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.
I see people clamoring everywhere for better terrain rules and I often feel I'm in the minority that likes the current simplified and streamlined terrain rules and I hate the idea of clogging up the game and slowing it down further with complex terrain rules. I especially don't miss arguing and checking for individual models being in cover or line of sight to their body.
I would like to know exactly what proponents of better terrain rules mean when they say that.
I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between #3 and #4, but I went with #4.
Tetsu0 wrote: I hate the idea of clogging up the game and slowing it down further with complex terrain rules.
Personally, I don't think it needs to clog up the game at all. 'I'm in cover that provides obscurement. You hit at -1 and I get +1 to my save.'
My issue with terrain rules at the moment is twofold: TLOS makes it too hard to actually block line of sight, and the effects of cover are very limited and disproportionally benefit units with 3+ saves rather than units with 5+ or 6+ saves, which seems the opposite of how it should be.
Cities of Death and Kill Team have the good mechanic of cover that actually conceals you reducing the chance to hit. Apocalypse has cover provide an invuln save (like how it used to work in previous editions of 40K). Both are good alternatives.
Regarding speed of play, I think this does relate to your other concern:
Tetsu0 wrote: I especially don't miss arguing and checking for individual models being in cover or line of sight to their body.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
My group has started using area terrain rules. For an area of woods (with a clear base to show where it is), units can shoot into or out of it but not through it (IE, it blocks LOS). If a unit is inside the woods, it gets cover. Simple, no arguments, easy to check LOS from a bird's-eye view.
I think more impactful cover rules, coupled with making it easier to block LOS without needing ITC-esque houserules, would substantially improve the game.
And then to touch on another issue: This is contingent on players actually deploying enough terrain. Most tables I see, especially at tournaments, don't have nearly enough.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/24 16:49:44
We have a Kill Team board next to the game table. The kill team board is an indoor environment.
When a unit is on their own in a building usual rules apply.
But when an enemy unit is in the same building. We then go and have a simple game of kill team with those units. (i know not all units are in kill team but we adapt where necessary).
The result of the kill team game is what happens in that building and counts to main board. If the opponent wants to "run away" and moves their unit out the building for whatever reason then they have simply "fallen back" on the big table with whatever damage was sustained during kill team.
The terrain rules need to move away from true line of sight and bring back area terrain rules that allow a unit to claim cover for occupying a defined area (wouldn't be bad if they also brought back the old "if its deeper than X" it blocks line of sight to anything behind it" rule).
The current terrain rules may seem "streamlined" from the approach of how they are written, but in practice they probably result in more arguments than anything else I've seen in this or other games.
A simple set of effective terrain rules would basically boil down to:
1. If you have a clear and unimpeded line of sight to any model in a target unit and that target unit is not occupying a piece of area terrain, then there is no impact (i.e. no bonuses or penalties, etc.).
2. If you only have obstructed line of sight to all models in a target unit or that target unit is occupying a piece of area terrain, then *insert appropriate penalty, etc. here)
3. If line of sight is fully obstructed/blocked then you can't shoot at it.
I would say that enemy units should not provide cover to other enemy units because you drew line of sight through them - the general assumption/abstraction is that these models are themselves hugging the ground or making themselves as small as possible to avoid being hit rather than standing out in the open, but I would say that *FRIENDLY* units should provide cover to enemy units if any line you can draw between a firing unit and a target unit would pass over a friendly model - on the basis that in real world terms you would generally try to avoid putting hate and discord downrange over the heads of your own troops, so if theres an intervening unit between you and your target you take a shooting penalty or whatever as your troops aim their shots so as to avoid putting friendlies in harms way.
In any case its a pretty simple and streamlined set of instructions to follow and one which doesn't lead to arguments as its taken an all or nothing approach - either the target is fully obstructed or it isn't, either its fully in cover or it isn't, etc. No more figuring out if 50% of the unit or model is obstructed or in cover, etc. All or nothing. Very simple. The bonus here is that it will mean that model placement/positioning will actually matter for once, which is an area where gameplay is currently (and has been for quite a few editions) critically lacking.
