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.

There are the four types we're used to - Hill, Obstacles, Area Terrain and Buildings.

There is Light, Heavy, and Dense cover. Dense is not defined in the stream or the article (I presume -1 to hit a unit in or behind it). Light gives +1 armor versus shooting. This certainly helps marines more than hordes.

Heavy gives +1 armor versus melee, but not against chargers. So charging Orks get a 5+ t-shirt and marines get their 3+. A piece of terrain can be both light and heavy.

GW have adopted a version of the ITC LOS though - terrain that is at least 5" (from the highest point) cannot be seen through, but you CAN see into it so a unit occupying the building is visible. Aircraft and W18+ models do not benefit.

There are also lots of undefined keywords for terrain - scaleable, defensible, breachable, exposed

This is the ideal terrain setup:

Well, with cover remaining the current +1 to saves, I'm inclined to say that light infantry hordes are probably dead. Small units will have an easier time hiding, but big units of Boyz or Cultists are going to get nuked.

The only relevant change is that it's applied on a model basis (thank god), but it's for practical implications the same as House Ruled 8TH Cover system

No more true LoS, that's an improvement that is going to speed games up significantly. No more magic boxes either, you can shoot into terrain but not through it.

My only concern is that this isn't the shot in the arm that light infantry needed, and they are in a precarious potion with cost increases, and blast weapons.

Just gonna repost what I said in the N&R thread:

Overall I like the sound of what they've done with terrain (especially now that we have some more detail from the WarCom article).

It doesn't solve the issues with TLOS, but I feel much better about terrain having a codified set of Universal Special Rules (y'know, like everything should have) rather than worthless "bespoke" rules and special cases/exceptions.

Means you can take anything (official GW kit or scratch built) and apply a simple set of universal rules to them.

This gives you a great deal of flexibility for changing the way games are played even over the same terrain. For example, you're playing a campaign and want to represent a once-robust city slowly being turned to ash as the fighting wears off, defensible heavy/light dense terrain can slowly just turn to light, or even unstable over time (or both!) and it means that you can apply them easily to new terrain pieces (and introduce new ones that can be used on existing pieces of terrain).

Imagine expanding this out to the way CityFight used to have tokens for different types of building (ammo dump, medical supplies, comm tower, etc.) and melding those into this system.

Scalable, expandable, flexible.

Very good GW.

Now fix Tyranids.

 Grimgold wrote:
No more true LoS...

The preview doesn't say that.

 catbarf wrote:
Well, with cover remaining the current +1 to saves, I'm inclined to say that light infantry hordes are probably dead. Small units will have an easier time hiding, but big units of Boyz or Cultists are going to get nuked.

Still a lot to determine before that coffin is nailed shut.

Edit: wait no I'm wrong.

I get the idea but Magnus and Morty being the cut off point for Obscured is a bit of a joke. Hope all you choas players have your bash bro's ready for 9th.

Maybe someone in this thread can help me understand. I am having trouble understanding what this even means:

Another important point to note is that, even though Obscuring terrain blocks line of sight from one side to the other, a unit that’s INSIDE the terrain can still be freely targeted (though they will receive the benefit of cover if the terrain also has the Light Cover trait) and can give fire in return. 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!

This seems to be saying that if you're in the middle of the ruined cathedral, the enemy can fire at you, but if you're on the far side of the ruined cathedral, it can't? In other words, people can see through one set of walls, but not two?

If so, this is a dramatic change from the ITC rules, that, far from increasing LOS blocking, dramatically reduces LOS blocking.

How does this interact with L-shaped terrain? If you are right behind the wall, are you now visible? Or are you invisible because there's only one set of walls and therefore you're not in the terrain any more, but behind it? How do we determine the footprint of three-walled terrain - is it square, or is it triangular, or is it just the shape of the three walls and standing inside the three walls isn't actually standing inside the three walls?

