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.

Surely a tournament would define the rules for particular terrain on a table?

There are bunch of pre-written terrain categories. The agreeing thing is for when you have some custom build terrain and doesn't neatly fir into any of those categories.

Anyway the terrain rules seem good, the edition continues to look promising.

IanVanCheese wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
No matter how large your terrain feature, you can't hide a knight. Unless you can somehow get a large enough terrain feature that doesn't have the Obscuring rule? If such things still exist?

From my understanding, you can still hide models behind cover even if they're over 18 wounds, you just need to be 100% hidden.

So an enormous solid building with no gaps would block the Knight, because even though the obscured rule doesn't work for it, you literally can't draw LOS to it.

Might be wrong though.

"Models that are on or within this terrain feature can be seen and targeted normally. Aircraft models, and models with a Wounds (W) characteristic of 18 or more, are visible and can be targeted even if this terrain feature is in-between it and the firing model (note that the reverse is not true)."

It doesn't say aircraft and models with 18 wounds can be targeted normally if the terrain feature is in-between. It says they are visible and can be targeted if the terrain feature is in-between. So if you're shooting at an 18 wound model, any Obscuring terrain is treated as if it weren't there.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
No matter how large your terrain feature, you can't hide a knight. Unless you can somehow get a large enough terrain feature that doesn't have the Obscuring rule? If such things still exist?

From my understanding, you can still hide models behind cover even if they're over 18 wounds, you just need to be 100% hidden.

So an enormous solid building with no gaps would block the Knight, because even though the obscured rule doesn't work for it, you literally can't draw LOS to it.

Might be wrong though.

"Models that are on or within this terrain feature can be seen and targeted normally. Aircraft models, and models with a Wounds (W) characteristic of 18 or more, are visible and can be targeted even if this terrain feature is in-between it and the firing model (note that the reverse is not true)."

It doesn't say aircraft and models with 18 wounds can be targeted normally if the terrain feature is in-between. It says they are visible and can be targeted if the terrain feature is in-between. So if you're shooting at an 18 wound model, any Obscuring terrain is treated as if it weren't there.

That’s my reading of it too. But I think it could do with being clarified.

Its sounds like 9th has no definition of LOS at all, but is instead defined by the terrain placed on the board. If you remove all terrain from the board, all models are visible and in LOS. it is when you start placing "Obscuring" terrain on the table that you start creating firing lanes. If the Obscuring object is between you and my army, my army cannot fire at it, unless it is a Flyer or has 18+ Wounds.

Just some thoughts. Obviously, we haven't seen 9th's LOS rules or targeting rules, so hopefully there are more rules that make these distinctions come more into focus.

Ok, so the brand new 'immersive' terrain rules are...

Hills... do nothing.
Obstacles... +1 save vs ranged
Area terrain and buildings (I guess) are whatever their many possible traits say they are.

Being in 'heavy cover' protects against melee, except against chargers... which actually hurts my brain a little. Sheltering behind spiked battlements doesn't protect you against charging loonies, but does protect you when they carefully consolidate past the spikes. Ok then.

Obscuring is... a function of terrain height, not density. OK... so if I have a unit of 1.5" tall models behind a group of three 4.5" trees, they can be seen, but if they're behind three 5.4" trees, they're completely hidden. >.>

Similarly, if I've got a 10" tall model with 16 Wounds on its profile, it can't be seen behind 5" trees, but if it has 18 wounds but is only 4" tall, it can be seen. Right.

I get that this is for gameplay, not tabletop appearance, but this is absurdly gamey nonsense.

And of course, if a model's base slightly overlaps with the terrain feature, it can be seen. Of course it can.



Bonus points for traits not appearing in the same order in the example ruins and armored containers.
If you're going to have that many traits, alphabetize them, or order them somehow. 'Scaleable, Breachable, Light Cover etc' and 'Light Cover, Scaleable, Exposed Position' makes my teeth ache.

