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.

Funny thing is, they do have a pretty descent shot at cover rules for terrain in the rules for the Imperial Statuary.

Models within 3" of Imperial Statuary that are at least 25% obscured by it, from the point of view of the firing unit, receive the benefit of cover.

Probably going to pillage that rule and use it for terrain in general. Maybe change the 25% to 50% or whatever works.

Because in the 41st Century we haven't created weapons to blast through whatever you are hiding behind?

Can we move the LoS / Cover conversation to its own thread?

I looked through my digital editions and still not finding any updates...

Still flying my T 14 Corvus Blackstar!

 d-usa wrote:

 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.

You keep re-explaining this over and over again in a really condescending way, so permit me to be absolutely, utterly clear:

We fully understand and grasp the rules. We fully understand and grasp the context of the rules.

We still think the rules are moronic.

If the rules may state that "model's eye view" is sacrosanct one moment and irrelevant the next, but that doesn't make the rules good or logically coherent. You're never going to convince me that rules which treat a model shooting a tank that's almost completely visible and a model shooting a tank where the firer can only see a single link at the very tippy-end front of the track as the exact same scenario are good rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, but, why do Plasma Guns explode more at night?

the machine spirits are afraid of the dark

Why do people keep saying LOS "only" applies to whether or not you can shoot at a unit, when it's right there in the rules that non-infantry models need to be 50% obscured from the firer (in addition to being within the terrain) to get cover?

Am I having a fething stroke or what?

 Yodhrin wrote:


If the rules may state that "model's eye view" is sacrosanct one moment and irrelevant the next, but that doesn't make the rules good or logically coherent.

Are you in unit cohesion if an enemy unit is within LoS of your unit?
Can you even be in cohesion if the enemy is not visible at all?
Can you advance your unit if the enemy is visible, or only if it is obscured, or can you only advance your unit if they have no LOS of any enemy unit?
What unit has to have LoS to which unit in order to embark or disembark on a transport?
Can you deploy if a unit is within LoS of your deploying unit?
If a unit is 50% obscured, can I charge it?

The answer to all these questions is "LoS doesn't matter, because LoS doesn't have anything to do with it". Rules that are not affected by LoS are not affected by LoS.

Stop trying to apply that LoS applies to a rule that has nothing to do with LoS. LoS isn't a sacrosanct rule, it's a rule that only applies to a very limited and narrow aspect of the game. It mattered a lot more in 7th, and 6th, and 5th, and 4th. It affected movement for models, to hit rolls, saves, it affected many different things in many different times. This edition, it only affects "can I shoot it", and has no affect on the vast majority of the game mechanics aside from "can I shoot it".

You're never going to convince me that rules which treat a model shooting a tank that's almost completely visible and a model shooting a tank where the firer can only see a single link at the very tippy-end front of the track as the exact same scenario are good rules.

It's a good rule because it's a consistent rule. It's consistent with the same rule that lets that tank shoot every single weapon even though only a link is looking at the target.

The rules don't treat the models as a static entity frozen in time. The same abstraction that lets a tank shoot every weapon, because it assumes that a tank can race out from behind the building and shoot you and race back behind the building is the same abstraction that lets you shoot that tank while it's not in cover because it's racing out to shoot at you. They don't fight battles like it's the 18th century, my army doesn't shoot your army while you are standing still waiting to be shot, and then I stand still while you move around to shoot me. Both armies are shooting at the same time. Your tank is doing a 360 to shoot all its weapons at my unit, and at the same time I'm shooting at your tank that now has a single T value rather than armor values for different facings, because it's constantly moving around and shooting while being shot at. Your tank benefits from the rule when it comes to shooting, and it suffers when it comes to being shot at.

We are talking about the same rule set that lets me shoot you with guns coming out of my rear, because I can target you even though my guns are all pointing in a different direction that the target. And a rule set that lets me walk through walls. And a rule set that let's plasma weapons explode more because it's dark outside. If you don't want "stupid rules", then why are you playing 8th Edition, or GW at all for that matter. Personally, I think that when you look at the rules as a whole, the cover rules make perfect sense. It makes 8th Edition a much better game than previous editions, and I'm glad they are ruling it in the FAQs the way they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bull0 wrote:
Why do people keep saying LOS "only" applies to whether or not you can shoot at a unit, when it's right there in the rules that non-infantry models need to be 50% obscured from the firer (in addition to being within the terrain) to get cover?

