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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 kodos wrote:
So it is not fun for the opponent to get shot by a Knight and therefore rules are needed to change that.

but it is fun for the Knight player to get shot by invisible units he cannot shoot back?

I would say the target is that the game is fun for both players and not in one edition player A has fun while in the next edition player B

Aren't knights tanky enough to not get focused down in a single turn? I think the knight player has time to reposition and open fire.
Or just position in such a way as to always be able to fire.

why do you think this is only a single turn?

I just need to hide my Anti-Tank units behind a 5" terrain in my deployment zone and can shoot at the Knight right from the start. He cannot hide
while he needs to walk thru the whole table and around the terrain to see that unit (but I can also run around it so that there is always the piece of terrain between them)

there is no way the Knight player can position himself to always fire

there is a reason why nearly every game has a "as soon as you shoot me I can see you and shoot back" rule
(if the unit is very hard to hit or get very good save is a different story but invisbile while shooting would be something unique again for 40k)

No wolves on Fenris wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Is that not an impulsor.

Don’t think so. Looks like side sponsons and there’s no troop carrying section at the back

The ‘side sponsons’ are the engines on the side of the impulsor, and it looks like the back is open. Looks like an impulsor to me.

Eyjio wrote:
I don't mean to sound overly rude, but the examples attempting to show the terrain rules are ridiculous are absolutely terribly thought out and ignore that both players must agree the traits of each terrain piece before the battle begins.

Which is fething terrible by the way. I'm glad we're regressing back to pre 8th edition where we have to ask our opponent if they're okay with getting dicked by my terrain designations- or vice versa.

 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 assume movement phase is not done already. Warlord titan isn't shooting that letter nor is he charging(too far)

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
I don't mean to sound overly rude, but the examples attempting to show the terrain rules are ridiculous are absolutely terribly thought out and ignore that both players must agree the traits of each terrain piece before the battle begins.

Which is fething terrible by the way. I'm glad we're regressing back to pre 8th edition where we have to ask our opponent if they're okay with getting dicked by my terrain designations- or vice versa.

What are you talking about?

Throughout 8th Edition, every single game I've played I've had to clarify this with my opponents.

In Casual and Competitive games, I always have to confirm which terrain rules they prefer to play with: GW Rulebook, ITC, ETC, or something else--and then we have to agree how we will apply that to the terrain on the table.

In Tournament settings, they usually define ITC/ETC and we still end up having to agree which terrain elements qualify as LOS blocking or not (e.g., windows versus broken walls versus doors, etc.), and still constantly have to agree intent (e.g., exactly 1" away from within an LOS blocking L-block wall, blah blah). If they leave it to the GW Rulebook, we're left with a very shooting-favorable set up with little room to give help to melee board-advancement.

I still think we'll have to do all of the above, but at least when in the GW Rulebook paradigm, we'll have more pre-agreed tools with which to work.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
I don't mean to sound overly rude, but the examples attempting to show the terrain rules are ridiculous are absolutely terribly thought out and ignore that both players must agree the traits of each terrain piece before the battle begins.

Which is fething terrible by the way. I'm glad we're regressing back to pre 8th edition where we have to ask our opponent if they're okay with getting dicked by my terrain designations- or vice versa.

or just use the default ones "well these are ruins so they have this" etc

I currently have no problem with the new terrain rules, and i think that things are being overthought by everyone. Once in game, things will be fine. They have slightly dropped the ball on the wording of the 18+ wound criteria though and I expect that it will get clarified to mean “if it can be physically seen, ignore the Obscured rule”. Seeing “over” things will be an adjustment for some people depending on the terrain they use, but, you just have to imagine the terrain piece as a box, based on it’s entire footprint.

Kdash wrote:
I expect that it will get clarified to mean “if it can be physically seen, ignore the Obscured rule”.

you realise that this would make the whole obscured rule obsolete?
Obscured is there that although you can physically see something, you cannot see it "in game", except stuff that is so big that you cannot hide it no matter how big the terrain might be

mixing True Line of Sight with Abstract Line of Sight works up to a point but in the way as GW wrote their rules

Not going into the discussion about wording of the obscuring rule, but as a chaos knight player at multiple ETC tournaments I'm very worried about the outcome of the new terrain rules.
In my experience, I have often had games where I was not able to shoot my opponent at all even if I had first turn because of TLOS blocking buildings regardless of deployment. I was okay with this. It gave me time to position my knights on objectives and get closer to melee range. Then the opponent would move out in TLOS and I would be alpha striked and hoped that it wasn't enough to knock me out entirely and try to do payback next turn. A fair game.