Voss wrote:


Obscuring is... a function of terrain height, not density. OK... so if I have a unit of 1.5" tall models behind a group of three 4.5" trees, they can be seen, but if they're behind three 5.4" trees, they're completely hidden. >.>

Similarly, if I've got a 10" tall model with 16 Wounds on its profile, it can't be seen behind 5" trees, but if it has 18 wounds but is only 4" tall, it can be seen. Right.

Didn't they say something about terrain having footprints?

 puma713 wrote:

Voss wrote:


Obscuring is... a function of terrain height, not density. OK... so if I have a unit of 1.5" tall models behind a group of three 4.5" trees, they can be seen, but if they're behind three 5.4" trees, they're completely hidden. >.>

Similarly, if I've got a 10" tall model with 16 Wounds on its profile, it can't be seen behind 5" trees, but if it has 18 wounds but is only 4" tall, it can be seen. Right.

Didn't they say something about terrain having footprints?

They didn't use that term specifically in the article, but I assume so. Why?

It does make me wonder though, couldn't TFG just argue that none of this terrain is "Obscuring" and therefore, his flyers and/or knights can't be targeted by the rules now?

 puma713 wrote:
It does make me wonder though, couldn't TFG just argue that none of this terrain is "Obscuring" and therefore, his flyers and/or knights can't be targeted by the rules now?

No, because non-Obscuring terrain doesn't block line of sight. All that would mean is his entire army can be targeted.

If, for example, your ruins aren't 5" tall (which includes a lot of ruins from older starter sets, which you'll find in store terrain collections), they don't block LOS.

Voss wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

Voss wrote:


Obscuring is... a function of terrain height, not density. OK... so if I have a unit of 1.5" tall models behind a group of three 4.5" trees, they can be seen, but if they're behind three 5.4" trees, they're completely hidden. >.>

Similarly, if I've got a 10" tall model with 16 Wounds on its profile, it can't be seen behind 5" trees, but if it has 18 wounds but is only 4" tall, it can be seen. Right.

Didn't they say something about terrain having footprints?

They didn't use that term specifically in the article, but I assume so. Why?

Your examples made it seem that you thought it was silly that a forest (footprint) of shorter trees couldn't obscure something, but a forest of taller trees could. Also, you and your opponent could easily say that a forest isn't obscuring and just forego these details.

 p5freak wrote:

 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.

I'm sorry, but not. You currently play only with ruins? that's because you're ignoring the bespoke rules for:

Statuary
Barricades
Craters
Forests
Tank Traps
Sector Mechanicus Terrain
Promethium Pipes
Haemotrope Reactors

And I'm sure several more. All of them have slightly different ways that units can claim cover from them.

 puma713 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

Voss wrote:


Obscuring is... a function of terrain height, not density. OK... so if I have a unit of 1.5" tall models behind a group of three 4.5" trees, they can be seen, but if they're behind three 5.4" trees, they're completely hidden. >.>

Similarly, if I've got a 10" tall model with 16 Wounds on its profile, it can't be seen behind 5" trees, but if it has 18 wounds but is only 4" tall, it can be seen. Right.

Didn't they say something about terrain having footprints?

They didn't use that term specifically in the article, but I assume so. Why?

Your examples made it seem that you thought it was silly that a forest (footprint) of shorter trees couldn't obscure something, but a forest of taller trees could. Also, you and your opponent could easily say that a forest isn't obscuring and just forego these details.

Yeah. It was an example. Pick any terrain that IS obscuring. The Ruins for example. The two story ones from the third? (fourth?) edition box set do block LOS, but the one story ones don't. Even though most infantry models are shorter than both.

They happily make this declaration:

However, the days of drawing line of sight through a gap in the wall and three consecutive windows to a unit on the opposite side of a huge building are over!

But if the 'obscuring' terrain is 4.9999" tall, you can still do exactly that.

