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.

Wow you can really see who hasn’t played many editions. Armor facings caused lots of endless arguing about what side was facing what.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Front arc was 45 degrees left and 45 right fr the frot of the tank, it it had a base it was really easy to mark and not that hard people woule just be lazy or argue to argue.

Uh no, it wasn't. Not at all. The arcs on a vehicle were defined by the corners of the model. So a long and narrow tank would have a front arc less than 90* and a side arc greater than 90* (a problem for orc battlewagons and their weak side AV on huge side arcs). This was not terrible if you assume that the only faction is space marines and their nice rectangular vehicles, but for things like Eldar tanks it was an argument nightmare. There was no clearly defined corner to draw the arcs with, and each person could have their own interpretation of where the "front" of the vehicle should be.

Now, if it had been 90* it would have been a much better system, especially if it had been combined with putting vehicles on rectangular bases so the arc boundaries would be very clear. But that's not what GW did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Yup, same with scatter dice. Some people were just too fething dumb to not realise the parallax effect that would occur when you didn't roll the dice next to the target. Roll it several feet away from it and watch the arguments ensue.

It's not about "parallax" (it's not really a parallax effect, but whatever), it's about the lack of precision in the scatter die. Even if the scatter die lands right next to the target model there was a limit to how accurately you could line up a tape measure, and in many cases a very slight difference in angle was enough to hit or not hit a model on the edge of the circle. There was no way to resolve the argument in a way that could not be disputed, so it inevitably came down to who was more stubborn in arguing for their preferred number of hits.

Same with templates. I'm failing to see how someone cannot see what is under a see through perspex template so this is just ol' Perri pontificating again.

It was easier with flamer templates because you didn't have to measure the scatter angle, and any dispute over template placement could be resolved by adjusting the template until it hit the desired model. There could still be arguments over models on the edge, where it was difficult to tell if the model was 0.01" under the template or 0.01" out of the template (and you wanted to keep it lined up on a different model so you couldn't just move it over without losing the other hit), but I will admit that flamer templates were much less of a source of conflict.

 Primark G wrote:
Wow you can really see who hasn’t played many editions. Armor facings caused lots of endless arguing about what side was facing what.

Were as most old players might argue for a minute or two and decide to let yee old d6 decide. 1-3 it goes to player A while 4-6 it goes to player B. I think they left that rule out of later editions for dealing with disputes, sadly.

Karol wrote:
I don't understand the friends comment. Friends or strangers no one is going to let you play with an illegal list, otherwise may as well make cheating legal and ok.

That simply means that if your playing with your friend or acquaintances outside a store, the rule of consent applies: you can tweak, houserule, invent whatever you like as long as everyone is happy with it. Si you can allow an "illegal" thing if tou want to be able to play nonetheless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skaorn wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Wow you can really see who hasn’t played many editions. Armor facings caused lots of endless arguing about what side was facing what.

Were as most old players might argue for a minute or two and decide to let yee old d6 decide. 1-3 it goes to player A while 4-6 it goes to player B. I think they left that rule out of later editions for dealing with disputes, sadly.

We actually do that all the time in my group if we can't find an agreement within a minute,so it's just the dice and fair for everyone The show can go on.

Yeah not knowing how the rules work and having to flip a coin to whether or not your play works, is a massive improvement over actual working rules

The issue of not knowing what side of the tin can your facing is rare in my experienced, most of the time you quite obviously know what face the opponent is showing. If not, that's when you flip, but that's rare.

As far as templates, bolr action added them instead of d6 and it is an improvment. HOWEVER they do not scatter, instead you roll to hit and if the unit succeeds place the template the cover the most models you can.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
The issue of not knowing what side of the tin can your facing is rare in my experienced, most of the time you quite obviously know what face the opponent is showing. If not, that's when you flip, but that's rare.

As far as templates, bolr action added them instead of d6 and it is an improvment. HOWEVER they do not scatter, instead you roll to hit and if the unit succeeds place the template the cover the most models you can.

Oh, I like that system for blast templates.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Another thing I want back that was removed because of "arguments" was true Loss needing to see 50% or more, because it find it to be really annoying that if the pinky of a guy or tip of a sword can be seen that unit can be shot, or the shooting model can fire everything out of the tip of a spear.

You've said this before but you have always been able to shoot a model if you could see a pinky.

