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.

 d-usa wrote:
It can shoot with everything, it can be shot by everything.

Simple stuff really.

Not actually the point I was making. I don't deny or debate that it's not a target.

What I'm getting at is that, by that ruling, this vehicle isn't obscured. It is neither in nor on the terrain. It is behind it. It counts as unobscured.

 d-usa wrote:
It can shoot with everything, it can be shot by everything.

Simple stuff really.

But it's 50% obscured so it's in cover since it's a vehicle.

Nope. That's a 7th rule. No standard 50% cover rule exists in 8th.

So...

Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).

...does this mean infantry units screening MCs are an option again, providing it's touching a terrain feature? You could quite easily obscure 50% of a Carnifex with a few Gargoyles.

 d-usa wrote:
It can shoot with everything, it can be shot by everything.

Simple stuff really.

Simple is one word for it, yes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It can shoot with everything, it can be shot by everything.

Simple stuff really.

Not actually the point I was making. I don't deny or debate that it's not a target.

What I'm getting at is that, by that ruling, this vehicle isn't obscured. It is neither in nor on the terrain. It is behind it. It counts as unobscured.

It's not obscured because there is no rule that anything should obscure it.

It's not even a ruling, it's a rule that never existed to begin with.

The only rule about cover that every existed in 8th is:

- If you are inside of terrain, you get cover.
- If you are big and inside of terrain, you get cover if the terrain is big enough to actually meaningfully cover you.

Anything other than that was rules from old editions that people had in their head.

We can argue about if those rules are silly, and I would argue that they make sense when we realize that 40K isn't (and IMO never should have been) a complex battlefield simulation or complex wargame. It's the "beer and pretzel" dice rolling game that GW has always claimed it to be.

What you need to do if put that big rock on a large base that the tank can sit on so it's technically 'in' the terrain as defined by the base

THEN you can get cover from being 50% obscured

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
What you need to do if put that big rock on a large base that the tank can sit on so it's technically 'in' the terrain as defined by the base

THEN you can get cover from being 50% obscured

You can even agree to handle this like they instruct to handle forests without bases: just agree that the 'base' of the terrain is an area covering X inches from it.

Or place a couple ruined walls on a terrain to be a big ruin.

They tried so hard to make a standardized rule set then wrote a rule that says the tank in cover may not be in cover because it is not on the terrain. I personally feel like if its obscured and in the vicinity of the terrain obscuring it it should get the buff to its save. But I did not write the new edition rules. I just dont like how its shifted to pretty much LOS blocking terrain or it may as well be nothing…

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So just being behind the terrain isn't enough?

Going back to my big rock example from the LOS debacle, is this Baneblade in cover?

No cover and can shoot you with everything. I love 8th except the terrain rules.....the terrain rules are super abstract right up until true LOS, when they get quite concrete.

Maybe they intentionally made it really hard to get cover, escpecially for non-infantry, as a balancing factor.
Or it was only done for simplification. Who knows.

I'm willing to do some games with RAW cover before deciding on house rules.

How is this the first FAQ? Didn't Dakka say there was already a FAQ last week? So shouldn't this be the second FAQ in the title?

Davor wrote:
How is this the first FAQ? Didn't Dakka say there was already a FAQ last week? So shouldn't this be the second FAQ in the title?

That first one was actually labelled as "Designers' Notes" not FAQ, so this is technically the first FAQ.

 Battlesong wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So just being behind the terrain isn't enough?

Going back to my big rock example from the LOS debacle, is this Baneblade in cover?

No cover and can shoot you with everything. I love 8th except the terrain rules.....the terrain rules are super abstract right up until true LOS, when they get quite concrete.

I've been pretty vocal about how much I like the edition so far but I will concede that the cover system needs some work. It's pretty glaring in the face of an otherwise super fun game.

The cover system works just fine once people stop treating this as 7.5th Edition and treat it as 8th Edition.

Cover is a terrain feature, not a line-of-sight feature.

If you are inside the terrain, you are interacting with the rules of the terrain. If you are not inside the terrain, the rules of the terrain don't apply to you.

You don't get a modifier because something can or cannot see you. Line-of-sight only determines if you can get shot, and has nothing to do with cover. You get a modifier because you are inside a physical piece of terrain, not next to it or behind it, but inside of it. You cannot get the benefit of being inside of the terrain if you are behind the terrain, and there has never been a "the rules for terrain affect anything inside of the terrain, as well as any big model anywhere else on the table as long as the piece of terrain crosses the line-of-sight that exists between two models that are not inside the terrain."