I would also consider an additional stipulation that if a unit is claiming cover from a piece of area terrain, then it needs to be declared as a step of the movement phase otherwise it doesn't get any benefit. I.E. Unit X is going to occupy this piece of area terrain and I will market with this token so that its clear that they are in cover. This will help cut down on arguments and hopefully catch any potential issues upfront at a point where it can be addressed rather than at a point where one party claims that the other doesn't get the benefit of cover because a models base is partially outside of the area terrain footprint because it got knocked over by accident earlier on in the turn, etc.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
I think the game needs a level of abstraction when it comes to drawing line of sight that it currently doesn't have. The biggest failing of the current system is a unit on one side of a building can fire through a window at a tiny chunk of one model's leg and they fire at exactly the same effectiveness as if the two units were just standing in an open field.
That with the ENORMOUS weapon ranges 40k has relative to the board size leads to a game where to compete with gunlines melee units basically have to appear 2" away and just start smacking your face. It's an unhealthy escalation that starts with the deadliness of shooting.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
I would like stronger more granular rules for terrain. I'd also like the ability to do things like set a building/brush on fire - blow up building with HE cannons. Cut down forests with assault cannons. Suppress enemy shooting. Lets get real - a heavy stubber is str 4 and is comparable to a .50 machine gun. .50 cal machine guns obliterate building walls and kill the guys behind them today. You want real terrain rules you can make terrain immune to damage.
Terrain should impede movement a lot more than it does right now though and most obviously men should not be able to walk through walls.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/24 17:41:50
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
How many of you has actually played with the current terrain rules on a diverse table?
Tank traps/Tangle wire, ruins, rubble/craters, Pipes, Sectors, barricades, forests, etc.. B.c once you play with a good amount of terrain (not everything LoS blocking, and magic boxes) and using objectives like in CA, the terrain instantly actually does stuff and changes the game completely. There is actually a few terrain pieces that grants cover for just being behind.
So before you answer, ask yourself if you have actually played with GW terrain rules and not a half assed version of those rules?
Now for IMO, I like to add that Cities of death gives even more and better rules, Apoc is way to streamline for me for a normal 40k game for terrain (but i love how Apoc plays more than 40k in general).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/24 17:56:17
Only thing I would want would be that units not within line of sight gain the benefit of cover even if not in it. This would mean that infantry units that take some casualties on a unit just barely in vision gain a defensive boost at the cost of giving up potentially important models.
So, for example, say you are almost fully behind a building, but each model from an enemy unit can only see 1 model of yours. Normally, they shoot, and you're entire unit can end up getting smashed. Lots of people don't like it. So, make it that if you're making saves but you can't be seen, you automatically have cover. You still get to finish your shooting, and it's still simple, but now the last models from a unit are harder to kill. Also reduces the strength of No LoS shooting, which I think is nice.
Galef wrote: If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
'True line of sight' isn't as the models as static not moving as they would to fit cover.
Honestly the Epic Armageddon system was the best. Simple area terrain rules for ruins, woods, built up areas, etc. Virtually all of it was in this handy table.
(They also had a great crossfire mechanic: if you could draw a line from a firing model to a friendly model within 45cm and that line crossed the enemy unit - so a model from it or the space between two models - you got an extra -1 to your save.)
I don't know which to pick for no more true line of sight. IMO terrain and models should have sizes and block LoS according to that, so people don't get punished because they decided to give their hero a dynamic pose or a back banner. Or better yet GW decide to give a model such a pose.
Stuff in terrain should be visible, but get cover, stuff behind woods, ruins or buildings should not , unless they are really big, but then they still get cover for being, for example, a knight standing behind a forest or bunker.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
the_scotsman wrote: I think the game needs a level of abstraction when it comes to drawing line of sight that it currently doesn't have. The biggest failing of the current system is a unit on one side of a building can fire through a window at a tiny chunk of one model's leg and they fire at exactly the same effectiveness as if the two units were just standing in an open field.
That with the ENORMOUS weapon ranges 40k has relative to the board size leads to a game where to compete with gunlines melee units basically have to appear 2" away and just start smacking your face. It's an unhealthy escalation that starts with the deadliness of shooting.
I think this is one of the only cases where I could tolerate more complex terrain rules. To specifically help melee units in this game and get better balance.
Though one of the things I hated about the terrain rules of 7th was how badly it could screw over your melee units and charges.
