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.

 Latro_ wrote:
bloodletter is safe

If the forest is "obscuring" yes.
This is supposed to be bad ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
someone posted this on the WH40k facebook thread for the preview, another legend.

bloodletter is safe

The bloodletter is clearly not safe. If the Knight moves to the right or the left, it will be able to shoot the bloodletter. If the knight goes to the front, it will be able to charge and kill the boodletter.

You realise that's a Warlord Titan Not a Knight right? Like the thing is like 4ft tall and still can shoot what it can clealry see.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
someone posted this on the WH40k facebook thread for the preview, another legend.

bloodletter is safe

The bloodletter is clearly not safe. If the Knight moves to the right or the left, it will be able to shoot the bloodletter. If the knight goes to the front, it will be able to charge and kill the boodletter.

Yep. And who knows, maybe three turns from now a model you can't even see in the photo could get him too.

I mean, in the grim-dark world of the 41st millenium, nobody is ever really safe!!! Am I right or am I right, guys???

dhallnet wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

A Repulsor can shoot a sparton through said 5 inch high obsuring terrain (even if it can not actually see the sparton) but the spartan can't shoot the Repulsor (even if it could actually see the Repulsor).

Would you mind quoting anything from the preview allowing a model to target another model it can't see to clear up the bolded part ? The only thing they say is that even if an "obscuring" terrain piece is between a repulsor and a spartan, the repulsor can ignore the obscuring rule if the spartan is its target. Not that it can ignore the terrain all together.
You guys are filling pages and pages about this stuff but... we don't have the targeting rule. We just know part of its interaction with "obscuring" and i'm pretty sure TLOS is still in effect and if you can't see something, you can't shoot it.

Its in the obscured rule if you havd 18W+ or aircraft your visible even if the terrain is between the units.

dhallnet wrote:
If the forest is "obscuring" yes.This is supposed to be bad ?

The implication is that the forest is obscuring.

And now imagine it was 10 Bloodletters and not just one. Does it make sense that the titan that towers over the terrain cannot shoot them?

Wait so yesterday we were unhappy that 11+ models could potentially get blasted of the board and today we are unhappy that these models can freely hide from this threat ?

Or should the titan fire his blast freely because it's not practical to build at scale los blocking terrain ?

Voss wrote:

But you still can. You only can't if one or more of the buildings is 5" tall AND classified as obscuring terrain. Obscuring terrain does nothing unless specifically built to be tall.
If you've got a collection of GW Ruins from old starter sets? Obscuring rarely kicks in.

I grant you that tying the obscuring to a specific height like that is not the best possible idea, and might require houseruling depending on your terrain collection. It is probably five inches because that is the floor height in the Sector Imperialis and Sector Mechanicus terrain.

Ice_can wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

A Repulsor can shoot a sparton through said 5 inch high obsuring terrain (even if it can not actually see the sparton) but the spartan can't shoot the Repulsor (even if it could actually see the Repulsor).

Would you mind quoting anything from the preview allowing a model to target another model it can't see to clear up the bolded part ? The only thing they say is that even if an "obscuring" terrain piece is between a repulsor and a spartan, the repulsor can ignore the obscuring rule if the spartan is its target. Not that it can ignore the terrain all together.
You guys are filling pages and pages about this stuff but... we don't have the targeting rule. We just know part of its interaction with "obscuring" and i'm pretty sure TLOS is still in effect and if you can't see something, you can't shoot it.

Its in the obscured rule if you havd 18W+ or aircraft your visible even if the terrain is between the units.

It doesn't say you don't need LOS. It says you can ignore obscuring.

dhallnet wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

A Repulsor can shoot a sparton through said 5 inch high obsuring terrain (even if it can not actually see the sparton) but the spartan can't shoot the Repulsor (even if it could actually see the Repulsor).

Would you mind quoting anything from the preview allowing a model to target another model it can't see to clear up the bolded part ? The only thing they say is that even if an "obscuring" terrain piece is between a repulsor and a spartan, the repulsor can ignore the obscuring rule if the spartan is its target. Not that it can ignore the terrain all together.
You guys are filling pages and pages about this stuff but... we don't have the targeting rule. We just know part of its interaction with "obscuring" and i'm pretty sure TLOS is still in effect and if you can't see something, you can't shoot it.

Its in the obscured rule if you havd 18W+ or aircraft your visible even if the terrain is between the units.

It doesn't say you don't need LOS. It says you can ignore obscuring.