Another really unclearly worded rule for people to fight over. "No, you're not behind the obscuring terrain L, you're inside it! No, I'm behind it! No, to be behind it, you'd have had to have been another 1mm back!" Yay.

Also, why oh why did they have to set it so you can still shoot at the Triumph even on the far side of a cathedral, even though it's just a bunch of infantry models carrying banners?

Finally, it seems bizarre that all these rules are just based on the principle of "agree with your opponent" with no framework for resolving any disagreements. Ultimately, any rule is "agree with your opponent," but we don't say "agree with your opponent on how many CP you start with," or "agree with your opponent on who goes first," or "agree with your opponent on what your model's armor save is." Why not provide some base rule to use when you and your opponent have trouble agreeing because he has a shooty army and wants an empty table and you don't think that's reasonable?

Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).

 Insectum7 wrote:
Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).

Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
No more true LoS...

The preview doesn't say that.

Obscuration does what is meant by no TLOS. You might be able to see the model through the terrain, but you dont count as drawing LOS to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).

Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!

It's fine. It's not only fine, IT'S GREAT!

Cover still seems to favour elite armies, and it appears to be even worse than 8th.

+1 save is a bad mechanic. There's too much AP for it to be relevant to light infantry, but Power armour or better becomes SO much stronger.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
No more true LoS...

The preview doesn't say that.

GW wrote:Another important point to note is that, even though Obscuring terrain blocks line of sight from one side to the other, a unit that’s INSIDE the terrain can still be freely targeted (though they will receive the benefit of cover if the terrain also has the Light Cover trait) and can give fire in return. 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!

Do you see any nuance about checking from a models eye view if you can see the opponent? They also specify the procedure for seeing if something is out of LoS:

GW wrote:This means that one model is not visible to another if you can not draw a straight line, 1mm in thickness, between them without it passing over any part of this terrain feature.

Again no model eye view, break out your laser from x-wing and done. Given the parameters that are provided, can you think of a time where you would use a models eye view?

Wait - derp.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Obscuration does what is meant by no TLOS. You might be able to see the model through the terrain, but you dont count as drawing LOS to it.

If you can still target units by seeing gun barrels, tops of banner poles, antennae, the tips of wings and so on, then the Obscure rule won't mean much.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Well, with cover remaining the current +1 to saves, I'm inclined to say that light infantry hordes are probably dead. Small units will have an easier time hiding, but big units of Boyz or Cultists are going to get nuked.

Still a lot to determine before that coffin is nailed shut.

I don't want to be all doom-and-gloom, but unless there's some new mechanic really out of left field I don't see how infantry will survive. For big units, it's basically the same as 8th, except now with Blast.

There is, I suppose, the slight change that it looks like a player will be allowed to take hits on individual models that are in cover, so the 'wholly within' requirement at least appears to be gone.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Well, with cover remaining the current +1 to saves, I'm inclined to say that light infantry hordes are probably dead. Small units will have an easier time hiding, but big units of Boyz or Cultists are going to get nuked.

Still a lot to determine before that coffin is nailed shut.

I don't want to be all doom-and-gloom, but unless there's some new mechanic really out of left field I don't see how infantry will survive. For big units, it's basically the same as 8th, except now with Blast.

There is, I suppose, the slight change that it looks like a player will be allowed to take hits on individual models that are in cover, so the 'wholly within' requirement at least appears to be gone.

Cost of blast weapons, whether or not only visible models can be removed, reserves, unit size bonuses or unit size cost decreases (like AOS), etc.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Obscuration does what is meant by no TLOS. You might be able to see the model through the terrain, but you dont count as drawing LOS to it.

If you can still target units by seeing gun barrels, tops of banner poles, antennae, the tips of wings and so on, then the Obscure rule won't mean much.

I don't see why you are saying that. It doesn't matter if you can see the model by eye. If you are have to draw your LOS over any part of the Obscuring terrain to do it, it's hidden from view. You could have a banner pole that's 20" high and it wouldn't matter.

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).

Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!

It's fine. It's not only fine, IT'S GREAT!