Weapons used to be excluded and you had to draw LoS from the eyes but you never had to see half.

I like Templates in theory, I don't like the impact it has on games and people spacing out for minimum hits etc. Is there a way around that?

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Front arc was 45 degrees left and 45 right fr the frot of the tank, it it had a base it was really easy to mark and not that hard people woule just be lazy or argue to argue.

According to what rules? It wasn't 90degree arcs it was lines drawn through the corners.

 Primark G wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I’ve played sparingly since chapter approved but that’s for several reasons.

Firstly: we are primarily a 30k group, it’s just the game we prefer using the rules we prefer.

Secondly: 8th to me is just too lacklustre, same as 7th 40k, as soon as the book dropped we all went over it and noticed a lack in key areas WE enjoyed, they still haven’t fixed the psy phase and have repeated the mistakes of editions passed with it, I remember leaving a long post about it to GW prior to 8th dropping, cover and movement took a big hit too, while they have recently tried to address this, it didn’t go far enough.

Lastly: I’m waiting, I don’t see 8th as a finished product but fully expect it to be relatively soon, I think it’s fair that I criticise Gw formissing some glaring issues but I don’t think it’s fair that I haven’t applauded them for Trying to resolve them.

I’ve never seen the appeal of 30k Space Marines vs Space Marines For days right? A lot of same builds too - Leviathan dreadnaught in a drop pod, Primarch of Praetor in Spartan with terminators or some elite melee unit, quad launchers with Phosphex shells, sergeants tanking Bolter Fire with artificer armor... just seems incredibly boring.

Fair enough but please allow me to explain.

Take your 40k mindset, take a leak on it, douse it in petrol and then set it on fire.... 30k players almost universally have a different mind set to 40k players when playing the game, for us it usually goes like this.

It it cool?
Is it fluffy ?
-
-
Is it good?

We will happily take inefficient units if they fit the theme of our army, rampagers, primarchs etc. Are all incredibly inefficient.

Things like artificer armour on sarges... meh, not every takes it and it’s super easy to get around, lolviathan in a pod, rare as rocking horse gak, mostly you will see dakka ones if you see one at all, same with spartan full of legion elite unique unit, these are all assumptions of a 40k player using the 40k mindset to build lists, 30k is fluff first, theme second, power last.

And lastly it’s not just marines, that’s a popular misconception.

18 legions
Custodes
Solar auxilia
Imperial militia
Renegades and heretics guard (same as above with tweaks)
Black shields
Deamons
Mechanicum (which is about 5 different armies)
Soon to be dark mechanicum

Optional:
Eldar
Orks
Dark eldar
Etc.

7th ed codexs still work, you just take away formations and give them the age of darkness FOC, a few tweaks are needed here and there though.


Finally, Call us 30kers elitist snobs if you please, but a lot of us have seen the utter crap fest 40k is due to the WAAC attitude that has filtered down into casual play (for several editions), we don’t want that, it’s not welcome.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
The issue of not knowing what side of the tin can your facing is rare in my experienced, most of the time you quite obviously know what face the opponent is showing. If not, that's when you flip, but that's rare.

As far as templates, bolr action added them instead of d6 and it is an improvment. HOWEVER they do not scatter, instead you roll to hit and if the unit succeeds place the template the cover the most models you can.

Oh, I like that system for blast templates.

It is less realistic, because scatter/d6 represents he fact that a shell hits a few feet to far and only wounds one or two members, but on a gameplay level it is quick, ni arguing required, and it's very balanced. It was also implemented to solve some little issues that weren't game changing bit truly got on the nerves, such as having your lone commander take 12 hits of heavy howitzer whereas the nearby Soviet conscrpits you shoot back at with your own howitzer took only 2. It also mitigated the effectivness of airstrikes at cracking tanks open since it limits the hits to one. Otherwise any tank was 100% certain to get shred to a man if the enemy had brought a forward observer in .

Using it as a transition, once again this is what is so disapointing about 40k: why is a company so rich unable to get competent staff who would write a good ruleset to start with, with depth but simple at the same time, so food in actually actual reality that it wouldn't spark such debates at all because it wouldn't need to.

Fair enough but please allow me to explain.

Take your 40k mindset, take a leak on it, douse it in petrol and then set it on fire.... 30k players almost universally have a different mind set to 40k players when playing the game, for us it usually goes like this.

It it cool?
Is it fluffy ?
-
-
Is it good?