Am I having a fething stroke or what?

Again:

1) Can I shoot it? Check LoS.
2) Does it get cover? Check to see if it is inside a piece of terrain, to see if terrain rules apply to it.

Without being in the terrain, you don't even check to see if it is obscured. But the cover still comes from a rule granted by the piece of terrain, it is not granted by a rule caused by LoS.

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, but, why do Plasma Guns explode more at night?

the machine spirits are afraid of the dark

And they're afraid of aircraft as well.

And during an night-time air raid? They just can't even!!!

 Bull0 wrote:
Am I having a fething stroke or what?

You're not. Some people are concerned, to put it mildly, that the LOS rules creates situations similar to my Banerock, where that tank is not getting the benefits of cover despite the fact that you can only see a tiny bit of it, because it is neither in nor on the cover.

Many here see it as incongruent as you need TLOS to see if you can fire at the target, but that's it. Everything after that is abstracted.

Was I the only one that always put all of his terrain in... bigger bases?

I was prepared to 8th rules even before knowing them

 AndrewC wrote:
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

Nah, a natural 1 always fails unless you can reroll it. So keeps one marker light hit relevant to help avoid overheating Longstrike!

 perplexiti wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
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

Nah, a natural 1 always fails unless you can reroll it. So keeps one marker light hit relevant to help avoid overheating Longstrike!

That's not how most overheating (including the Ion Cannon) works though, it's based on the modified roll, not the natural roll.
So you might miss because you rolled a natural 1, but your final result isn't a 1 after modifiers.

What I want to know does the Necron Destroyers hardwired for hatred stack with targeting relay?
I dont think it does, but neither does is say it doesn't unlike Master Techronmancer vs Techronmancer which are exactly the same which is odd, you would think either he would get a +2 to Reanimation or extend his range to 6"

Tarrell wrote:
What I want to know does the Necron Destroyers hardwired for hatred stack with targeting relay?
I dont think it does, but neither does is say it doesn't unlike Master Techronmancer vs Techronmancer which are exactly the same which is odd, you would think either he would get a +2 to Reanimation or extend his range to 6"

One is +1 to the roll, the other is reroll 1s, right? So they're different bonusses.

 AndrewC wrote:
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

Rolling a 1 is still a failure, this is stated in the rules.

 BrookM wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
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

Rolling a 1 is still a failure, this is stated in the rules.

So they might miss but overheating isn't triggered by missing but by rolling 1. However it's not on natural roll of 1 because nightfight doubles your chance to blow up. If - affects chance to blow up why not +?

tneva82 wrote:


So they might miss but overheating isn't triggered by missing but by rolling 1. However it's not on natural roll of 1 because nightfight doubles your chance to blow up. If - affects chance to blow up why not +?

Yes. Overheating isn't triggered by the rules .

Funny thing is what happens with special abilities that trigger on a '6'. The rules state, dice rolls modified 'below 1' still count as 1, thus the increased chance of overcharged plasma blowing up when you fire at Harlequins, fight at night, try to shoot Lictors, etc.. (thankfully they fixed 3-4+ Darkshrouds stacking).

But dice rolls can be modified above 6. Thus if you have one of those fancy weapons that, say, cause a mortal wound on a 6 and you modify it up to become a 'counts as 7', does it lose its special 6 ability?

Wonderwolf wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


So they might miss but overheating isn't triggered by missing but by rolling 1. However it's not on natural roll of 1 because nightfight doubles your chance to blow up. If - affects chance to blow up why not +?

Yes. Overheating isn't triggered by the rules .

Funny thing is what happens with special abilities that trigger on a '6'. The rules state, dice rolls modified 'below 1' still count as 1, thus the increased chance of overcharged plasma blowing up when you fire at Harlequins, fight at night, try to shoot Lictors, etc.. (thankfully they fixed 3-4+ Darkshrouds stacking).

But dice rolls can be modified above 6. Thus if you have one of those fancy weapons that, say, cause a mortal wound on a 6 and you modify it up to become a 'counts as 7', does it lose its special 6 ability?