No, it actually does say that the terrain piece in question can't block LOS against those targets, even TLOS, if it has the obscure keyword. It says you can ignore the terrain piece that has obscuring, not that you can ignore the obscuring keyword. Read the rule carefully.

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 probably isn't intended, but that's what it says RAW.

On the other hand, if it isn't intended, what does it say about their playtesting program? The internet spotted this in 5 minutes. Surely playtesters would have spotted it as well, and told GW?

dhallnet wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

A Repulsor can shoot a sparton through said 5 inch high obsuring terrain (even if it can not actually see the sparton) but the spartan can't shoot the Repulsor (even if it could actually see the Repulsor).

Would you mind quoting anything from the preview allowing a model to target another model it can't see to clear up the bolded part ? The only thing they say is that even if an "obscuring" terrain piece is between a repulsor and a spartan, the repulsor can ignore the obscuring rule if the spartan is its target. Not that it can ignore the terrain all together.
You guys are filling pages and pages about this stuff but... we don't have the targeting rule. We just know part of its interaction with "obscuring" and i'm pretty sure TLOS is still in effect and if you can't see something, you can't shoot it.

Its in the obscured rule if you havd 18W+ or aircraft your visible even if the terrain is between the units.

It doesn't say you don't need LOS. It says you can ignore obscuring.

It specifically states your visable even if the terrain is intervening.
That's what the rule as posted on Warhammer comunity says.
The terrain turns into a one way mirror.
It might not be what GW intended also without some rule to make it LoS blocking no GW terrain exsists that gives anything bigger than an infantry model the ability be out of los behind it.

Even thise giant solid L's if given the obscured rule can not stop someone shooting at LOW now.

yukishiro1 wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

A Repulsor can shoot a sparton through said 5 inch high obsuring terrain (even if it can not actually see the sparton) but the spartan can't shoot the Repulsor (even if it could actually see the Repulsor).

Would you mind quoting anything from the preview allowing a model to target another model it can't see to clear up the bolded part ? The only thing they say is that even if an "obscuring" terrain piece is between a repulsor and a spartan, the repulsor can ignore the obscuring rule if the spartan is its target. Not that it can ignore the terrain all together.
You guys are filling pages and pages about this stuff but... we don't have the targeting rule. We just know part of its interaction with "obscuring" and i'm pretty sure TLOS is still in effect and if you can't see something, you can't shoot it.

Its in the obscured rule if you havd 18W+ or aircraft your visible even if the terrain is between the units.

It doesn't say you don't need LOS. It says you can ignore obscuring.

No, it actually does that the terrain piece in question can't block LOS against those targets, even TLOS. It says you can ignore the terrain piece that has obscuring, not that you can ignore the obscuring keyword. Read the rule carefully.

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 probably isn't intended, but that's what it says RAW.

Ah it's another non sense "i can't read properly" stuff.
They are talking about "obscured". The terrain feature in between is obscuring. What you can ignore is that the terrain doesn't allow you to shoot stuff behind it EVEN IF YOU CAN SEE IT. Not that the terrain is there. There is nothing about circumventing targeting rules, just the interaction with the terrain trait.

edit : This will answers Ice_Can response too.

It literally says that aircraft models are visible and can be targeted even if this terrain feature is in-between it and the firing model.

If you want to say that what is literally written is not what it means, feel free. But please don't tell people that they can't read properly because they are reading what is actually written.

You are simply wrong here on an objective level as to what is written. Feel free to argue RAI, but the RAW is clear.

dhallnet wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

A Repulsor can shoot a sparton through said 5 inch high obsuring terrain (even if it can not actually see the sparton) but the spartan can't shoot the Repulsor (even if it could actually see the Repulsor).

Would you mind quoting anything from the preview allowing a model to target another model it can't see to clear up the bolded part ? The only thing they say is that even if an "obscuring" terrain piece is between a repulsor and a spartan, the repulsor can ignore the obscuring rule if the spartan is its target. Not that it can ignore the terrain all together.
You guys are filling pages and pages about this stuff but... we don't have the targeting rule. We just know part of its interaction with "obscuring" and i'm pretty sure TLOS is still in effect and if you can't see something, you can't shoot it.

Its in the obscured rule if you havd 18W+ or aircraft your visible even if the terrain is between the units.

It doesn't say you don't need LOS. It says you can ignore obscuring.

No, it actually does that the terrain piece in question can't block LOS against those targets, even TLOS. It says you can ignore the terrain piece that has obscuring, not that you can ignore the obscuring keyword. Read the rule carefully.