I just find the combination they picked out for how the rules interact to be really bizarre. For the terrain, its height, for models, its wounds and or a specific type (aircraft, though that seems reasonable enough to give a pass). The mismatch makes for weird situations, and the minimum height requirement for terrain is so much bigger than the average infantry model that I don't know why they settled on it.

Voss wrote:
Ok, so the brand new 'immersive' terrain rules are...

Hills... do nothing.
Obstacles... +1 save vs ranged
Area terrain and buildings (I guess) are whatever their many possible traits say they are.

Being in 'heavy cover' protects against melee, except against chargers... which actually hurts my brain a little. Sheltering behind spiked battlements doesn't protect you against charging loonies, but does protect you when they carefully consolidate past the spikes. Ok then.

Obscuring is... a function of terrain height, not density. OK... so if I have a unit of 1.5" tall models behind a group of three 4.5" trees, they can be seen, but if they're behind three 5.4" trees, they're completely hidden. >.>

Similarly, if I've got a 10" tall model with 16 Wounds on its profile, it can't be seen behind 5" trees, but if it has 18 wounds but is only 4" tall, it can be seen. Right.

I get that this is for gameplay, not tabletop appearance, but this is absurdly gamey nonsense.

And of course, if a model's base slightly overlaps with the terrain feature, it can be seen. Of course it can.



Bonus points for traits not appearing in the same order in the example ruins and armored containers.
If you're going to have that many traits, alphabetize them, or order them somehow. 'Scaleable, Breachable, Light Cover etc' and 'Light Cover, Scaleable, Exposed Position' makes my teeth ache.

I mean, you do have that wrong. You have no idea whether a Forest would have the Obscuring keyword or not.

Obstacle and Area appear to be ways in which units claim cover from terrain. Given the way they've worded it (not the actual rule, but from their description) you claim cover from an Obstacle type of terrain by an enemy targeting you and the terrain being between you and the enemy.

Once you've claimed cover from the terrain, you can then claim all the benefits of whatever rules that terrain type offers. If you had an Obstacle that had the Light Cover trait, you'd get +1 to save. If you had an Obstacle that had the Obscuring trait, you could not be targeted if the obstacle was over 5" tall.

There are also several benefits that they mentioned, such as to-hit roll penalties and "Terrain that blocks bullets rather than making you harder to hit" that we don't know, probably hidden in the traits like Defensible and Dense Cover that have not been revealed yet. So, you may have an Obstacle that grants -1 to hit but not +1 to save, like a forest. Or an Obstacle that provides +1 to save but not -1 to hit...like I don't know, a forcefield or some gak, forge the narrative.

Obscuring is a trait that SOME TERRAIN HAS, NOT ALL TERRAIN. Not every piece of 5" tall terrain is an infinitely tall cone of nope. All the pictures people post saying "This doesn't make sense lolololololololololol" are missing the fact that a little object like a perfectly square, LOS blocking tin DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE THE OBSCURING TRAIT. There's no point it already blocks LOS just fine. The obscuring trait is there to fix the issue of GW terrain (or other terrain) that has tiny little window holes in it that you can *technically* see through.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 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.

Spoiler:

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.

Altought I share your worry, I want to point out 2 fundamental thigs:

- We don´t know how flyer works yet.
- The object in the middle must be 5" tall at least, do try to take a picture with an object 5" tall and see how much more intuitive it is.

Still we need more boost to infantry to not cancel blobs from 40k. I get it playing 180+ models is torture for both players, but this is supposed to be a game where all aspects of warfare are rapresented and 99% of the lore talks about swarms of infatry vs Power armour, or heroes in the middle of the battlefield, or courageous guardsmen taking a last stand. I like the boost to tanks and monsters, I do not like a game of big robots vs big tanks.

The non reciprocal issue only targets fliers and 18W or more models (so knights etc), so not completely terrible (especially for air who can basically move around it). It does seem odd with knights though as you could get a situation that a vehicle is hidden behind an "Obscured" piece of terrain, freely firing at a knight and that knight cannot touch it, at all. That does seem rather ganky for knight players.