Any such rule I remember reading worked on a 6+ rather than a plain 6, which fixes that issue. If you happen to have a rule that requires exactly a 6, well, you have to hope for an errata to fix that or else enjoy your wonderfully bespoke rule...

 Yodhrin wrote:

We still think the rules are moronic.

If the rules may state that "model's eye view" is sacrosanct one moment and irrelevant the next, but that doesn't make the rules good or logically coherent. You're never going to convince me that rules which treat a model shooting a tank that's almost completely visible and a model shooting a tank where the firer can only see a single link at the very tippy-end front of the track as the exact same scenario are good rules.

IMO they are the best rules you can have without doing something like Advanced Squad Leader, which has fantastic terrain rules, but it uses a hex grid and the rules for each type of hex (and therer are A LOT of different hex types... one of them is "hut made out of bamboo") are about as long as the current complete rule set for 40k.

Because you usually don't get cover and can shoot everything, it reduces the amount of argument on firing angles and LOS to a minimum. And the current bare bones rules set is the result of endless and pointless arguments about firing angles and LOS from the tip of your whatevercannon and its ability to svivel enough....

And if youimagine that a combat turn in reality is not I move, I shoot, you move, you shoot, but in reality every unit on both sides simultaneously moving and shooting, with movement in the movement phase just representing a special dedication to movement during that period in the battle, and being stationary just dedicating to shooting with minum movement, the rules also make sense, but I admit that the level of abstraction is pretty high.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

UncleThomson wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

We still think the rules are moronic.

If the rules may state that "model's eye view" is sacrosanct one moment and irrelevant the next, but that doesn't make the rules good or logically coherent. You're never going to convince me that rules which treat a model shooting a tank that's almost completely visible and a model shooting a tank where the firer can only see a single link at the very tippy-end front of the track as the exact same scenario are good rules.

IMO they are the best rules you can have without doing something like Advanced Squad Leader, which has fantastic terrain rules, but it uses a hex grid and the rules for each type of hex (and therer are A LOT of different hex types... one of them is "hut made out of bamboo") are about as long as the current complete rule set for 40k. (ok not every hex type, but some of them are)

Because you usually don't get cover and can shoot everything, it reduces the amount of argument on firing angles and LOS to a minimum. And the current bare bones rules set is the result of endless and pointless arguments about firing angles and LOS from the tip of your whatevercannon and its ability to svivel enough....

And if youimagine that a combat turn in reality is not I move, I shoot, you move, you shoot, but in reality every unit on both sides simultaneously moving and shooting, with movement in the movement phase just representing a special dedication to movement during that period in the battle, and being stationary just dedicating to shooting with minum movement, the rules also make sense, but I admit that the level of abstraction is pretty high.

Tarrell wrote:
What I want to know does the Necron Destroyers hardwired for hatred stack with targeting relay?
I dont think it does, but neither does is say it doesn't unlike Master Techronmancer vs Techronmancer which are exactly the same which is odd, you would think either he would get a +2 to Reanimation or extend his range to 6"

They are not exactly the same. One is dynasty specific, the other works on all necrons.
They don't stack either.

 d-usa wrote:

The rules don't treat the models as a static entity frozen in time. The same abstraction that lets a tank shoot every weapon, because it assumes that a tank can race out from behind the building and shoot you and race back behind the building is the same abstraction that lets you shoot that tank while it's not in cover because it's racing out to shoot at you. They don't fight battles like it's the 18th century, my army doesn't shoot your army while you are standing still waiting to be shot, and then I stand still while you move around to shoot me. Both armies are shooting at the same time. Your tank is doing a 360 to shoot all its weapons at my unit, and at the same time I'm shooting at your tank that now has a single T value rather than armor values for different facings, because it's constantly moving around and shooting while being shot at. Your tank benefits from the rule when it comes to shooting, and it suffers when it comes to being shot at.

Sorry but this abstraction has limits... and this bother me :
this is a land raider (yeah ascii art... with mandatory dots for alignment, leading spaces don't work!)
....._________________ ..../ \ .../ | ../ / ./ / .\ / ..\________________/
This land raider can shoot all around, regardless of it orientation. This is an acceptable abstraction.