And that's really what it boils down to, the tl;dr of this whole issue is this:

GW: If a model is inside a piece of terrain, X happens.
Players: So if model A is not inside the piece of terrain and shoots at model B which is not inside the piece of terrain, X still happens because the piece of terrain is between the two right?
GW: No.
Players: That's stupid.

 d-usa wrote:
The cover system works just fine once people stop treating this as 7.5th Edition and treat it as 8th Edition.

Cover is a terrain feature, not a line-of-sight feature.

If you are inside the terrain, you are interacting with the rules of the terrain. If you are not inside the terrain, the rules of the terrain don't apply to you.

You don't get a modifier because something can or cannot see you. Line-of-sight only determines if you can get shot, and has nothing to do with cover. You get a modifier because you are inside a physical piece of terrain, not next to it or behind it, but inside of it. You cannot get the benefit of being inside of the terrain if you are behind the terrain, and there has never been a "the rules for terrain affect anything inside of the terrain, as well as any big model anywhere else on the table as long as the piece of terrain crosses the line-of-sight that exists between two models that are not inside the terrain."

And that's really what it boils down to, the tl;dr of this whole issue is this:

GW: If a model is inside a piece of terrain, X happens.
Players: So if model A is not inside the piece of terrain and shoots at model B which is not inside the piece of terrain, X still happens because the piece of terrain is between the two right?
GW: No.
Players: That's stupid.

It is stupid. I am not arguing how it works, I fully understand how it works; it doesn't mean I have to like it and the people I play with are house ruling it differently to make it make sense. We were hoping with the FAQ that GW would come to their senses, but we see they didn't. Rulings like this are why the ability to house rule exist. Whether it "works fine" is a really subjective thing. It works the way GW ruled it, but using the term "fine" doesn't ring with me and apparently I'm not alone.

 Battlesong wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The cover system works just fine once people stop treating this as 7.5th Edition and treat it as 8th Edition.

Cover is a terrain feature, not a line-of-sight feature.

If you are inside the terrain, you are interacting with the rules of the terrain. If you are not inside the terrain, the rules of the terrain don't apply to you.

You don't get a modifier because something can or cannot see you. Line-of-sight only determines if you can get shot, and has nothing to do with cover. You get a modifier because you are inside a physical piece of terrain, not next to it or behind it, but inside of it. You cannot get the benefit of being inside of the terrain if you are behind the terrain, and there has never been a "the rules for terrain affect anything inside of the terrain, as well as any big model anywhere else on the table as long as the piece of terrain crosses the line-of-sight that exists between two models that are not inside the terrain."

And that's really what it boils down to, the tl;dr of this whole issue is this:

GW: If a model is inside a piece of terrain, X happens.
Players: So if model A is not inside the piece of terrain and shoots at model B which is not inside the piece of terrain, X still happens because the piece of terrain is between the two right?
GW: No.
Players: That's stupid.

It is stupid. I am not arguing how it works, I fully understand how it works; it doesn't mean I have to like it and the people I play with are house ruling it differently to make it make sense. We were hoping with the FAQ that GW would come to their senses, but we see they didn't. Rulings like this are why the ability to house rule exist. Whether it "works fine" is a really subjective thing. It works the way GW ruled it, but using the term "fine" doesn't ring with me and apparently I'm not alone.

If you're looking for it to make sense, you're playing the wrong game. After all, that Baneblade hidden behind the giant rock can still fire all of its guns at the same target, even if the weapon itself can't draw line of sight. For an abstract system, the rules don't have to 'make sense'.

Besides, people are still getting it slightly wrong. For a vehicle (monsters, etc...) to gain cover, they don't have to be 50% obscured by the terrain they are in/on - they just have to be 50% obscured by SOMETHING, including interposing models.

The terrain rules aren't as simple as "if you're in area terrain, you get a +1 to your armour save, and that's it". For one, terrain will block LOS, and if you can't draw LOS from the shooter to any part of the target, you can't shoot that target. Also, specific terrain features like Aegis lines still grant the benefit of cover to infantry units that are behind them, but other terrain features like walls and rocks don't - because of, uh, reasons. not strictly right

In fact, looking at the terrain examples on p.248, it's way more complicated than this. Woods, Ruins, and Battlescapes give cover to infantry, and to other units if they're at least 50% obscured - but you still need to be "on" the cover (so I guess that means everyone needs to glue their buildings to big ol' terrain bases). Barricades give the same benefit as Aegis lines. Chuckle. Fuel Pipes are barricades that also have a chance to explode.

