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.

the_scotsman wrote:
Anyone else notice that Obscuring also turns ruins into big pillars of nope?

That's a fairly solid solution to the wings n' banners problem.Saves you having to specifically call out 'wings and sails and spikes and antennas and sloths and fruit bats and bananas and pool noodles that extend over a model cannot be drawn LOS to"

Only if the wings etc are vertical rather than horizontal. If your wing tip is hanging off the ruin horizontally, you can still be shot to oblivion even if it has obscuring. It's only if the wing tip is vertical that you're safe.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
So by the new obscuration rules this two miniatures can't see each other?

Spoiler:

Correct, assuming that middle thing has "obscuring" and is over 5" high.

True, which 5 inches isn't much in terms of a lot of terrain thats out there.

Clearly, the best example of obscuring vs non-obscuring.

yukishiro1 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Anyone else notice that Obscuring also turns ruins into big pillars of nope?

That's a fairly solid solution to the wings n' banners problem.Saves you having to specifically call out 'wings and sails and spikes and antennas and sloths and fruit bats and bananas and pool noodles that extend over a model cannot be drawn LOS to"

Only if the wings etc are vertical rather than horizontal. If your wing tip is hanging off the ruin horizontally, you can still be shot to oblivion even if it has obscuring. It's only if the wing tip is vertical that you're safe.

Ya true. So tall slender models get more help than the larger wider ones.

Ultimately the reveals have been very small and not very revealing. More like appetizers if anything. Problem is that I am hungry and these meager reveals are not enough.

This also means that, for example, a land raider will be able to sit on one side of a ruin and fire all its weapons at a knight, which is unable to shoot back. For the first time ever in 40k to my knowledge, we have non-reciprocal LOS.

It also that RAW a flyer can always be shot at because it's up in the air and can be seen...but it can't shoot back at the land raider on the other side of the building, because even though it's up in the air way above the building, it's a flyer and is therefore blind.

I.e. take that guy's picture from a few posts back with two infantry models standing on buildings on either side of a low wall. If they're both infantry, neither can see the other. If one is a flyer, the infantry model can see it, but the flyer can't see the infantry model.

yukishiro1 wrote:
This also means that, for example, a land raider will be able to sit on one side of a ruin and fire all its weapons at a knight, which is unable to shoot back. For the first time ever in 40k to my knowledge, we have non-reciprocal LOS.

It also that RAW a flyer can always be shot at because it's up in the air and can be seen...but it can't shoot back at the land raider on the other side of the building, because even though it's up in the air way above the building, it's a flyer and is therefore blind.

I.e. take that guy's picture from a few posts back with two infantry models standing on buildings on either side of a low wall. If they're both infantry, neither can see the other. If one is a flyer, the infantry model can see it, but the flyer can't see the infantry model.

Why even have flyers if we're all gonna be asked to pretend that they're somewhere they're not at all times. The old rules worked well enough back in 6-7th, you actually had to care about arc of fire and angle of attack.

yukishiro1 wrote:
This also means that, for example, a land raider will be able to sit on one side of a ruin and fire all its weapons at a knight, which is unable to shoot back. For the first time ever in 40k to my knowledge, we have non-reciprocal LOS.

Not true, if the land raider is in obscuring terrain. It cant be seen, but it can still be targeted

I like it, less punishment for people modeling things to look cool is a bonus IMO.

People were trying to do this with how they made the terrain anyway, it’s nice that they saved us time and made it the rules.

Also limits fliers and super heavies a bit more which is nice. Especially since I expect the super heavy rule will become they are allowed to shoot out of combat,

 Asmodai wrote:

GW terrain will have that all spelled out in the book. Tournaments that use non-GW terrain will have it all spelled out in the tournament pack.

If I'm having a friendly home game, I'm probably not playing against someone I have to debate about that sort of thing anyway.

But thats what you have to do. When setting up a battlefield, you and your opponent(s) decide which terrain traits will be applied to each piece of scenery. And there are at least 7 traits shown, there may be more.

 Leth wrote:
I like it, less punishment for people modeling things to look cool is a bonus IMO.

People were trying to do this with how they made the terrain anyway, it’s nice that they saved us time and made it the rules.

Also limits fliers and super heavies a bit more which is nice. Especially since I expect the super heavy rule will become they are allowed to shoot out of combat,

Um, that's already what most super heavys do. At least the tanks.

Now that vehicles can fire ranged weapons into combat I assume if you are behind an obsticle you would still get the bonus to saves?

Pretty sure most people will go “this is hill, this is ruins, this is forest, sound good? Okay cool”

 Leth wrote:
Pretty sure most people will go “this is hill, this is ruins, this is forest, sound good? Okay cool”

And what if my melee army opponent wants only light cover for everything, and i with my shooting army want light and heavy cover for every 10-15 terrain pieces ? And thats just two traits. We dont know what scalable, breachable, defensible, exposed position is, yet. There could be even more traits.