This is the same land raider behind a wall (front of tracks poking from the wall!) :
._______________________________ .| | .| | .| | .| | .| | /| | \| | .|_____________________________|
It can come out, shoot every weapon and go back into hiding...

but this one (yes, it's there, behind the wall):
._______________________________ .| | .| | .| | .| | .| | .| | .| | .|_____________________________|
can't do anything. it can't come out and shoot a weapon, it can't be targeted, and well, the level of abstraction break...


So you can do anything during you turn like moving a lot, shoot in any direction, and go back into hiding, as long as you let the enemy fight back, otherwise, it's not fair play...

That is why I think the abstraction of shooting from any part of the vehicle is a bad one...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, but, why do Plasma Guns explode more at night?

the machine spirits are afraid of the dark

And they're afraid of aircraft as well.

And during an night-time air raid? They just can't even!!!

 Bull0 wrote:
Am I having a fething stroke or what?

You're not. Some people are concerned, to put it mildly, that the LOS rules creates situations similar to my Banerock, where that tank is not getting the benefits of cover despite the fact that you can only see a tiny bit of it, because it is neither in nor on the cover.

Many here see it as incongruent as you need TLOS to see if you can fire at the target, but that's it. Everything after that is abstracted.

It amuses me that in most cases a Bane/super heavy will "move" further in its shooting phase than it can in its movement phase.

There is nothing wrong with abstraction or detail specific rules but as usual GW's design is an incoherent mess and they try mashing both styles together poorly.

Same as all the streamlining done "to speed up the game" which they follow by making all re rolls be made one at a time.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, but, why do Plasma Guns explode more at night?

the machine spirits are afraid of the dark

And they're afraid of aircraft as well.

And during an night-time air raid? They just can't even!!!

 Bull0 wrote:
Am I having a fething stroke or what?

You're not. Some people are concerned, to put it mildly, that the LOS rules creates situations similar to my Banerock, where that tank is not getting the benefits of cover despite the fact that you can only see a tiny bit of it, because it is neither in nor on the cover.

Many here see it as incongruent as you need TLOS to see if you can fire at the target, but that's it. Everything after that is abstracted.

It amuses me that in most cases a Bane/super heavy will "move" further in its shooting phase than it can in its movement phase.

There is nothing wrong with abstraction or detail specific rules but as usual GW's design is an incoherent mess and they try mashing both styles together poorly.

Same as all the streamlining done "to speed up the game" which they follow by making all re rolls be made one at a time.

Dark Phoenix wrote:


can't do anything. it can't come out and shoot a weapon, it can't be targeted, and well, the level of abstraction break...

No it does not break the abstraction, this IS the abstraction. If your vehicle is visible to the enemy at the end of your movement phase it has maneuvered itself into a firing position, if it is not it maneuvered itself into a position where it is not visible to the enemy.

A very complicated and convulted debate has been reduced to a simple 1/0 thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SeanDrake wrote:

It amuses me that in most cases a Bane/super heavy will "move" further in its shooting phase than it can in its movement phase.

it does not "move" further. The model just is a representation of the area where the tank operates in. It will seldom move in a straight line, tries to avoid enemy fire etc, therefore during your movement phase you can just move the area of operation by a certain bit. But after you moved it enough for a part of the model being visible to the enemy, it is possible for the Baneblade to successfully engage the enemy but to fire all its weapons it also has to expose itself to be fired at.

P.S.: Otherwise vehicles would have to have a move of 40+ and flyers a move of 200+ if their "move" characteristic would actually represent their true ability to "move" in a straight line. That's why it is "move" and not "speed"
P.P.S: It is difficult for me to understand that people had no problems accepting the abstraction of movement to a point that a bike can only "move" 10mph max in 40k (if you would literally say move = speed), and now they are all irritated about extending that abstraction a little further...

Exactly, a LR with just the end poking out from cover represents a LR that is prepared to move out of the cover to shoot, at which time it can also be shot back at (which would occur simutaneously in the real world).

A LR totally out of LOS represents one which is hiding from enemy sight and giving up its chance to fire to prevent enemy counter-fire.

