koooaei wrote:
In 5-6 we used some old variant of woods area terrain. If there's at least 3' of woods on the bullet's way, you get cover. If not, well, you should have done the hiding better. It eliminated such annoying situations like:

Spoiler:

Luckily, true los and lack of area terrain resolves this issues. It's not perfect though. But the current system is at very least easy to understand.

I fething loath that. My first game EVER was against an Eldar Player in a 500 pt game who played with a full squad of Guardians and a Warlock standing in front of a ruin, because the base extended about two centimeters out. I was trying to have fun, and that, along with the Warp Spiders and the Dire Avengers with twinlinked on them wasn't too fun to a young me.

Lanrak wrote:


Models within X" of the edge of area terrain can be seen , and see out of it.But the models in the area terrain can claim cover from it.
Models further inside the area terrain than X" can not be seen , and can not see out of the area terrain .
Models inside area terrain further than x" apart can not see each other .

I like this arrangement. This might seem self explanatory but I would add:
If units are on either side of area terrain (not standing in it) they can see each other if the terrain is less than X" in width.

X should probably be somewhere around 3" to 6" but that is debatable. At that point you could even set values for the density of the terrain. 3" for very dense terrain, 6" for sparsely covered terrain, etc.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Somewhat off-topic. 4th ed terrain rules were absolutely perfect and, like the rest of the book, probably the best balance I've encountered. I don't get why they had to change to this TLOS / measure from the gun-barrel gak.

I remember really liking 4th edition's terrain rules.

But then, I prefer abstract LoS in general. TLoS just has so many annoyances - including characters who apparently strike an overly-dramatic pose, then glide around the battlefield on rocket skates (since they apparently never alter that pose).

 vipoid wrote:

But then, I prefer abstract LoS in general. TLoS just has so many annoyances - including characters who apparently strike an overly-dramatic pose, then glide around the battlefield on rocket skates (since they apparently never alter that pose).

You people with your bare plastic or minimally customized and painted minis ruin the hobby. My troops have 34 points of articulation. It's hiding the servos that get them to march in formation that's the kicker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qEx2LQY_1W0

@BigRed76.
Exactly .
As it is impossible to model area terrain to accurate scale in 40k.Then just listing how far you can see through the area terrain is a simple way to show its effects in game.
And as you say the density of the terrain can be varied too.

Only GW seems to have problems writing rules to cover simple basic war game interaction, with the clarity and brevity other games have!
Probably because other games have rules written focusing on game play not short term sales pitches....

Lanrak wrote:
@BigRed76.
Exactly .
As it is impossible to model area terrain to accurate scale in 40k.Then just listing how far you can see through the area terrain is a simple way to show its effects in game.
And as you say the density of the terrain can be varied too.

Two different colors of felt gives you light woods (see through) and dense woods (blocks LoS if not in contact) on the cheap. Or construction paper if you are playing super ghetto budget with pogs or something. Use a darker wash of green on the nicer stuff if needed and you dojn't even need to measure 3" (or whatever house rule you use to block LoS on vertically challenged tables.