 Bull0 wrote:
The terrain rules aren't as simple as "if you're in area terrain, you get a +1 to your armour save, and that's it". For one, terrain will block LOS, and if you can't draw LOS from the shooter to any part of the target, you can't shoot that target.

The terrain doesn't have anything to do with the LOS rules though, it's a separate issue.

If you can see it, you can shoot it. If you can't see it, you can't shoot it. It doesn't matter if that LOS is blocked by a piece of terrain or a dread. That's one rule.
If you are inside of terrain, the rules for that piece of terrain affect you. That's another rule.

Rule #1 doesn't invalidate Rule #2, and Rule #2 doesn't invalidate Rule #1. Sometimes both rules will apply to you and you get the modifier for stuff that can see and shoot you, and some stuff won't be able to see and shoot you.

Battlesong wrote:

Davor wrote:
How is this the first FAQ? Didn't Dakka say there was already a FAQ last week? So shouldn't this be the second FAQ in the title?

That first one was actually labelled as "Designers' Notes" not FAQ, so this is technically the first FAQ.

I just find it funny how I and a few others were mocked or made fun of when saying they were Designer's Notes and other members of Dakka were saying they were FAQs.

Nah, you're wrong. LOS interacts with cover in the sense that non-infantry models only get the benefit of cover if they're >50% obscured. It's nowhere near as cut and dried as you say it is.

 Bull0 wrote:
Nah, you're wrong. LOS interacts with cover in the sense that non-infantry models only get the benefit of cover if they're >50% obscured. It's nowhere near as cut and dried as you say it is.

LOS determines if you can shoot it. 50% obscured, inside or outside of terrain, you can shoot it because you can see it.

Being inside of the terrain determines if the terrain rules apply to you. If you are not inside the terrain, the rules don't apply to you.

The rule "can I see it" must be met before you can shoot anything anywhere on the table. There is no rule about "can you shoot stuff that is 25% obscured, 50%, 75%, is that part of a wing or part of the torso, antenna or backpack, I don't know if this is a valid shot, I need a judge to analyze the anatomical feature I am looking at to determine if it is a valid target", the rule is "you can shoot it if you see any part of it". Then you resolve the shooting.

Then comes wounding.

Then comes rolling for a save, and applying any modifiers including for terrain. The rule part of "If in terrain...." comes before any "...then do X" actions. The rule part of "If in terrain..." has to be met before "...infantry models must be ...." ever becomes a factor. If you are in terrain, apply the rules for terrain. If you are not in terrain, don't apply the rules for terrain. The rules for 50% obscured still only apply to models in terrain, not behind. You don't get a positive modifier to your savings throw because a piece of terrain is between the shooter and the target, and you don't get a negative modifier to your savings throw because a model with a plasma cannon is standing between the shooter and the target.

It really is simple.

Thousand sons exalted sorcerers got silly point increases. There is no reason not to take Ahriman now over the exalts

 d-usa wrote:

GW: If a model is inside a piece of terrain, X happens.
Players: So if model A is not inside the piece of terrain and shoots at model B which is not inside the piece of terrain, X still happens because the piece of terrain is between the two right?
GW: No.
Players: That's stupid.

And "Players" are exactly right. The game still uses TLoS, it's ludicrous that an object that is 99% obscured from the perspective of the attacking model isn't counted as being in Cover. If they wanted to get away from TLoS that would be one thing, personally I'd have been happy to switch to a category system whereby units are assigned a "size" and all terrain is given a "rank" and if LoS is drawn through a bit of terrain what cover you get if any is determined by comparing the two on a matrix or something along those lines, but they kept TLoS for most stuff - it's not a matter of "stop thinking this is 7.5", this system is bad no matter what you're comparing it to IMO.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

GW: If a model is inside a piece of terrain, X happens.
Players: So if model A is not inside the piece of terrain and shoots at model B which is not inside the piece of terrain, X still happens because the piece of terrain is between the two right?
GW: No.
Players: That's stupid.

And "Players" are exactly right. The game still uses TLoS, it's ludicrous that an object that is 99% obscured from the perspective of the attacking model isn't counted as being in Cover. If they wanted to get away from TLoS that would be one thing, personally I'd have been happy to switch to a category system whereby units are assigned a "size" and all terrain is given a "rank" and if LoS is drawn through a bit of terrain what cover you get if any is determined by comparing the two on a matrix or something along those lines, but they kept TLoS for most stuff - it's not a matter of "stop thinking this is 7.5", this system is bad no matter what you're comparing it to IMO.