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 probably isn't intended, but that's what it says RAW.

Ah it's another non sense "i can't read properly" stuff.
They are talking about "obscured". The terrain feature in between is obscuring. What you can ignore is that the terrain doesn't allow you to shoot stuff behind it EVEN IF YOU CAN SEE IT. Not that the terrain is there. There is nothing about circumventing targeting rules, just the interaction with the terrain trait.

edit : This will answers Ice_Can response too.

Except that's not how english works for it to work the way your interpretating it would have to say May be visible the fact they use is visible, as a statement means you have LOS by virtue of the statement.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It literally says that aircraft models are visible and can be targeted even if this terrain feature is in-between it and the firing model.

If you want to say that what is literally written is not what it means, feel free. But please don't tell people that they can't read properly because they are reading what is actually written.

A text has a meaning as a whole. You can't take the sentence you want and say "hey you see ! It means what I think since the beginning !"
If they were discussing terrain or titanic units or aircrafts, yes ok. But they aren't, they are discussing obscuring.
Anyway, you'll see when the rules are out and this will be over, just like I am about this right now. It's "it's written i can chose to fight two times so i can forget all the rules about combat" all over again and the usual non sense that make sure we need dozens of pages of faqs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Except that's not how english works for it to work the way your interpretating it would have to say May be visible the fact they use is visible, as a statement means you have LOS by virtue of the statement.

YES because the rule "obscured" make the other side "invisible". This isn't the targeting rules, this is how obscured works. They don't tell you to ignore all rules about targeting either, are they ?
But whatever.
And that's how any language works, with context.

If you don't understand the difference between RAW and RAI that's fine, but again, please don't tell other people they can't read properly because you don't understand what's being discussed. We are discussing what is written RAW, and there is a clear, objective answer to that question.

The rule is 100% clear that RAW a terrain piece with obscuring never blocks LOS to an aircraft or 18W+ model. That may be unintended, but it is what it says.

Your argument is "that's not what they meant to say." And that's a fine argument to make. But it is not ok to say "that's what they meant to say so that's what they actually did say, and if you insist otherwise, you don't know how to read properly."

If someone types: "This guy is so incredibly smart. One of the smartest people I've ever met. He's definitely stupid, only a crazy person would say that." It's pretty fair to assume they left off a "not" by mistake, because otherwise what they wrote wouldn't make much sense. But that doesn't mean that is what they actually wrote.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

dhallnet wrote:
If the forest is "obscuring" yes.This is supposed to be bad ?

The implication is that the forest is obscuring.

And now imagine it was 10 Bloodletters and not just one. Does it make sense that the titan that towers over the terrain cannot shoot them?

That unit of 10 is actually harder to hide. Obscuring works on a model-to-model basis and only if you _cannot_ draw a straight line without touching the terrain.* (I've seen other cover systems that grant benefits if you _can_ draw a line that passes through the cover, and its a huge difference)
So unless the terrain piece is really big and wide (which the forest in the knight vs bloodletter picture isn't), targeting isn't that hard.

*Though of course, this partly depends on where you draw LOS from on a model. If its from any point on the base, its easy, if its from 'the eyes,' well, it goes back to silly.
But it needs to be spelled out, since currently cover in 8th works on a unit basis, not a model basis.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you don't understand the difference between RAW and RAI that's fine, but again, please don't tell other people they can't read properly because you don't understand what's being discussed. We are discussing what is written RAW, and there is a clear, objective answer to that question.

The rule is 100% clear that RAW a terrain piece with obscuring never blocks LOS to an aircraft or 18W+ model. That may be unintended, but it is what it says.

I can perfectly read thanks. You're just ignoring the first paragraph for the second paragraph to be dumb. Sure, if I just read the part "you can ignore this feature", then, hey, I can ignore this feature right.
Just as when I'm reading about controlled environments and setting stuff on fire, I just read the part about setting stuff on fire, it makes more sense. I like to see stuff burn.

dhallnet wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you don't understand the difference between RAW and RAI that's fine, but again, please don't tell other people they can't read properly because you don't understand what's being discussed. We are discussing what is written RAW, and there is a clear, objective answer to that question.

The rule is 100% clear that RAW a terrain piece with obscuring never blocks LOS to an aircraft or 18W+ model. That may be unintended, but it is what it says.

I can perfectly read thanks. You're just ignoring the first paragraph for the second paragraph to be dumb. Sure, if I just read the part "you can ignore this feature", then, hey, I can ignore this feature right.
Just as when I'm reading about controlled environments and setting stuff on fire, I just read the part about setting stuff on fire, it makes more sense. I like to see stuff burn.