Now i know why points are going up, and the battlefield size is reduced, to give you time to debate about terrain traits.

So. No help to hordes in terrain. As is it became easier to get los compared to 8th ed past couple years(actually from the start. The 1st floor blocks los was used here from the get-go).

Very dull "update" for Sisters of Silence....

 p5freak wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Pretty sure most people will go “this is hill, this is ruins, this is forest, sound good? Okay cool”

And what if my melee army opponent wants only light cover for everything, and i with my shooting army want light and heavy cover for every 10-15 terrain pieces ? And thats just two traits. We dont know what scalable, breachable, defensible, exposed position is, yet. There could be even more traits.

Now i know why points are going up, and the battlefield size is reduced, to give you time to debate about terrain traits.

I mean what if your opponent currently wants zero terrain on the table?

Personally, my solution to this person would be the same as what I assume is probably yours: Don't play that guy.

I think we need to see the full terrain rules before compliments or criticism, as this is not enough to really assess the situation. I could definitely see there being rules to address models on top of terrain seeing one another, for example. I could also see GW overlooking something like that. All it would take is a single sentence somewhere to dramatically change how a given terrain rules works or interacts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I like that cultists don't get the benefit. It is very fluffy and underlines their role as expendable scrubs. Plus, if it would not benefit them much anyway it is also not much of a loss. If it would benefit them significantly... well, there's the reason for them not to have it.

I could see a strategem for 'veteran cultists' that lets a unit get included though, maybe with some other benefit to represent CSM-aspirants.

Fluffy he says:
Alpha legion, and IW would disagree.
As should you know, the bile ones because bile would make them into new man, respectively should make them into new man.

That you described those as exceptions already proves my point. And is a bit willfully obtuse to pretend factions could not simply be given a rule that includes cultists in their benefits.

 Galas wrote:
So by the new obscuration rules this two miniatures can't see each other?

Spoiler:

I anxiously await the new "I'm not touching you!!!" exception to the rule for determining who is in range for close combat.

 p5freak wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Pretty sure most people will go “this is hill, this is ruins, this is forest, sound good? Okay cool”

And what if my melee army opponent wants only light cover for everything, and i with my shooting army want light and heavy cover for every 10-15 terrain pieces ? And thats just two traits. We dont know what scalable, breachable, defensible, exposed position is, yet. There could be even more traits.

Now i know why points are going up, and the battlefield size is reduced, to give you time to debate about terrain traits.

Well if you actually read the article you'd know that GW has included a series of presets in the rulebook for things like Ruins and Armoured Containers that give designated terrain a set of the traits, it really shouldn't be hard to decide on whats a ruin, whats a forrest and whats a barricade. As for your example, the two people in it are acting like a pair of pig headed jerks that no one else in their right mind would want to play against, so they deserve each other.

Maybe to solve this kind of immersion issue, you could just...not give the tiny little block the "Ruins" trait, therefore not giving it the "Obscuring" trait because clearly, it's not a thing you could normally see through, so why would you need to use the abstracted obscuring rule for it...?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is this just like gunline players who don't want to give up their "I can see you through a tiny window/hole in that ruin so I can shoot with all my guns" thing? Like, I don't get it. I do not get the complaint with including an OPTIONAL abstracted LOS blocking trait that you CAN apply to your terrain if it doesn't satisfactorily block TLOS.

 Imateria wrote:

Well if you actually read the article you'd know that GW has included a series of presets in the rulebook for things like Ruins and Armoured Containers that give designated terrain a set of the traits, it really shouldn't be hard to decide on whats a ruin, whats a forrest and whats a barricade. As for your example, the two people in it are acting like a pair of pig headed jerks that no one else in their right mind would want to play against, so they deserve each other.

You didnt read the article. It says

When setting up a battlefield, you and your opponent(s) decide which terrain traits will be applied to each piece of scenery.

What you see later are guidelines, those arent mandatory.

To make life easy, the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book includes some handy guidelines for which terrain traits to apply to the most common pieces of terrain.

Honestly I quite like what I've seen from todays article, it seems there's going to be a lot more nuance in terrain than we currently have.

It seems that most of the criticisms are coming from people that either haven't read properly or think that ITC's magic boxes plus massed giant L shapes cancer is a good thing. Sure, I don't think it's going to be perfect, GW seems to struggle to get near ideal at the best of times, but it's defintiely a step up.

Well 8th already needed tons of los blocking to work. 9th is just increasing so actually reducing it feels weird. Well would except since gw wants to kill light infantry from game makes sense

 p5freak wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
This also means that, for example, a land raider will be able to sit on one side of a ruin and fire all its weapons at a knight, which is unable to shoot back. For the first time ever in 40k to my knowledge, we have non-reciprocal LOS.