We will happily take inefficient units if they fit the theme of our army, rampagers, primarchs etc. Are all incredibly inefficient.

Things like artificer armour on sarges... meh, not every takes it and it’s super easy to get around, lolviathan in a pod, rare as rocking horse gak, mostly you will see dakka ones if you see one at all, same with spartan full of legion elite unique unit, these are all assumptions of a 40k player using the 40k mindset to build lists, 30k is fluff first, theme second, power last.

Finally, Call us 30kers elitist snobs if you please, but a lot of us have seen the utter crap fest 40k is due to the WAAC attitude that has filtered down into casual play (for several editions), we don’t want that, it’s not welcome.

This has nothing to do with 30K vs. 40K but casual vs. competitive. You have a casual 30K gaming group, I have a casual 40K gaming group, both of us have fun, both of us find the other edition boring and too simple (you 8th, me 7th), yet both of us value fluff and theme before competitiveness. And it has nothing to do with the gaming system in itself, even though 8th. edition seems to provide more rules for tournament play than 30K does - but these rules are just that, for tournament play and they are few.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Fair enough but please allow me to explain.

Take your 40k mindset, take a leak on it, douse it in petrol and then set it on fire.... 30k players almost universally have a different mind set to 40k players when playing the game, for us it usually goes like this.

It it cool?
Is it fluffy ?
-
-
Is it good?

We will happily take inefficient units if they fit the theme of our army, rampagers, primarchs etc. Are all incredibly inefficient.

Things like artificer armour on sarges... meh, not every takes it and it’s super easy to get around, lolviathan in a pod, rare as rocking horse gak, mostly you will see dakka ones if you see one at all, same with spartan full of legion elite unique unit, these are all assumptions of a 40k player using the 40k mindset to build lists, 30k is fluff first, theme second, power last.

Finally, Call us 30kers elitist snobs if you please, but a lot of us have seen the utter crap fest 40k is due to the WAAC attitude that has filtered down into casual play (for several editions), we don’t want that, it’s not welcome.

This has nothing to do with 30K vs. 40K but casual vs. competitive. You have a casual 30K gaming group, I have a casual 40K gaming group, both of us have fun, both of us find the other edition boring and too simple (you 8th, me 7th), yet both of us value fluff and theme before competitiveness. And it has nothing to do with the gaming system in itself, even though 8th. edition seems to provide more rules for tournament play than 30K does - but these rules are just that, for tournament play and they are few.

I disagree and go over to the 30k forums out there and they will disagree with you, 30k encourages the "casual" style that 40k used to have as its more of a historical game, the 30k ruleset tries to encourage that at every turn, not in the "forge a narrative" way 40k did/does, but in the rites of war, legion rules, wargear etc.

when people come to 30k with the 40k mindsset of "is it efficient" "is it competative" they end up not enjoying it, sure you get some people who like that stuff and thats fine, the vast majority of 30k players are not like that, ask pretty much any 30k player on Dakka and they will tell you the same.

Ahhh love to see how ol Perri tells me I'm wrong for a game I've played for 2 decades.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ahhh love to see how ol Perri tells me I'm wrong for a game I've played for 2 decades.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Blast weapons in previous editions caused lots of arguments. It happened in games I was playing in, it happened in games I happened to be watching. I don't care how many years you claim to have played for, the scatter mechanic did not have a clear resolution in cases where small distances mattered because of the inherent inaccuracy of trying to place the template. And even reasonable, not WAAC TFG, players could disagree on where the template should go and which models should be under it.

 Primark G wrote:
Wow you can really see who hasn’t played many editions. Armor facings caused lots of endless arguing about what side was facing what.

Armour facings by themselves very seldom caused arguments. They did cause arguments when combined with cover rules since they often didn't make much sense.

The arguments however were a price which I was willing to pay for making the vehicles seem more realistic, tactically interesting and distinct from other units. It was one of the things which made the game feel more like you were fighting a battle instead of abstracted exercise of dice rolling. In 8th edition all the units are same grey boring mass, and the game looks visually like crap since all the units are facing nonsense directions or huddled in unrealistic mass of figures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

3) "And multi targeting/split fire another good thing 8th brought." agree

Partially agree. The extent to which split-fire has been applied is too broad and should have been reserved for heavy weapons, so that the guy with a missile launcher in a tac squad, or mixed-weapon dev squads could actually do their thing. And it should be by weapon, not each individual model (potentially) firing at a different target.