Infantry armies can go through walls, hide in building and scale buildings where I have to pay CPs to assault them. This is their strengths against me. My biggest strength was being able to walk with heavy weapons and ignore -1 to hit and being able to fall out of combat and still shoot - both of which is now going to be free to all armies which indirectly means a giant nerf to knights. I never souped but sounds like this is going away now. At least i get a little buff with PA but nothing game changing.

I had the pleasure of dealing with eliminator sniper units that can shoot without TLOS. There was no way of getting to them because I had to move around all buildings and deal with the other 80 % of the enemy army in the meantime. If the obscuring rule is true, this is the final nail in the coffin for knights when facing any other army than other knight armies.

 licensedfool wrote:
this is the final nail in the coffin for knights when facing any other army than other knight armies.

I hope I am not the only one to say "Good.GrumpyCat" to this?

 kodos wrote:

Kdash wrote:
I expect that it will get clarified to mean “if it can be physically seen, ignore the Obscured rule”.

you realise that this would make the whole obscured rule obsolete?
Obscured is there that although you can physically see something, you cannot see it "in game", except stuff that is so big that you cannot hide it no matter how big the terrain might be

mixing True Line of Sight with Abstract Line of Sight works up to a point but in the way as GW wrote their rules

The only other way that it'll be fixed, is in the "targeting" rules.

 kodos wrote:

Kdash wrote:
I expect that it will get clarified to mean “if it can be physically seen, ignore the Obscured rule”.

you realise that this would make the whole obscured rule obsolete?
Obscured is there that although you can physically see something, you cannot see it "in game", except stuff that is so big that you cannot hide it no matter how big the terrain might be

mixing True Line of Sight with Abstract Line of Sight works up to a point but in the way as GW wrote their rules

The rule as is would be fine if they clarified that for 18+ wounds and fliers are always considered valid targets through the terrakn subject to true line of sight

 licensedfool wrote:
Not going into the discussion about wording of the obscuring rule, but as a chaos knight player at multiple ETC tournaments I'm very worried about the outcome of the new terrain rules.
In my experience, I have often had games where I was not able to shoot my opponent at all even if I had first turn because of TLOS blocking buildings regardless of deployment. I was okay with this. It gave me time to position my knights on objectives and get closer to melee range. Then the opponent would move out in TLOS and I would be alpha striked and hoped that it wasn't enough to knock me out entirely and try to do payback next turn. A fair game.

Infantry armies can go through walls, hide in building and scale buildings where I have to pay CPs to assault them. This is their strengths against me. My biggest strength was being able to walk with heavy weapons and ignore -1 to hit and being able to fall out of combat and still shoot - both of which is now going to be free to all armies which indirectly means a giant nerf to knights. I never souped but sounds like this is going away now. At least i get a little buff with PA but nothing game changing.

I had the pleasure of dealing with eliminator sniper units that can shoot without TLOS. There was no way of getting to them because I had to move around all buildings and deal with the other 80 % of the enemy army in the meantime. If the obscuring rule is true, this is the final nail in the coffin for knights when facing any other army than other knight armies.

Unless Super Heavies/18 wound models (let's refer to them as SH) get to be able to assault a unit if it is on a piece of terrain even if the base of the SH is 3' or 4' inch away (instead of being no further than 1' away). I really hope they have engagement distances vary with terrain in this "best ever" 9th edition. Everyone I know is hoping for this (not only for SH mind you, but SH have a long reach, I mean look at the lengh of a knight chainblade).
Otherwise assaulting with non infantry units is going to be a painful experience, just like in 8th.
Let's hope they really did think this through

 licensedfool wrote:
I had the pleasure of dealing with eliminator sniper units that can shoot without TLOS. There was no way of getting to them because I had to move around all buildings and deal with the other 80 % of the enemy army in the meantime. If the obscuring rule is true, this is the final nail in the coffin for knights when facing any other army than other knight armies.

Your knights are afraid of nine Str5, AP-1, D1 shots a turn? It’s about the worst bullet they have.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 licensedfool wrote:
this is the final nail in the coffin for knights when facing any other army than other knight armies.