Not true, if the land raider is in obscuring terrain. It cant be seen, but it can still be targeted

Not if it's inside the ruin. But if it's on the other side, it can shoot away to its hearts content at the knight, which cannot shoot back.

I.e. this photo, replace the big mek with a land raider. Land raider can shoot wazbom, wazbom cannot shoot back at landraider.



Non-reciprocal LOS is a big can of worms they are opening here that is very unlikely to lead to good places.

Add to that that melee is getting a further nerf compared to the current ITC rules - to the point that you basically never actually want to be inside a ruin instead of on the other side of it - and this is really looking like the tank edition.

 p5freak wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Well if you actually read the article you'd know that GW has included a series of presets in the rulebook for things like Ruins and Armoured Containers that give designated terrain a set of the traits, it really shouldn't be hard to decide on whats a ruin, whats a forrest and whats a barricade. As for your example, the two people in it are acting like a pair of pig headed jerks that no one else in their right mind would want to play against, so they deserve each other.

You didnt read the article. It says

When setting up a battlefield, you and your opponent(s) decide which terrain traits will be applied to each piece of scenery.

What you see later are guidelines, those arent mandatory.

To make life easy, the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book includes some handy guidelines for which terrain traits to apply to the most common pieces of terrain.

It's almost like you don't understand that is a thing already. I haven't had a tournament game where I didn't have a quick conversation with my opponent (usually lasting seconds) about what does and does not count as ruins. As long as you are not playing against a complete jackass then this is never a problem and generally follows common sense, and if your opponent is a jackass then the problem generally isn't the rules to start with.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Now that vehicles can fire ranged weapons into combat I assume if you are behind an obsticle you would still get the bonus to saves?

This is probably a fair question. I'm going to assume that the answer is yes until we see an exception saying otherwise.

I must admit the no-reciprocal LoS thing is nondoubt going to cause issues.
I'm sure as I have seen some of the playtesters think this way before with Magic Boxes being described as "great for the game". They weren't this feels like more of that faulty logic, aslong as it's been considered and such models have seen smaller point increases fine, otherwise they are going to be heavily overcosted I suspect.

 Imateria wrote:

It's almost like you don't understand that is a thing already. I haven't had a tournament game where I didn't have a quick conversation with my opponent (usually lasting seconds) about what does and does not count as ruins. As long as you are not playing against a complete jackass then this is never a problem and generally follows common sense, and if your opponent is a jackass then the problem generally isn't the rules to start with.

Its very simple now. Ruin yes, or no. What a ruin does is clearly defined. Now you, and your opponent have to decide which from at least 7 traits you assign to that ruin.

 Imateria wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Well if you actually read the article you'd know that GW has included a series of presets in the rulebook for things like Ruins and Armoured Containers that give designated terrain a set of the traits, it really shouldn't be hard to decide on whats a ruin, whats a forrest and whats a barricade. As for your example, the two people in it are acting like a pair of pig headed jerks that no one else in their right mind would want to play against, so they deserve each other.

You didnt read the article. It says

When setting up a battlefield, you and your opponent(s) decide which terrain traits will be applied to each piece of scenery.

What you see later are guidelines, those arent mandatory.

To make life easy, the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book includes some handy guidelines for which terrain traits to apply to the most common pieces of terrain.

It's almost like you don't understand that is a thing already. I haven't had a tournament game where I didn't have a quick conversation with my opponent (usually lasting seconds) about what does and does not count as ruins. As long as you are not playing against a complete jackass then this is never a problem and generally follows common sense, and if your opponent is a jackass then the problem generally isn't the rules to start with.

I have to say, I don't understand this point at all. Why not also leave it up to the players to determine who goes first? Why not let the players decide what that model's armor save is? Players can come to an agreement about what the result of the D6 roll was. Why do we need these silly rules things, everything should just be based on player agreement!

Including terrain rule with only guidelines and no actual rules for how to resolve disputes isn't going to minimize disputes. It's always the rule in 40k that you can decide whatever you want. That's not a rationale for not providing a balanced framework for how to set up tables when the players have trouble agreeing because one person has a shooty army and the other has a melee army. "You have to bank on terrain doing nothing when building your list unless your opponent agrees otherwise" is not going to promote predictable and balanced list construction.

Basically it just means that TOs have to come up with rules for how to do terrain because GW didn't bother to do it themselves. And while that's ok...it's completely at odds with the rest of the philosophy of 9th about spelling things out and unifying the game.

It also naturally creates a potential flashpoint at the start of every single game. Most people won't argue because most 40k players are gentlemen. But why create that potential for argument when you could have resolved it by just having a base set of rules to apply in the absence of agreement, like they have for literally every other part of the game?