Multi-targeting is one of those things in 8th edition which seemingly make the game less restrictive, but in reality make it more so, as it removes a tool which unit designer can represent various aspects of the units (another example would be morale system).
When default was that units could not multi-target, it meant that you could make expections for units which were meant to be hi-tech, or veteran status. For example your regular Devastator couldn't Split Fire, but Long Fangs were veterans of many wars, some of the most experienced Space Marines in the Galaxy, so they had the ability to do stuff their brethren could not. Similarly, most tanks were restricted firing all their guns at same target. But some high-tec tanks (like Tau tanks) could split their fire. This made them more flexible in use even if their nominal firepower was no better than for example Imperial Guard tanks.

This is pretty deep stuff and I realize most people do not appreciate, or even notice it, but it is things like these which gave armies and units character and made them distinct and enjoyable. When every unit and army is basically same but just differs from numeric values, it makes the game feel like cheap RTS knockoff.

Backfire wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Wow you can really see who hasn’t played many editions. Armor facings caused lots of endless arguing about what side was facing what.

Armour facings by themselves very seldom caused arguments. They did cause arguments when combined with cover rules since they often didn't make much sense.

The arguments however were a price which I was willing to pay for making the vehicles seem more realistic, tactically interesting and distinct from other units. It was one of the things which made the game feel more like you were fighting a battle instead of abstracted exercise of dice rolling. In 8th edition all the units are same grey boring mass, and the game looks visually like crap since all the units are facing nonsense directions or huddled in unrealistic mass of figures.

That's how the game looked like in any battle report I watched to try and decide whether I should make the jump or not. If I got it well even vehicules have no such thing as thinner flanks and back, whereas I'm pretty sure most game have. Why not give like +1 to wound on flanks and +2 to wound on rear? Just throwing random idea but that would at least give manouevring an objective use, as for now, some tell that none of this alters gameplay, while others reply it does, and straight away, it looks like it can only do.

Maybe it was to drop a little Dawn of War 1 spirit since we didn't get it in DoW3 (remember the imperial guard flashlighting chaos preds to molecular state?)

 Formosa wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Fair enough but please allow me to explain.

Take your 40k mindset, take a leak on it, douse it in petrol and then set it on fire.... 30k players almost universally have a different mind set to 40k players when playing the game, for us it usually goes like this.

It it cool?
Is it fluffy ?
-
-
Is it good?

We will happily take inefficient units if they fit the theme of our army, rampagers, primarchs etc. Are all incredibly inefficient.

Things like artificer armour on sarges... meh, not every takes it and it’s super easy to get around, lolviathan in a pod, rare as rocking horse gak, mostly you will see dakka ones if you see one at all, same with spartan full of legion elite unique unit, these are all assumptions of a 40k player using the 40k mindset to build lists, 30k is fluff first, theme second, power last.

Finally, Call us 30kers elitist snobs if you please, but a lot of us have seen the utter crap fest 40k is due to the WAAC attitude that has filtered down into casual play (for several editions), we don’t want that, it’s not welcome.

This has nothing to do with 30K vs. 40K but casual vs. competitive. You have a casual 30K gaming group, I have a casual 40K gaming group, both of us have fun, both of us find the other edition boring and too simple (you 8th, me 7th), yet both of us value fluff and theme before competitiveness. And it has nothing to do with the gaming system in itself, even though 8th. edition seems to provide more rules for tournament play than 30K does - but these rules are just that, for tournament play and they are few.

I disagree and go over to the 30k forums out there and they will disagree with you, 30k encourages the "casual" style that 40k used to have as its more of a historical game, the 30k ruleset tries to encourage that at every turn, not in the "forge a narrative" way 40k did/does, but in the rites of war, legion rules, wargear etc.

when people come to 30k with the 40k mindsset of "is it efficient" "is it competative" they end up not enjoying it, sure you get some people who like that stuff and thats fine, the vast majority of 30k players are not like that, ask pretty much any 30k player on Dakka and they will tell you the same.

I might just be lucky in this regard, but how often do you actually come across 40k WAAC players? I almost never see them. Most of the hyper competitive players I find tend to actually be very polite as long as you are too. Even when someone absolutely destroys me more often then not they apologize that we were power mismatched and ask if I'd like some critique. The vast majority of unpleasant and rude players I come across tend to be CAAC players who try to hide their blatant misplays behind stuff being "op."