The rules are fine with the right kind of terrain. Large solid structures surrounded by a rubble base to provide cover when near. The main issue is just that the terrain GW sells doesn't interact well with the rules. Tons of gaps make them irrelevant for LOS blocking and the lack of large rubble bases around them makes them not function correctly as cover.
catbarf wrote: I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between #3 and #4, but I went with #4.
Tetsu0 wrote: I hate the idea of clogging up the game and slowing it down further with complex terrain rules.
Personally, I don't think it needs to clog up the game at all. 'I'm in cover that provides obscurement. You hit at -1 and I get +1 to my save.'
My issue with terrain rules at the moment is twofold: TLOS makes it too hard to actually block line of sight, and the effects of cover are very limited and disproportionally benefit units with 3+ saves rather than units with 5+ or 6+ saves, which seems the opposite of how it should be.
Cities of Death and Kill Team have the good mechanic of cover that actually conceals you reducing the chance to hit. Apocalypse has cover provide an invuln save (like how it used to work in previous editions of 40K). Both are good alternatives.
Regarding speed of play, I think this does relate to your other concern:
Tetsu0 wrote: I especially don't miss arguing and checking for individual models being in cover or line of sight to their body.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
My group has started using area terrain rules. For an area of woods (with a clear base to show where it is), units can shoot into or out of it but not through it (IE, it blocks LOS). If a unit is inside the woods, it gets cover. Simple, no arguments, easy to check LOS from a bird's-eye view.
I think more impactful cover rules, coupled with making it easier to block LOS without needing ITC-esque houserules, would substantially improve the game.
And then to touch on another issue: This is contingent on players actually deploying enough terrain. Most tables I see, especially at tournaments, don't have nearly enough.
Catbarf I do agree that terrain rules could shuffle a bit to provide a more balanced benefit to units in cover with crappy armor or have invuls like demons and harlequins.
How many of you has actually played with the current terrain rules on a diverse table?
Tank traps/Tangle wire, ruins, rubble/craters, Pipes, Sectors, barricades, forests, etc.. B.c once you play with a good amount of terrain (not everything LoS blocking, and magic boxes) and using objectives like in CA, the terrain instantly actually does stuff and changes the game completely. There is actually a few terrain pieces that grants cover for just being behind.
So before you answer, ask yourself if you have actually played with GW terrain rules and not a half assed version of those rules?
Now for IMO, I like to add that Cities of death gives even more and better rules, Apoc is way to streamline for me for a normal 40k game for terrain (but i love how Apoc plays more than 40k in general).
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
TLOS was added to 40k in 1987. It has always been there.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
TLOS was added to 40k in 1987. It has always been there.
There was a brief period during 4e when it wasn't.
I have three issues with the current "terrain rules".
1) They provide next to no protection against shooting unless it's a solid wall completely blocking LoS and you have a small and compact unit able to hide behind. Perfect for marines. Forget about it with monsters and larger squads.
Many times a terrain can feel like an obstacle course for close combat/close range armies, while the enemy rains fire from distance without any penalty or restriction.
2) The rules for close combat pretend there is no terrain and no height (except one weird exception for barricades). GW writers simply gave up writing the 8th edition rules when getting to the terrain part.
Where the terrain rules support shooting in the most abstract and generous manner imaginable, it's absolutely unforgivable in deciding what can charge and fight when there are things in the way. And GW doubled down on this, instead of finishing their own rules.
3) TLoS involving the entirety of the model, antennas, wings, tentacles, gun barrels, tips of swords.
Cities of Death from CA18 looked good (as far as shooting and mobility went, no help with CC), but I've never managed to get anyone play with them
AnomanderRake wrote: We don't need more fiddly granularity in terrain, we just need speed penalties to come back.
Not just speed penalties. That would just make fly keyword even more powerful. We would need some kind of draw back for fly keyword like they used to have like on a 1 a model is slain for landing in difficult terrain.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
TLOS was added to 40k in 1987. It has always been there.
There was a brief period during 4e when it wasn't.