Remember a whole battle would be equivalent to about 5 minutes of real life combat.

This rule is clear, concise and doesn't allow for deliberate misinterpretation of the rules by various nit-picking rules lawyers.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
As another example: Kustom Mega Blastas (and their divergences). despite their differences, they are ork plasma guns, if you could only fire one shot, can't choose to not overcharge it, fired by a BS5+ ork, and has random damage. It's one saving grace is that on a 1 it only does one mortal wound rather than slaying the wielder outright. But lets say it was changed to ""On a 1 the wielder is slain". It would make it all but useless, because the benefit is completely out weighted by the drawback. But now it's "more in line" with other plasma guns.

While I get your argument, the KMB is all but useless. It's almost as likely to wound the user instead of the target. There is absolutely no benefit to it unless it is the cheapest weapon option on a suicide unit. The change would have little impact if any.

 Hollow wrote:
This rule is clear, concise and doesn't allow for deliberate misinterpretation of the rules by various nit-picking rules lawyers.

which of course is why they all hate it

BrianDavion wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
This rule is clear, concise and doesn't allow for deliberate misinterpretation of the rules by various nit-picking rules lawyers.

which of course is why they all hate it

Only if you deliberately misinterpret a bunch of responses that explicitly stated they understood it, but dislike for other reasons.

There's a certain irony there.

UncleThomson wrote:
[
No it does not break the abstraction, this IS the abstraction. If your vehicle is visible to the enemy at the end of your movement phase it has maneuvered itself into a firing position, if it is not it maneuvered itself into a position where it is not visible to the enemy.

A very complicated and convulted debate has been reduced to a simple 1/0 thing.

No, because we have now Schrödinger vehicules, that should be in one place but no, they can move, shoot, and get back in hiding, while being totally still to the squad next to the one that got shot!
This level of abstraction work on infantry, because they are small target, and could lean to get LoS, but not on vehicles... the equivalent for an infantry squad would be : "as long as one member get LoS, every one can shoot the target, even if they don't get LoS themselves. This is because they take turn to shoot at the corner of the wall."


To get back to the topic, I'm happy that GW finally give us FAQs... but it sad to see that most of the problems should have been seen in the playtest phase.
Even if I would never play with RAW, this is not the quality I expect from the company that claim to be the leader in miniature wargaming...

Loopstah wrote:
Exactly, a LR with just the end poking out from cover represents a LR that is prepared to move out of the cover to shoot, at which time it can also be shot back at (which would occur simutaneously in the real world).

A LR totally out of LOS represents one which is hiding from enemy sight and giving up its chance to fire to prevent enemy counter-fire.

Remember a whole battle would be equivalent to about 5 minutes of real life combat.

Why you talk about simultaneously when 40k clearly doens't work with idea of representing simultaneous fighting? 40k works with the assumption guys work at the battlefield exactly as in tabletop. Move to location, then shoot. One army at a time. Not simultaneous. If game is presumably simulating simultaneous activity there would be way too many rules that make zero sense. Only way rules make sense is if you assume the action in the battlefield is NOT simultaneous.

tneva82 wrote:


Why you talk about simultaneously when 40k clearly doens't work with idea of representing simultaneous fighting? 40k works with the assumption guys work at the battlefield exactly as in tabletop. Move to location, then shoot. One army at a time. Not simultaneous. If game is presumably simulating simultaneous activity there would be way too many rules that make zero sense. Only way rules make sense is if you assume the action in the battlefield is NOT simultaneous.

So you're saying that the assault phase is where one side all takes a precise number of swings at the enemy, then pauses to let the other side take their precise number of swings, and they alternate doing so in perfect synchronization?

I thought the terrain rules are quite simple. The following does not take into account barricades or other special terrain features.

Infantry gets cover if each model at least touches a terrain feature
Other unit types get cover if each model at least touches a terrain feature and is also obscured by 50%.

So if the rock in front of the baneblade isn't impassable you can move (and announce) that the baneblade is now touching the terrain feature and thus gets a cover if obscured by 50%.

On another note as an Inquisition player I'm really sad to see the acolytes nerfed almost to the point of unplayable. I suppose jokaeros aren't so alone in that category anymore.