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ahhh love to see how ol Perri tells me I'm wrong for a game I've played for 2 decades.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Blast weapons in previous editions caused lots of arguments. It happened in games I was playing in, it happened in games I happened to be watching. I don't care how many years you claim to have played for, the scatter mechanic did not have a clear resolution in cases where small distances mattered because of the inherent inaccuracy of trying to place the template. And even reasonable, not WAAC TFG, players could disagree on where the template should go and which models should be under it.

Agree, this matches my experience as well. I've had people who I thought were unable to display anger at all at each other's throat over small blast template hitting one of my units (one was my team mate and the other one of the opponents). The enemy claimed it had hit 6 boyz, my team mate told him it was only 3. There were also a ton of players who were looking through templates at an angle and didn't understand that they were seeing a lot more models that way than they actually had hit.
Even if you rolled the scatter dice on top of the target, few people were able to properly scatter more than 4".

8th edition vehicle rules have problems worse than armour facings. Wound mechanic just does not describe a vehicle very well. It is particularly problematic with damage progression. In old system, vehicle damage was variable, you could lose your mobility, lose your main gun or be temporarily unable to shoot. These gave you different challenges: My Leman Russ lost its Battle cannon! Now it only has Heavy bolter, oh crap..now I need to play the tank completely differently how I envisioned. Oh no, the Heavy Bolter was shot off too! Maybe I should have bought those sponsons after all. Well, it can still move, what a brave Imperial commander would do in this situation? Oh, right, crush the heretics under the steel tracks! Tank Shock!!

By contrast, in 8th edition, damage progression is boring as heck. After taking damage, tank does exact same thing it did before, only slightly worse. Yawn. The game no longer throws you curveballs. Also, another visual aspect is lost as before, for example if a gun was shot off, you could (if it wasn't glued in) just remove it from the model and one could see its condition by looking at it.

@Peregrine: was listening to Dance of Death while reading this thread...hey, that signature text seems familiar...

Backfire wrote:
Armour facings by themselves very seldom caused arguments

Sure, if you had 11/11/10 rhinos/razorbacks, 12/12/12 storm ravens, 10/10/10 trukks or 12/12/10 wave serpents, facings didn't matter that often.

But I can tell you, there was no game against my 14/12/10 battle wagons were some deep striking (and thus scattering!) melta gun wanted to be in a better arc, where a predator from across the battlefield didn't want to be firing its guns into the AV14 front armor or where someone started arguing over deff rollas being part of the hull or not - and depending on the outcome massively changing the size of the side arcs. People are a lot more willing to argue when the difference between facings is shooting a land raider, wabor trukk full of orks - especially considering how a single pen could destroy it.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ahhh love to see how ol Perri tells me I'm wrong for a game I've played for 2 decades.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Blast weapons in previous editions caused lots of arguments. It happened in games I was playing in, it happened in games I happened to be watching. I don't care how many years you claim to have played for, the scatter mechanic did not have a clear resolution in cases where small distances mattered because of the inherent inaccuracy of trying to place the template. And even reasonable, not WAAC TFG, players could disagree on where the template should go and which models should be under it.

Agree, this matches my experience as well. I've had people who I thought were unable to display anger at all at each other's throat over small blast template hitting one of my units (one was my team mate and the other one of the opponents). The enemy claimed it had hit 6 boyz, my team mate told him it was only 3. There were also a ton of players who were looking through templates at an angle and didn't understand that they were seeing a lot more models that way than they actually had hit.
Even if you rolled the scatter dice on top of the target, few people were able to properly scatter more than 4".

From 3 to 6 boyz is pretty gork damn impressive... I would accuse one of the involved poeple of being a bit salty. The difference seems to huge to me.

The problem with templates anyway has nothing to do with templates but with the scatter mechanic and I agree that in a competitive environment, it is not very precise ans suited, so why not remove the scatter after all. On a casual ladder, once again, either be kind and let the doubt benefit your oponent or flip a coin - I mean it won't kill you.

If a lot of models are involved (ork boyz!) this happened quite often, especially when they were shot after a combat had resolved and they were bunched up.
The blast template was barely clipping three of those orks, one player just counted them all as hit, the other counted none of them as hit.

It doesn't really matter why those arguments broke out, fact is that they did, and quite commonly so.