Overall though, this terrain identification really helps my new Maiden World table as it has large "tree" like structures that have a lot of gaps, but are well over 5" tall. Now I don't have to buy a whole bunch of foliage to fill these gaps.

the_scotsman wrote:

Voss wrote:


Obscuring is... a function of terrain height, not density. OK... so if I have a unit of 1.5" tall models behind a group of three 4.5" trees, they can be seen, but if they're behind three 5.4" trees, they're completely hidden. >.>

I mean, you do have that wrong. You have no idea whether a Forest would have the Obscuring keyword or not.

... give me an ounce of credit and read it as an example of obscuring terrain. Change 'forest' for the example 'ruins' listed, if you can't grasp that.

Once you've claimed cover from the terrain, you can then claim all the benefits of whatever rules that terrain type offers. If you had an Obstacle that had the Light Cover trait, you'd get +1 to save. If you had an Obstacle that had the Obscuring trait, you could not be targeted if the obstacle was over 5" tall.

Well, no. If you're claiming cover from it, you'd be on or within the terrain feature, so can be seen and targeted normally, per the first sentence of the second paragraph of obscuring.

Reading the goonhammer article, I must have misheard during the stream - apparently Dense Terrain is supposedly terrain that blocks sight, rather than stopping bullets.

That is extremely unfortunate because it means that Dense Terrain is then almost certainly -1 to hit.

That means we'll have two possible Cover effects that both disproprotionately benefit Elites over Hordes.

-1 to hit penalizes you more the worse your Ballistic Skill is (units with 5+ BS lose 50% of their effectiveness, units with 2+BS lose 17%) and +1sv benefits you more the better your base Sv is (starting from a 3+ going to a 2+ gives you a 50% durability boost, vs starting from nothing oing to a 6+ gives you a 17% boost).

Unless "Defensible" is where the rule that benefits hordes is hiding, that does not bode well for light infantry in this edition either.

But if you made me guess, Defensible is a trait that means units on or within the terrain piece can freely fire out of that terrain piece as if it's not there, and Breachible is a trait that applies to area terrain that allows Infantry Swarms and Beasts to move thru it freely while other unit types cannot.

Since for example Swamps and Craters are area terrain, I would assume area terrain does not by default prevent vehicles from entering

 bullyboy wrote:
The non reciprocal issue only targets fliers and 18W or more models (so knights etc), so not completely terrible (especially for air who can basically move around it). It does seem odd with knights though as you could get a situation that a vehicle is hidden behind an "Obscured" piece of terrain, freely firing at a knight and that knight cannot touch it, at all. That does seem rather ganky for knight players.

Overall though, this terrain identification really helps my new Maiden World table as it has large "tree" like structures that have a lot of gaps, but are well over 5" tall. Now I don't have to buy a whole bunch of foliage to fill these gaps.

It also encourages staying away from terrain as if you even touch it you are seen freely regardless can you physically see enemy or not.

And i'm just almost done painting triumph and it got hit with nerf bat. Lol. It's not even competive option as it was

 Emicrania wrote:

- The object in the middle must be 5" tall at least, do try to take a picture with an object 5" tall and see how much more intuitive it is.

The object in the middle is 5" tall. That's why I used it. Do try not to assume the person you're talking to doesn't know what they're doing.

Voss wrote:
Ok, so the brand new 'immersive' terrain rules are...

Hills... do nothing.
Obstacles... +1 save vs ranged
Area terrain and buildings (I guess) are whatever their many possible traits say they are.

Being in 'heavy cover' protects against melee, except against chargers... which actually hurts my brain a little. Sheltering behind spiked battlements doesn't protect you against charging loonies, but does protect you when they carefully consolidate past the spikes. Ok then.

Obscuring is... a function of terrain height, not density. OK... so if I have a unit of 1.5" tall models behind a group of three 4.5" trees, they can be seen, but if they're behind three 5.4" trees, they're completely hidden. >.>

Similarly, if I've got a 10" tall model with 16 Wounds on its profile, it can't be seen behind 5" trees, but if it has 18 wounds but is only 4" tall, it can be seen. Right.