I hope I am not the only one to say "Good.GrumpyCat" to this?

No,




Buuuut it be nice to kick the Rest Of the skewing low's out aswell.
And that is an issue because gw can't decide of it wanted a skirmish or platoon sized game.



Edit: a dann shame for those that wanted to play the knights though and bought them and are now saddeled with what Looks Like a non-functional army, i know that feeling all to well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
(can you fire at the tip of a spike on the wing on my Hive Tyrant, even when behind "Obscuring" terrain?).

If a molecule is visible on the side of the terrain, yes. If it is visible above the terrain, no. As per the rules for Obscure.

 N.I.B. wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
(can you fire at the tip of a spike on the wing on my Hive Tyrant, even when behind "Obscuring" terrain?).

If a molecule is visible on the side of the terrain, yes. If it is visible above the terrain, no. As per the rules for Obscure.

We don't know that, perhaps they will specify that spikes, banners, blades, bits of rope, skulls on spikes, bits and bobs will not count when determining LOS

We hated that in 8th didn't we ?

Kdash wrote:
I currently have no problem with the new terrain rules, and i think that things are being overthought by everyone. Once in game, things will be fine. They have slightly dropped the ball on the wording of the 18+ wound criteria though and I expect that it will get clarified to mean “if it can be physically seen, ignore the Obscured rule”. Seeing “over” things will be an adjustment for some people depending on the terrain they use, but, you just have to imagine the terrain piece as a box, based on it’s entire footprint.

I think the logic with the 18+ wound criteria is meant to try and account for conversions or player made terrain without forcing players to make their models adhere to a specified silhouette. Take for example a homemade ruin built by a player which looks like this:


Pretty average looking right? BUT WAIT! WHAT'S THAT BEHIND THE RUIN!?


Because in the above example if true LOS was the singular determining factor for shooting massive models, then it would change literally nothing for infantry (they get obscured no matter where they stand in the ruin or even if there are walls covering them from LOS), but would be significantly abuse-able by large models which are now gaining immunity from completely bombed out buildings via bizarre technicality.

I think this will all be also under the assumption that every unit GW releases from now on will only have 18+ wounds if it is (by official model) a very large target which shouldn't benefit from obscured.

 N.I.B. wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
(can you fire at the tip of a spike on the wing on my Hive Tyrant, even when behind "Obscuring" terrain?).

If a molecule is visible on the side of the terrain, yes. If it is visible above the terrain, no. As per the rules for Obscure.

Well, the requirement is 1mm , so depending on what material we're looking at you're still looking at quite a lot of molecules.

I’m hoping for magic cylinder from the base.

Jack Flask wrote:

Kdash wrote:
I currently have no problem with the new terrain rules, and i think that things are being overthought by everyone. Once in game, things will be fine. They have slightly dropped the ball on the wording of the 18+ wound criteria though and I expect that it will get clarified to mean “if it can be physically seen, ignore the Obscured rule”. Seeing “over” things will be an adjustment for some people depending on the terrain they use, but, you just have to imagine the terrain piece as a box, based on it’s entire footprint.

I think the logic with the 18+ wound criteria is meant to try and account for conversions or player made terrain without forcing players to make their models adhere to a specified silhouette. Take for example a homemade ruin built by a player which looks like this:


Pretty average looking right? BUT WAIT! WHAT'S THAT BEHIND THE RUIN!?

Spoiler:

Because in the above example if true LOS was the singular determining factor for shooting massive models, then it would change literally nothing for infantry (they get obscured no matter where they stand in the ruin or even if there are walls covering them from LOS), but would be significantly abuse-able by large models which are now gaining immunity from completely bombed out buildings via bizarre technicality.

I think this will all be also under the assumption that every unit GW releases from now on will only have 18+ wounds if it is (by official model) a very large target which shouldn't benefit from obscured.

Competitive tournaments don’t even use ruins with windows. They use walls, and if they run out of L-walls, they just say all the windows count as closed. So, the Knight won’t benefit from ’obscuring’ but as long as it can’t be seen physically it still can’t be shot. I’ve hidden my Crimson Hunters behind ruins a lot in 8th edition deployments, and that won’t change in 9th.