Yes, it uses TLoS, but it only uses it for determining if you can shoot it. That's it, simple as that. People then try to argue that TLoS should affect things that have nothing to do with TLoS under the rule set.

8th has two simple rules in effect here: A) If you can see it, you can shoot it & B) If it's inside a piece of terrain, it is affected by rules for that piece of terrain.

If none of the previous editions existed, nobody would have any issue with those rules. Instead people have echoes of previous editions in mind, want to use a system of matrices and charts, and then take countless other factors into account to determine modifiers.

Maybe people enjoyed spending time before their games making sure they agree which piece of what is area terrain, what counts as soft cover, what counts as hard cover, what part of their model counts as actually being part of the model for LOS purposes. Maybe people enjoy a system of "LOS affect shooting only" and "be inside the terrain to be affected by the terrain".

The problem is not that 8th Edition is stupid. The problem is that 8th Edition is being judged because people try to apply a rule that doesn't even exist.

Hang on, somebody please correct me if I got this wrong. Longstrike gets to add 1 to all to hit rolls for HH within 6". Which means that they can never overheat the Ion Cannons as 1+1=2 and so they never 'rolled' a 1 for the purposes of overcharging?

Is that right?
Cheers

Andrew

d-use is really making a lot of sense here. The rules are simple and clear (although fairly abstract) It's just that some players can't wrap their heads around it. Therefore it seems stupid and counter-intuitive to them. It's the same thing with modifiers. Explaining these rules to people who have never played the game before is easy as 1-2-3. It's only those carrying baggage over from previous editions that are breaking-down over it.

I would add that I actually like the terrain rules (Heresy!!!) as I think it means that boards and battlefields in general need to be approached in a completely different manner.

I quite like the idea of having boards approximately 50% covered in large 'blobs' of different shapes and sizes which count as area terrain and the other 50% as completely open ground. Rather than individual rocks, building etc, When creating terrain the first thing should be getting a large 'base' on which to have bits a pieces (almost like mini dioramas) placed over it (Still plenty of space for models)

If a model is on this area terrain, then the terrain rules apply to them, if you are on the open ground, they don't. Easy (and open up a huge range of gaming and modeling opportunities)


^ Andrew C, That is correct, but you need to be within 6"

 Hollow wrote:

I quite like the idea of having boards approximately 50% covered in large 'blobs' of different shapes and sizes which count as area terrain and the other 50% as completely open ground. Rather than individual rocks, building etc, When creating terrain the first thing should be getting a large 'base' on which to have bits a pieces (almost like mini dioramas) placed over it (Still plenty of space for models)

If a model is on this area terrain, then the terrain rules apply to them, if you are on the open ground, they don't. Easy (and open up a huge range of gaming and modeling opportunities)

That's what I'm thinking of doing, and I think it is the best of both worlds: being in terrain to be affected by it, but still having the spirit of LOS blocking terrain (for models on the base of the terrain).

I also think that getting rid of firing arcs really requires that you get rid of the old cover rules as well. You can't have one without the other and it's needed to balance the two issues out.

I also want to clarify that I don't try to argue that the rules result in a realistic game. I just think that GW has tried to make the game more realistic with each edition, and every time they tried to improve the "what can you see, what gives you cover" rule it resulted in more and more bloated rules, which in turn resulted in more and more rule lawyering, which resulted in more and more ambiguity because you get even more bloated rules to address the previous rule lawyering. I think just taking the axe to all of that mess and going "see it, shoot it, be inside of it to get the benefit of it" was the right move.

Would "take the amount of models of unit X, look at the amount of unit Y, determine the type and amount of terrain between the two, consult chart A and cross reference it with table B, determine if there should be a penalty to shooting or a benefit to a savings throw" make the game more realistic? Most likely. But I don't think it would make the game any better.

Agreed. It really is a case of.

"See it? Shoot it. In it? Benefit." Done.

You couldn't ask for a slicker, clearer rule-set. However... it is met with silly diagrams showing Baneblades 90% behind rocks as seen from 1 particular POV. Jesus wept. If you want terrain and cover to play a bigger part in your games. Make bigger areas. Seems fairly straight forward to me. I've seen a couple of Youtube battle reports bemoaning the lack of available cover and the board had like half a dozen smallish bits of terrain scattered across it. Yeah... terrain doesn't play a big role if you don't MAKE it play a bigger role.