What are you talking about? The first paragraph establishes how obscuring works.

The second paragraph has two cases.
Case 1- models are on or within the terrain feature- they can be seen and targeted normally (ie, ignore obscuring)
Case 2- models are aircraft or 18+ wounds. They are explicitly visible and can be targeted even if the obscuring terrain is in the way (ie, ignore obscuring).

The only thing the second paragraph does at all is tell you when 'obscuring' doesn't apply.

Voss wrote:
That unit of 10 is actually harder to hide. Obscuring works on a model-to-model basis and only if you _cannot_ draw a straight line without touching the terrain.* (I've seen other cover systems that grant benefits if you _can_ draw a line that passes through the cover, and its a huge difference)
So unless the terrain piece is really big and wide (which the forest in the knight vs bloodletter picture isn't), targeting isn't that hard.

*Though of course, this partly depends on where you draw LOS from on a model. If its from any point on the base, its easy, if its from 'the eyes,' well, it goes back to silly.

But it needs to be spelled out, since currently cover in 8th works on a unit basis, not a model basis.

But right now the interpretation of GW's Obscured trait is that the terrain is infinity inches high, so it wouldn't matter whether it was 1 or 10 Bloodletters as long as they were behind the terrain (vertically) in relation to the titan. As soon as 1mm of one of their bases, or swords, or horns or whatever sticks out to the side of that infinitely high terrain piece, then they're all dead.

Voss wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you don't understand the difference between RAW and RAI that's fine, but again, please don't tell other people they can't read properly because you don't understand what's being discussed. We are discussing what is written RAW, and there is a clear, objective answer to that question.

The rule is 100% clear that RAW a terrain piece with obscuring never blocks LOS to an aircraft or 18W+ model. That may be unintended, but it is what it says.

I can perfectly read thanks. You're just ignoring the first paragraph for the second paragraph to be dumb. Sure, if I just read the part "you can ignore this feature", then, hey, I can ignore this feature right.
Just as when I'm reading about controlled environments and setting stuff on fire, I just read the part about setting stuff on fire, it makes more sense. I like to see stuff burn.

What are you talking about? The first paragraph establishes how obscuring works.

The second paragraph has two cases.
Case 1- models are on or within the terrain feature- they can be seen and targeted normally (ie, ignore obscuring)
Case 2- models are aircraft or 18+ wounds. They are explicitly visible and can be targeted even if the obscuring terrain is in the way (ie, ignore obscuring).

The only thing the second paragraph does at all is tell you when 'obscuring' doesn't apply.

Thanks, it's exactly what I've been saying for a few post (that you must haven't read).
And I'm the guy that can't read

Edit : To make it short for the guys that were arguing with me and as my last try :
If you couldn't draw LOS in the first place, there is no reason for you to even apply "obscured", thus you don't get to ignore the terrain feature.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
That unit of 10 is actually harder to hide. Obscuring works on a model-to-model basis and only if you _cannot_ draw a straight line without touching the terrain.* (I've seen other cover systems that grant benefits if you _can_ draw a line that passes through the cover, and its a huge difference)
So unless the terrain piece is really big and wide (which the forest in the knight vs bloodletter picture isn't), targeting isn't that hard.

*Though of course, this partly depends on where you draw LOS from on a model. If its from any point on the base, its easy, if its from 'the eyes,' well, it goes back to silly.

But it needs to be spelled out, since currently cover in 8th works on a unit basis, not a model basis.

But right now the interpretation of GW's Obscured trait is that the terrain is infinity inches high, so it wouldn't matter whether it was 1 or 10 Bloodletters as long as they were behind the terrain (vertically) in relation to the titan. As soon as 1mm of one of their bases, or swords, or horns or whatever sticks out to the side of that infinitely high terrain piece, then they're all dead.

The height doesn't matter for this, how LOS is drawn does.
If you can place your 1mm line with the far edge of the base, you can probably hit bloodletter 8, 9 or 10 with a line that doesn't cross the forest. So yes, there is an infinitely tall dead spot, but if you can draw LOS from the knights base (or foot, or barrel), you've got a different LOS cone that could intersect with a model further back.

If its from the 'eyes' of the firing model, then yes, you're right... up until the knight moves 6" to the right, which shifts the lines you can draw without contacting the terrain.