Like you said yourself, the benefit of obscuring is that a Hive Tyrant that would otherwise be hidden if it wasn’t for wings flying 5” above it’s head, or a scenic base, won’t be shot from behind a relatively small 5” high ruin like it would have been in the 8th. However, because we can still draw los from the side to a wingtip or a gun barrel, I doubt the game impact of obscuring will be in any way meaningful for tournament players who are already accustomed to playing on tables with 4 or more symmetrical and massive solid L-shape walls.

I like how they keep downplaying the “minimum” playing area.

With the changes in terrain, we now have 5” minimum terrain pieces with 25% less area to play on.

Did they announce AoS will be played on a smaller table size to yet?

torblind wrote:

 N.I.B. wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
(can you fire at the tip of a spike on the wing on my Hive Tyrant, even when behind "Obscuring" terrain?).

If a molecule is visible on the side of the terrain, yes. If it is visible above the terrain, no. As per the rules for Obscure.

Well, the requirement is 1mm , so depending on what material we're looking at you're still looking at quite a lot of molecules.

True.

 Crimson wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
But the perplexing thing here is that ITC did this right, and they proved it doesn't create any sort of exploit or game problem. ITC's "first floor blocks LOS" rule works great. Nobody has issues with it.

A lot of people had a problem with it. ITC houserules mean that a soldier peeking out of first floor window cannot shoot at the enemy nor can be shot at. This doesn't make sense. Furthermore, it turned many ruins into bizarre unassaultable bunkers. GW rule is way more sensible.

False.

All the ITC rules needed was ONE additional clause. That units within the terrain feature can shoot and be shot at, but not through it.

Would remove magic boxes and make a simpler, cleaner, better abstraction.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

DanielFM wrote:

Hankovitch wrote:
Sticking to "cover as a bonus to saves," instead of going back to cover as its own form of save, is one of the biggest missteps of 8th and 9th.

Yeah, cover being useless for high save models was soooo nice.

Honestly, your both right!

Light cover should have been +1 save

Heavy cover should have been a 5++ save

For some odd reason heavy cover irrelevant to ranged attacks while light cover is to combat...

They could have just made them both work in melee and again, it's cleaner and more intuitive.

According to Facebook, today's show will be covering Flyers

Flyers, may they all crash and burn. Like my burnas dealing MW in a 6' radius

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Kdash wrote:
I expect that it will get clarified to mean “if it can be physically seen, ignore the Obscured rule”.

you realise that this would make the whole obscured rule obsolete?
Obscured is there that although you can physically see something, you cannot see it "in game", except stuff that is so big that you cannot hide it no matter how big the terrain might be

mixing True Line of Sight with Abstract Line of Sight works up to a point but in the way as GW wrote their rules

The rule as is would be fine if they clarified that for 18+ wounds and fliers are always considered valid targets through the terrakn subject to true line of sight

All they really have to do is errata the phrase "can be targeted" to "can be targeted as normal." It would refer the player back to normal targeting rules (i.e. TLOS).

 EnTyme wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Kdash wrote:
I expect that it will get clarified to mean “if it can be physically seen, ignore the Obscured rule”.

you realise that this would make the whole obscured rule obsolete?
Obscured is there that although you can physically see something, you cannot see it "in game", except stuff that is so big that you cannot hide it no matter how big the terrain might be

mixing True Line of Sight with Abstract Line of Sight works up to a point but in the way as GW wrote their rules

The rule as is would be fine if they clarified that for 18+ wounds and fliers are always considered valid targets through the terrakn subject to true line of sight

All they really have to do is errata the phrase "can be targeted" to "can be targeted as normal." It would refer the player back to normal targeting rules (i.e. TLOS).

We have not seen the LOS rules yet, how do you want to now what "normal" will be?

Stu said in today's livestream you'll still need line of sight to shoot things, the terrain rules are just layered on top.

No need to panic.

Mixed view on flyers tbh - although they didn't really explain how they will work.

Yes, movement blocking was lame.
Yes, circling round the battlefield acting more like a helicopter than the hypersonic fighter jet was a bit lame.

But... 40k is a model game. I don't *want* stuff to be off the board. (Which is also why I'm not really persuaded at all this outflank stuff they keep talking up). This sounds very much like a return to 7th where you are going to turn up and shoot, then fly off the board next turn, then rinse repeat. Which was kind of dull.