I get that this is for gameplay, not tabletop appearance, but this is absurdly gamey nonsense.

And of course, if a model's base slightly overlaps with the terrain feature, it can be seen. Of course it can.



Bonus points for traits not appearing in the same order in the example ruins and armored containers.
If you're going to have that many traits, alphabetize them, or order them somehow. 'Scaleable, Breachable, Light Cover etc' and 'Light Cover, Scaleable, Exposed Position' makes my teeth ache.

Pretty good way to sum it up. But these are the most playtested terrain rules ever in any GW game, and everyone (on GW's payroll or in business with them) is saying this is the best edition ever and everything is awesome and works. So we shouldn't be critical.

the_scotsman wrote:


Obscuring is a trait that SOME TERRAIN HAS, NOT ALL TERRAIN. Not every piece of 5" tall terrain is an infinitely tall cone of nope. All the pictures people post saying "This doesn't make sense lolololololololololol" are missing the fact that a little object like a perfectly square, LOS blocking tin DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE THE OBSCURING TRAIT. There's no point it already blocks LOS just fine. The obscuring trait is there to fix the issue of GW terrain (or other terrain) that has tiny little window holes in it that you can *technically* see through.

But this leads to even more absurd results.

Take my picture:



So you're saying that we shouldn't give these obscuring, which means that the flyer could shoot the big mek - but if we cut some holes in those boxes for windows, then we'd need to give it obscuring, and then the flyer COULDN'T shoot the big mek because we cut some holes and that means the flyer sees worse than if we hadn't cut holes?

No matter how you cut it, these rules lead to some really strange, nonsensical interactions - very similar to the grot on the crate being immune to melee from the carnifex.

Now that's not necessarily the end of the world to have interactions in game that defy our normal intuitions about what makes sense. But it's wrong to try to argue that isn't a nonsensical interaction, because it obviously is.

 Therion wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ok, so the brand new 'immersive' terrain rules are...

Hills... do nothing.
Obstacles... +1 save vs ranged
Area terrain and buildings (I guess) are whatever their many possible traits say they are.

Being in 'heavy cover' protects against melee, except against chargers... which actually hurts my brain a little. Sheltering behind spiked battlements doesn't protect you against charging loonies, but does protect you when they carefully consolidate past the spikes. Ok then.

Obscuring is... a function of terrain height, not density. OK... so if I have a unit of 1.5" tall models behind a group of three 4.5" trees, they can be seen, but if they're behind three 5.4" trees, they're completely hidden. >.>

Similarly, if I've got a 10" tall model with 16 Wounds on its profile, it can't be seen behind 5" trees, but if it has 18 wounds but is only 4" tall, it can be seen. Right.

I get that this is for gameplay, not tabletop appearance, but this is absurdly gamey nonsense.

And of course, if a model's base slightly overlaps with the terrain feature, it can be seen. Of course it can.



Bonus points for traits not appearing in the same order in the example ruins and armored containers.
If you're going to have that many traits, alphabetize them, or order them somehow. 'Scaleable, Breachable, Light Cover etc' and 'Light Cover, Scaleable, Exposed Position' makes my teeth ache.

Pretty good way to sum it up. But these are the most playtested terrain rules ever in any GW game, and everyone (on GW's payroll or in business with them) is saying this is the best edition ever and everything is awesome and works. So we shouldn't be critical.

Why am I just seeing Emilia Clark over and over "Best season ever!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


Obscuring is a trait that SOME TERRAIN HAS, NOT ALL TERRAIN. Not every piece of 5" tall terrain is an infinitely tall cone of nope. All the pictures people post saying "This doesn't make sense lolololololololololol" are missing the fact that a little object like a perfectly square, LOS blocking tin DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE THE OBSCURING TRAIT. There's no point it already blocks LOS just fine. The obscuring trait is there to fix the issue of GW terrain (or other terrain) that has tiny little window holes in it that you can *technically* see through.