4th still used TLOS, it was only the separate rules for area terrain, which was its own thing with size categories that was different (which was also in 3rd, minus the size categories). Everything else used TLOS. It's just people got lazy in categorizing terrain and just said "feth it! Everything's area terrain" when setting up a game.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
okey, but this means you have to build specific terrain for w40k. high flat walls with no windows or doors, because if there are any the terrain may as well not exist. Also the I see that guy thing is very fun when your dudes come with big banners, or you decided to put your smash captin swooping down, instead of laying down belly flat on his base. All ancients in my area are called , what could be translated as, dirt gathers , because all their banners are pointed flat down, and out of all people that do use them, I can think of only one guy who really did resculpt the mode to make it look good. everyone else just fliped the arm of the ancient by 160 degree.
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
TLOS was added to 40k in 1987. It has always been there.
There was a brief period during 4e when it wasn't.
4th still used TLOS, it was only the separate rules for area terrain, which was its own thing with size categories that was different (which was also in 3rd, minus the size categories). Everything else used TLOS. It's just people got lazy in categorizing terrain and just said "feth it! Everything's area terrain" when setting up a game.
It's a huuuuge distinction though. For example, you could see into a forest, but not through a forest. This immediately gave a table a lot more LOS blocking terrain.
5th Edition onward, if you could see it, you could shoot it. (barf)
How many of you has actually played with the current terrain rules on a diverse table?
Tank traps/Tangle wire, ruins, rubble/craters, Pipes, Sectors, barricades, forests, etc.. B.c once you play with a good amount of terrain (not everything LoS blocking, and magic boxes) and using objectives like in CA, the terrain instantly actually does stuff and changes the game completely. There is actually a few terrain pieces that grants cover for just being behind.
So before you answer, ask yourself if you have actually played with GW terrain rules and not a half assed version of those rules?
Now for IMO, I like to add that Cities of death gives even more and better rules, Apoc is way to streamline for me for a normal 40k game for terrain (but i love how Apoc plays more than 40k in general).
Yeah, I've pretty extensively used all the terrain rules GW has on offer.
I've found that in terms of functionality the best terrain rules have been "statuary" (unit entirely within 3" and obscured 25% = cover) and "Ruins" for items that have inbuilt bases.
I dislike "Barricade" and related rules because getting a unit entirely within 1" in order for the terrain to have any effect at all is very poor. I also greatly prefer adding the "Obscurement" rule from Cities of Death but without the associated other rules of hard cover and height advantage.
Infantry-only terrain like Craters and Forests is...fine, but ideally I don't want to put anything on my table that doesn't have any effect on what's really moving thru it.
Traps and associated terrain I've used several times and never seen them have any effect.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
It's a huuuuge distinction though. For example, you could see into a forest, but not through a forest. This immediately gave a table a lot more LOS blocking terrain.
5th Edition onward, if you could see it, you could shoot it. (barf)
2nd had the same rules as 5th
2nd ed. rulebook page 26- "However in some cases it will be difficult to tell if a LOS is blocked or not, and players must stoop over the table for a model's eye view. This is always the best way to determine if LOS exists- some players even use small periscopes or mirrors to check the views from their models!..."
...which is because TLOS often leads to arguments and is generally a colossal pain in the ass, and IMO not worth the benefits it adds.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Back when TLOS was added to the game, I found the number of arguments went down, not up.
I was playing a lot when TLOS was first introduced, and what had been arguments turned into 'I can see that guy.' 'Yeah, OK' and games suddenly got bogged down a lot less.
okey, but this means you have to build specific terrain for w40k. high flat walls with no windows or doors, because if there are any the terrain may as well not exist. Also the I see that guy thing is very fun when your dudes come with big banners, or you decided to put your smash captin swooping down, instead of laying down belly flat on his base. All ancients in my area are called , what could be translated as, dirt gathers , because all their banners are pointed flat down, and out of all people that do use them, I can think of only one guy who really did resculpt the mode to make it look good. everyone else just fliped the arm of the ancient by 160 degree.
Yes this. Just because the tip of a model's sword can see the top of another model's topknot shouldn't make it target able. At the least you should get a minus to hit in that situation. Same goes for shooting through windows. The way you model a unit shouldn't offer an advantage or disadvantage.
How many of you has actually played with the current terrain rules on a diverse table?