 Jidmah wrote:
If a lot of models are involved (ork boyz!) this happened quite often, especially when they were shot after a combat had resolved and they were bunched up.
The blast template was barely clipping three of those orks, one player just counted them all as hit, the other counted none of them as hit.

It doesn't really matter why those arguments broke out, fact is that they did, and quite commonly so.

As I said in my group we most probably would have called a third one to double check or rolled it out. We always make sure sombody will undertake the role of the judge (preferably, as far as I'm concerned, not on the same table as my bruv. Brotherly love could get me partial ).

But again, the scattering is neat in terms of representation, not that much in terms of gameplay, so i'm quite neutral about it, be it gone or should it remain.

On the otherside I make no compromise regarding vehicules carachteristics: flanking and arc of fires, once taken out, leave them really dull to me and I can't imagine them in a pleasant fashion. The toughness/ save system, using the pattern used for infantry, is nowhere near as good as armour values or the like, I believe.

Sounds like bad players, not bad rules. I bet they still find edge cases where they can argue for advantage.

 Jidmah wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Armour facings by themselves very seldom caused arguments

Sure, if you had 11/11/10 rhinos/razorbacks, 12/12/12 storm ravens, 10/10/10 trukks or 12/12/10 wave serpents, facings didn't matter that often.

But I can tell you, there was no game against my 14/12/10 battle wagons were some deep striking (and thus scattering!) melta gun wanted to be in a better arc, where a predator from across the battlefield didn't want to be firing its guns into the AV14 front armor or where someone started arguing over deff rollas being part of the hull or not - and depending on the outcome massively changing the size of the side arcs. People are a lot more willing to argue when the difference between facings is shooting a land raider, wabor trukk full of orks - especially considering how a single pen could destroy it.

My most common matchup was Tau vs Orks, with Devilfish hulls and Battlewagons all over the battlefield. With 'X' laser, the arguments almost never happened, it was extremely rare that a gun fell in so close of the facings line that there was any ambiguosity.
Uniform AV value didn't remove the arguments btw, as the facing still mattered in terms of cover.
Mind you, any game where distances are measured with tape can and will have "is it or is it not" arguments. If anything, the way 8th edition cover and shooting rules, arguments became more, not less, common.

Do people still not know how to make a terrain setup that works for 8th?

Come on guys. Go down the list.

Is it a big building that has a base: Use Ruins. The new definition of "Wholly On Or Within" makes based ruins work fine for conveying cover saves, because you can actually hide behind things, unlike in the early edition when many people thought the WHOLE unit and EVERY PART OF EVERY MODEL had to be inside the structure of a ruin or on top of it.

Is it a large, flat terrain piece that blocks no LOS, like a rubble field or a pond: It's a Crater. Vehicles can never claim cover from it, but infantry automatically do if they get inside it.

Is it a smallish piece, awkward for declaring as a Ruin because a whole unit would have a problem getting inside it: It's a statue. Statue is your "permissive terrain" rule for 8th ed, and you'll notice it's familiar because it's almost exactly the same as terrain from earlier editions. If you're within 3" of it, and you're obscured 25%, you're in cover. Pro tip! If you have a "forge the narrative" board with tons of small terrain bits, almost any unit that's going to be obscured from the perspective of the firer will end up being in cover!

And if you want a game that goes a great deal towards making cover easy to get, throw it all out the window and make everything a statue. You'll end up with almost no situations where a unit gets cover in 7th rules and not in 8th rules.

Most of the time when I run across one of these "Terrain in 8th is the sux" folks they usually haven't examined the rules for it since that very first couple weeks of 8th when people were like "lolz cant get cover with anything cuz cant get whole base inside!"

Only for that to work the opposing shoting army player has to agree to call a terrain pice ruins etc. And he won't because it doesn't help him win.

Karol wrote:
Only for that to work the opposing shoting army player has to agree to call a terrain pice ruins etc. And he won't because it doesn't help him win.

Can you explain to me the distinction between a player refusing to classify terrain as the rules indicate you should and a player refusing to use terrain at all because "it doesn't help him win"?

Because if that's the case, there is no edition of 40k where this would not be a problem. To my knowledge there's never been an edition that didn't classify terrain as different types that both players had to agree upon to use, whether that's "ruins" and "craters" and "woods" or whatever they were in 7th, "battlescapes"?