But this leads to even more absurd results.

Take my picture:

Spoiler:

So you're saying that we shouldn't give these obscuring, which means that the flyer could shoot the big mek - but if we cut some holes in those boxes for windows, then we'd need to give it obscuring, and then the flyer COULDN'T shoot the big mek because we cut some holes and that means the flyer sees worse than if we hadn't cut holes?

No matter how you cut it, these rules lead to some really strange, nonsensical interactions - very similar to the grot on the crate being immune to melee from the carnifex.

Now that's not necessarily the end of the world to have interactions in game that defy our normal intuitions about what makes sense. But it's wrong to try to argue that isn't a nonsensical interaction, because it obviously is.

I guess part of me is saying "why is the flyer on a large piece of terrain like that?" why even have it there, juts place it on the ground for the representation.

Because that way we don't get into arguments about what TLOS shows. I wanted to create a situation where something is targetable via TLOS - here, the big mek can see part of the flyer and the flyer can see part of the big mek - but not if the piece has the obscured trait.

If I had had a box with holes in it it that you can see through it would replicate the same thing, but I am too lazy to cut holes in the boxes just to make a point on the internet.

I also could have put the flyer closer to the piece and the big mek further back, but that would have required taking a much wider photo and would have made it harder to see what was going on.

Regarding vehicles vs. infantry... did you guys notice all the 50% hidden rules are gone, so if a tank is behind an obstacle, it's getting cover, no matter what's the size of the tank or the obstacle.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Therion wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ok, so the brand new 'immersive' terrain rules are...

Hills... do nothing.
Obstacles... +1 save vs ranged
Area terrain and buildings (I guess) are whatever their many possible traits say they are.

Being in 'heavy cover' protects against melee, except against chargers... which actually hurts my brain a little. Sheltering behind spiked battlements doesn't protect you against charging loonies, but does protect you when they carefully consolidate past the spikes. Ok then.

Obscuring is... a function of terrain height, not density. OK... so if I have a unit of 1.5" tall models behind a group of three 4.5" trees, they can be seen, but if they're behind three 5.4" trees, they're completely hidden. >.>

Similarly, if I've got a 10" tall model with 16 Wounds on its profile, it can't be seen behind 5" trees, but if it has 18 wounds but is only 4" tall, it can be seen. Right.

I get that this is for gameplay, not tabletop appearance, but this is absurdly gamey nonsense.

And of course, if a model's base slightly overlaps with the terrain feature, it can be seen. Of course it can.



Bonus points for traits not appearing in the same order in the example ruins and armored containers.
If you're going to have that many traits, alphabetize them, or order them somehow. 'Scaleable, Breachable, Light Cover etc' and 'Light Cover, Scaleable, Exposed Position' makes my teeth ache.

Pretty good way to sum it up. But these are the most playtested terrain rules ever in any GW game, and everyone (on GW's payroll or in business with them) is saying this is the best edition ever and everything is awesome and works. So we shouldn't be critical.

Why am I just seeing Emilia Clark over and over "Best season ever!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


Obscuring is a trait that SOME TERRAIN HAS, NOT ALL TERRAIN. Not every piece of 5" tall terrain is an infinitely tall cone of nope. All the pictures people post saying "This doesn't make sense lolololololololololol" are missing the fact that a little object like a perfectly square, LOS blocking tin DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE THE OBSCURING TRAIT. There's no point it already blocks LOS just fine. The obscuring trait is there to fix the issue of GW terrain (or other terrain) that has tiny little window holes in it that you can *technically* see through.

But this leads to even more absurd results.

Take my picture:

Spoiler:

So you're saying that we shouldn't give these obscuring, which means that the flyer could shoot the big mek - but if we cut some holes in those boxes for windows, then we'd need to give it obscuring, and then the flyer COULDN'T shoot the big mek because we cut some holes and that means the flyer sees worse than if we hadn't cut holes?