Tank traps/Tangle wire, ruins, rubble/craters, Pipes, Sectors, barricades, forests, etc.. B.c once you play with a good amount of terrain (not everything LoS blocking, and magic boxes) and using objectives like in CA, the terrain instantly actually does stuff and changes the game completely. There is actually a few terrain pieces that grants cover for just being behind.
So before you answer, ask yourself if you have actually played with GW terrain rules and not a half assed version of those rules?
I have. My experience was:
-Very little actually blocks LOS, because no matter how thick you pack your trees, or even if I'm three feet away with a building in the way, all you need is to spot one exposed hand through a tiny crack in the foliage or through a window, and then the terrain might as well not exist. If you want a LOS blocker you have to make a very 'gamey' solid wall of terrain with no windows or cracks whatsoever.
-There's not much point in me actually taking cover, because when playing as Guard with a 5+ save, going up against AP-2 bolt rifles, all it gets me is a 6+ save instead of no save. Meanwhile the Space Marine player has lots of incentive to take cover, because against AP0 it doubles his survivability. This is literally the opposite of how it used to work and how I logically expect it to work. Barricades and the like requiring you to have every single model in the squad within 1" doesn't help matters.
-A unit in the woods gets cover. A unit on the other side of the woods, on the other hand, can be targeted without any penalty whatsoever. A unit inside a building gets cover, a unit on the other side of the building only visible through a window and which could escape LOS entirely if the model were capable of ducking doesn't get cover (and then, because the one guy was visible, the whole squad gets wiped).
And lastly, most frustratingly:
-How I've posed a model is suddenly vitally important to determining its line of sight and vulnerability. How I convert a model can be red-flagged as 'modeling for advantage'. I am incentivized to leave my arm-raised Sergeant at home because he's trivially easy to spot over intervening objects. I hate this mechanic- it completely destroys my immersion in the game to imagine Captain Tetanus scooting around the field unable to get his arm down, with the enemy's bullets lethally ricocheting off of it to kill the entire squad in one round of shooting. Meanwhile my Krieg heavy weapon teams can't see over barricades because they're modeled as crouching, never mind that the gun carriage has a very obvious elevation mechanism in the sculpt. It's fething stupid.
The current cover/LOS rules are my #1 gripe with 8th Ed. I like that GW has shown willingness to iterate, as seen in Cities of Death, Kill Team, and Apoc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/24 20:54:53
I "like" the present rules how they stand because other alternatives seem to make play "worse".
It all boils down to in real life either the intervening object obscures you from the shooter (harder to hit) and/or it provides a means to block or reduce the effectiveness of the shot (armor = bullet resistance).
The next complication is how a "unit" is treated of one model or many and that what can happen to one model in the unit makes all the rest of them fair game to a certain extent (it is representative, they are in that "area" not specifically that model).
Units must be treated very much as "one" model and the various guys being little more than wounds, war-gear and varying how it takes up space like an amoeba.
"Is your base wholly within the area terrain?"
I personally like the "wholly within" rules for area terrain to get cover or we get into those splitting up hits in a unit with those in cover and out of cover.
I keep hearing we need realism until my Ork player friend is trying to fit 30 Orks into a 6" wooded area and hiding the rest behind it.
The alternate "Cities of Death" rules in Chapter approved is a good choice to pick and choose from I would suggest for that mentioned "granular" approach.
If ANYONE has a really simple rule for intervening units I would be very happy to hear it. Intervening units providing cover had been an old pain and prone to abuse.
It all boils down to taking a "cheap" screening unit and it somehow is a bullet-catcher for the ravening hordes behind them.
There have been no real good rules for this unless the unit in front is treated similar to a "wall".
There is still addressing the say 10-man unit providing cover for a 30 man unit.
We can play with the number of wounds of screening unit vs the other, physical model size being at least half the height of the unit to be covered, only models of the same base size or bigger able to screen covered unit.
Not great.
I find the part that makes some of my friends "upset" when they play is that everything happens with the entirety of the model: "what do you mean you can shoot all your weapons from the back corner of my tank?!?!"
OR "What do you mean I do not get any bonuses for shooting the back corner of your tank?!?!".
It really has to be "stupid" simple. As soon as we discuss "closest to______" it starts bogging hard.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
5500
2500 
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