So you're ok with an infinitely high blind spot?

dhallnet wrote:

Voss wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you don't understand the difference between RAW and RAI that's fine, but again, please don't tell other people they can't read properly because you don't understand what's being discussed. We are discussing what is written RAW, and there is a clear, objective answer to that question.

The rule is 100% clear that RAW a terrain piece with obscuring never blocks LOS to an aircraft or 18W+ model. That may be unintended, but it is what it says.

I can perfectly read thanks. You're just ignoring the first paragraph for the second paragraph to be dumb. Sure, if I just read the part "you can ignore this feature", then, hey, I can ignore this feature right.
Just as when I'm reading about controlled environments and setting stuff on fire, I just read the part about setting stuff on fire, it makes more sense. I like to see stuff burn.

What are you talking about? The first paragraph establishes how obscuring works.

The second paragraph has two cases.
Case 1- models are on or within the terrain feature- they can be seen and targeted normally (ie, ignore obscuring)
Case 2- models are aircraft or 18+ wounds. They are explicitly visible and can be targeted even if the obscuring terrain is in the way (ie, ignore obscuring).

The only thing the second paragraph does at all is tell you when 'obscuring' doesn't apply.

Thanks, it's exactly what I've been saying for a few post (that you must haven't read).
And I'm the guy that can't read

Then... you're agreeing with yukishiro as far as I can tell.

Voss wrote:

Then... you're agreeing with yukishiro as far as I can tell.

No, his stance is that you ignore the terrain all together as long as you are shooting an aircraft or a 18+ wounds model.
Which isn't the same as not applying "obscured".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So you're ok with an infinitely high blind spot?

It's the cleanest solution unless you want to build enormous terrain pieces. Or unless you're fine with the bigger models being able to shoot everywhere.

dhallnet wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you don't understand the difference between RAW and RAI that's fine, but again, please don't tell other people they can't read properly because you don't understand what's being discussed. We are discussing what is written RAW, and there is a clear, objective answer to that question.

The rule is 100% clear that RAW a terrain piece with obscuring never blocks LOS to an aircraft or 18W+ model. That may be unintended, but it is what it says.

I can perfectly read thanks. You're just ignoring the first paragraph for the second paragraph to be dumb. Sure, if I just read the part "you can ignore this feature", then, hey, I can ignore this feature right.
Just as when I'm reading about controlled environments and setting stuff on fire, I just read the part about setting stuff on fire, it makes more sense. I like to see stuff burn.

You're the one who said I couldn't read properly. I never said you couldn't read properly. Please don't accuse others of what you said yourself.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm reading what the sentence actually says, and it's very clear. It says "ignore this terrain feature," not "ignore the obscuring keyword on this terrain feature." It is certainly possible that what they wrote doesn't reflect their intent, like in my analogy to the guy who wrote "stupid" instead of "not stupid." But you can't argue that what they wrote doesn't say what it says because you think they didn't mean to say what they said. That doesn't make sense.

The rule says you ignore the entire terrain feature when targeting if the target is aircraft or 18W+. That's just what it says. What you think they meant is a different question.

This isn't a question of context. There was a very simple way to say what you think they meant to say - "ignore the obscuring keyword on this terrain feature" - and they explicitly did not say it. That may be their error, but you can't argue about what the text actually says on a semantic level.

yukishiro1 wrote:

You're the one who said I couldn't read properly.

You said I might not understand which to me is quite essential to reading. But my bad.
Won't engage in this anymore though.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So you're ok with an infinitely high blind spot?

I'm not sure what you mean. I find the 4.9" vs 5" divide rather silly, personally.

But the question wasn't whether I was OK with it, it was how the rule works- whether the bloodletter was 'safe' or not, and more bloodletters are less safe, because there are more lines that can be drawn without crossing the terrain, no matter how you arrange them.


In a completely abstracted system, infinite height doesn't particularly bother me. In this weird hybrid system (abstracted...sometimes) it produces a lot of 'wait, what?' results. But since the models aren't infinitely high (and in fact the vast majority of models are far shorter than 5", its a fact that doesn't matter)

dhallnet wrote:
Or unless you're fine with the bigger models being able to shoot everywhere.

Why is that a bad thing?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

dhallnet wrote:
Or unless you're fine with the bigger models being able to shoot everywhere.

Why is that a bad thing?

Well, in theory, if you're a game designer trying to limit the power of shooting by breaking up line of sight... Letting big stuff (with more guns) shoot whatever they want just might be counter to the design decision.

Btw, they’re talking about flyers tonight, I reckon when they’re in super sonic mode they’ll ignore obscuring, but when in hover model they won’t.