No matter how you cut it, these rules lead to some really strange, nonsensical interactions - very similar to the grot on the crate being immune to melee from the carnifex.

Now that's not necessarily the end of the world to have interactions in game that defy our normal intuitions about what makes sense. But it's wrong to try to argue that isn't a nonsensical interaction, because it obviously is.

I guess part of me is saying "why is the flyer on a large piece of terrain like that?" why even have it there, juts place it on the ground for the representation.

Because hills exist?

 Therion wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ok, so the brand new 'immersive' terrain rules are...

Hills... do nothing.
Obstacles... +1 save vs ranged
Area terrain and buildings (I guess) are whatever their many possible traits say they are.

Being in 'heavy cover' protects against melee, except against chargers... which actually hurts my brain a little. Sheltering behind spiked battlements doesn't protect you against charging loonies, but does protect you when they carefully consolidate past the spikes. Ok then.

Obscuring is... a function of terrain height, not density. OK... so if I have a unit of 1.5" tall models behind a group of three 4.5" trees, they can be seen, but if they're behind three 5.4" trees, they're completely hidden. >.>

Similarly, if I've got a 10" tall model with 16 Wounds on its profile, it can't be seen behind 5" trees, but if it has 18 wounds but is only 4" tall, it can be seen. Right.

I get that this is for gameplay, not tabletop appearance, but this is absurdly gamey nonsense.

And of course, if a model's base slightly overlaps with the terrain feature, it can be seen. Of course it can.



Bonus points for traits not appearing in the same order in the example ruins and armored containers.
If you're going to have that many traits, alphabetize them, or order them somehow. 'Scaleable, Breachable, Light Cover etc' and 'Light Cover, Scaleable, Exposed Position' makes my teeth ache.

Pretty good way to sum it up. But these are the most playtested terrain rules ever in any GW game, and everyone (on GW's payroll or in business with them) is saying this is the best edition ever and everything is awesome and works. So we shouldn't be critical.

+1

the_scotsman wrote:
Reading the goonhammer article, I must have misheard during the stream - apparently Dense Terrain is supposedly terrain that blocks sight, rather than stopping bullets.

That is extremely unfortunate because it means that Dense Terrain is then almost certainly -1 to hit.

Unless "Defensible" is where the rule that benefits hordes is hiding, that does not bode well for light infantry in this edition either.

I genuinely don't recall "Dense" being addressed at all, but I might have missed it when my phone rang.

But if you made me guess, Defensible is a trait that means units on or within the terrain piece can freely fire out of that terrain piece as if it's not there, and Breachible is a trait that applies to area terrain that allows Infantry Swarms and Beasts to move thru it freely while other unit types cannot.

Since for example Swamps and Craters are area terrain, I would assume area terrain does not by default prevent vehicles from entering

I'm actually wondering if "Breachable" is going to be with regards to vehicles being able to enter the terrain.

I wouldn't be shocked, personally, if Defensible is going to be a trait where any infantry units on/within can act as though it's not there.

 Therion wrote:
Regarding vehicles vs. infantry... did you guys notice all the 50% hidden rules are gone, so if a tank is behind an obstacle, it's getting cover, no matter what's the size of the tank or the obstacle.

The rule said obstacles only give cover to beasts, infantry, and swarms. So vehicles can't get cover from them.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Regarding vehicles vs. infantry... did you guys notice all the 50% hidden rules are gone, so if a tank is behind an obstacle, it's getting cover, no matter what's the size of the tank or the obstacle.

The rule said obstacles only give cover to beasts, infantry, and swarms. So vehicles can't get cover from them.

My bad. I didn't actually mean obstacles at all. My point was regarding terrain that does give cover to vehicles, whatever that is, the size is irrelevant, since we don't play with line of sight anymore. I think the best way to understand terrain is like a poster above described: Everyone can always see everything, unless an exception comes into play. You get cover saves if some gak is on the way. It's essentially 2D.