Look at that ruin in the picture, on the lower left, right above the space marine tank.

What are the dimensions of that ruin? Is it rectangular? There's no back wall. Does this mean that if your model is 1mm behind the imaginary non-existent line of where the back wall would have been if it was there but isn't, you block LOS completely, but if it takes 1mm step inside the imaginary wall that isn't there, it can be shot at from the other side? In other words: we have a wall that blocks line of sight if you're more than X inches back from it, but not if you'r within X inches of it?

 Grimgold wrote:
Again no model eye view, break out your laser from x-wing and done. Given the parameters that are provided, can you think of a time where you would use a models eye view?

You're drawing a lot of conclusions from very little text.

Take a look at this image:



This assumes the building has the Obscured rule. See that red circle? That's the tiniest bit of a spike on a wing from a Hive Tyrant. If we pretend that the building in front of it is a complete solid slab with no holes (ie. kinda like the new Obscured rule) the HT is still a valid target because of that tiny wing spike tip.

If the same applies to 9th, then all the "Obscured" rules in the world won't help it.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).

Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!

Think of it like this. If a squad is occupying a house, it makes sense that they can shoot out of the house at the enemy, yes? If the enemy is being engaged by a unit from inside a house, it makes perfect sense that the enemy can shoot back at them. If a squad is behind a house, nobody can see anything, so nobody engages. That's how this terrain works.

The older rule (4th Edition) held that models were obscured in a forest if they were some distance into the forest from the attacker, (2" or 6" or something, I forget), which makes more sense logically, but is more of a pain in the butt on the tabletop, since it can involve careful measuring, especially when squads start flanking each other. The Obscuring rule is written as it is to avoid argument and keep things snappy.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Obscuration does what is meant by no TLOS. You might be able to see the model through the terrain, but you dont count as drawing LOS to it.

If you can still target units by seeing gun barrels, tops of banner poles, antennae, the tips of wings and so on, then the Obscure rule won't mean much.

I don't see why you are saying that. It doesn't matter if you can see the model by eye. If you are have to draw your LOS over any part of the Obscuring terrain to do it, it's hidden from view. You could have a banner pole that's 20" high and it wouldn't matter.

Yeah. But if you can draw a LOS to some spear hanging off the side, you could shoot at it just fine. It's only if the spear is directly above that it would be blocked.

I have a problem with Heavy cover.
Heavy cover to me is 100% counter intuitive to how that should work. A unit that is bunker down and preparing for the charge gets not benefits, but the unit Parkouring into cover gets you double the benefits.

For my my quins and DE with invuls or low to no saves vs armies like SoB/BA/WS/SW you are better off out of Heavy cover if they are going to melee you. I can easily sit behind cover and no in it to now give them double benefits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS I like everything i see other than Heavy cover so far.

Funny enough we do have a barricade with a confederate banner sticking out of it, which would obscure the view to units behind it, because it is way above 5" tall at the banner point.

I hope TLOS is gone, or at least gone in some way.

The cover to everyone in melee after turn 1 is going to make for some hilarious marine on marine fights without high AP melee weapons.




Also rules aside, that GW table is horrible or what?

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).

Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!

It's fine. It's not only fine, IT'S GREAT!

Look at that ruin in the picture, on the lower left, right above the space marine tank.

What are the dimensions of that ruin? Is it rectangular? There's no back wall. Does this mean that if your model is 1mm behind the imaginary non-existent line of where the back wall would have been if it was there but isn't, you block LOS completely, but if it takes 1mm step inside the imaginary wall that isn't there, it can be shot at from the other side? In other words: we have a wall that blocks line of sight if you're more than X inches back from it, but not if you'r within X inches of it?

Talk to your opponent and agree on the definitions ahead of time. In 4th edition I had a bunch of trees on circular bases. We would place a group of trees and then define the terrain as being as if the outermost edge of the bases were wrapped in a taught string, drawing straight lines from base to base. It was really easy.

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Looks good so far, especially Obscuring (hello forests again!).

Well, except that it seems to say that if you're inside the forest, you can still be seen and shot at. It's only if you're completely outside the forest on the far side of it that you can't be seen. Set foot 1mm inside the forest and boom, you get evaporated. 1mm outside of the forest on the opposite side? Invisibility cloak!

Think of it like this. If a squad is occupying a house, it makes sense that they can shoot out of the house at the enemy, yes? If the enemy is being engaged by a unit from inside a house, it makes perfect sense that the enemy can shoot back at them. If a squad is behind a house, nobody can see anything, so nobody engages. That's how this terrain works.

The older rule (4th Edition) held that models were obscured in a forest if they were some distance into the forest from the attacker, (2" or 6" or something, I forget), which makes more sense logically, but is more of a pain in the butt on the tabletop, since it can involve careful measuring, especially when squads start flanking each other. The Obscuring rule is written as it is to avoid argument and keep things snappy.

I get what the rule says. It's just a massive, massive change from the standard in current 40k tournaments, and a massive DECREASE in the los-blocking of terrain.

It means the whole thing about not having to board up your ruins isn't actually true. If you want a LOS-blocking piece of terrain in the middle of the table, it has to actually be LOS-blocking, whether it has "obscure" or not, because otherwise you have to actually be on the far side of it to block LOS, which is a dramatic change from the current tournament rule that even one wall blocks LOS.

I suspect it will mean that ruins will simply not be used in tournaments at all, and will be totally replaced with walls, in order to avoid arguments about the precise dimensions of when you are "in" a ruin vs "on the far side of" a ruin.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Obscuration does what is meant by no TLOS. You might be able to see the model through the terrain, but you dont count as drawing LOS to it.

If you can still target units by seeing gun barrels, tops of banner poles, antennae, the tips of wings and so on, then the Obscure rule won't mean much.

I don't see why you are saying that. It doesn't matter if you can see the model by eye. If you are have to draw your LOS over any part of the Obscuring terrain to do it, it's hidden from view. You could have a banner pole that's 20" high and it wouldn't matter.

Yeah. But if you can draw a LOS to some spear hanging off the side, you could shoot at it just fine. It's only if the spear is directly above that it would be blocked.

They might rule that out, they might not, either way it's a vast fething improvement.

Have to find out what all those groovy little keywords mean- Defensible might be the one that allows Infantry to embark in the terrain as if it was a vehicle.

It will be complicated though, since every piece of terrain will be assigned keywords, you almost need a map to track what's what.

This building is heavy + light + obscuring + defensible; that building is light + obscuring + scalable, etc.

Once we see the rules in full, there might be common templates of keywords that are ready to use with standard scenery pieces that make the tracking piece easier.

I like it though. Really liked H.B.M.C's point about how terrain characteristics can change over the course of a campaign or even a single battle. Good eye for campaign perks!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Well, with cover remaining the current +1 to saves, I'm inclined to say that light infantry hordes are probably dead. Small units will have an easier time hiding, but big units of Boyz or Cultists are going to get nuked.

Still a lot to determine before that coffin is nailed shut.

I don't want to be all doom-and-gloom, but unless there's some new mechanic really out of left field I don't see how infantry will survive. For big units, it's basically the same as 8th, except now with Blast.

There is, I suppose, the slight change that it looks like a player will be allowed to take hits on individual models that are in cover, so the 'wholly within' requirement at least appears to be gone.

Cost of blast weapons, whether or not only visible models can be removed, reserves, unit size bonuses or unit size cost decreases (like AOS), etc.

I had a thought on the plight of light infantry, in a world with bolter discipline, hurricane bolters, and CC units rocking 40+ attacks are a few extra shots from blast weapons really going to matter? Against a unit of 10 the new blast rules work out to be an extra shot per attack on average, when you look at how bad light infantry have it now, perhaps we've been a little hyperbolic about a world with the blast rule.