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.
When an attack made with a melee weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefit of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack unless the model making the attack made a charge move this turn (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).
It doesn't say "unless the model receiving the attack made a charge move this turn."
It gives chargers an advantage over people in cover for the first turn of combat.
Do you even english? It's right there, man! Bonus to save unless you charged.
When an attack made with a melee weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefit of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack unless the model making the attack made a charge move this turn (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).
It doesn't say "unless the model receiving the attack made a charge move this turn."
It gives chargers an advantage over people in cover for the first turn of combat.
Do you even english? It's right there, man! Bonus to save unless you charged.
Now I am not good at english, but to me this part "When an attack made with a melee weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefit of cover from this terrain feature" is a very bad writen, when a unit takes a melee wound. And then is followed by add +1 to the save. Under the limitation that saving throw can't be buffed if the wound happens from an attack done by a this turn charging model.
I assume it is writen like that, because on turn 2 onwards both units get the save.
How is this even a thing?!
why do you think the unit in cover should get a save buff. maybe this is the melee buff. that on the turn they charge they have better save then the units they are attacking. Although I wonder if this means a unit with heroic intervantion is going to be able to remove the +1 to save from a charging unit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/11 17:11:51
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
When an attack made with a melee weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefit of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack unless the model making the attack made a charge move this turn (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).
It doesn't say "unless the model receiving the attack made a charge move this turn."
It gives chargers an advantage over people in cover for the first turn of combat.
Do you even english? It's right there, man! Bonus to save unless you charged.
Brutallica wrote: So obscurred made my thirsters viable in terms of table deployment, and possebilitys to hide for incoming fire, THIS IS SO AWSOME. But besides that, i feel the the guys who said "wAiT fOR teH teRRain rUleZ" are eating their words now... yeah....wait for what? +1 armor AND nerf to melee if in heavy cover? Hah..hahahaha
tulun wrote: 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.
Absolutely agreed
I'm an Ork player, and I am perfectly happy fielding a more elite army. And enough obscuring terrain might protect my boys hiding behind it.
But as a general rule, it seems odd to me that elite armies wanna hug cover and light infantry will largely not wanna sit inside it, because it makes no real difference in survivability. This seems to be a bad rule.
I guess we'll see what these other keywords do, but as it stands, elite infantry / armies seem to be what you want this edition.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh jesus now I'm reading it the other way. WTF is going on? This is like those reversible images or soemthing.
Lol, nice Daedalus.
Yea it is super easy to get turned around, because we're pretty wired to think it should work a certain way. It makes some sense that a charging unit has enough momentum to get into that heavy terrain and cancel the bonus. Then in a protracted combat both the units have settled into the terrain.
Insectum7 wrote: ONLY RUINS did the ITC style blocking. So unless your collection was all ruins, you often had just a couple LOS blockers, and even those were just the first floor.
But basically everything counted as a ruin in ITC. Those L-shaped walls? Ruins. Buildings, as long as not totally enclosed? Ruins. Etc etc. ITC really didn't have any terrain that wasn't a ruin for rules purposes, except magic boxes, which were like ruins on steroids.
Ok, let's put it this way: this makes it a lot easier to shield your tanks and big models (which can't enter ruins anyway) from being shot at. It makes it much harder for melee infantry to hang out in a central ruin and threaten the board without being shot off it. And it makes it much easier for shooty infantry to draw LOS to a wide range of targets while getting the cover bonus.
This is another big buff to tanks and shooty infantry and another big nerf to melee infantry compared to how ITC used to work.
You really want invulnerable melee infantry sitting in the middle of the table? That's seems niche, weird and gamey. I know there's a really threatening unit in the building I can see with all my army but I can't shoot at it/them? That's goofy, man. I ought to be able to take my siege weaponry and start leveling that building on top of them.
We don't know all the rules yet. Maybe assaulting out of moving transports is a thing again.
But it's not goofy that if they're 1mm on the far side of the ruin instead - even if there's no back wall, so literally they just stepped back 1mm - now you can't see them?
What you are calling goofy is how the ITC rule worked. Whether you think they're goofy or not, this represents a dramatic reduction of LOS-blocking for infantry models compared to the ITC rule. Compared to the ITC rule, it's a big buff for bigger models and shooting infantry, and a big nerf for melee infantry.
Insectum7 wrote: ONLY RUINS did the ITC style blocking. So unless your collection was all ruins, you often had just a couple LOS blockers, and even those were just the first floor.
But basically everything counted as a ruin in ITC. Those L-shaped walls? Ruins. Buildings, as long as not totally enclosed? Ruins. Etc etc. ITC really didn't have any terrain that wasn't a ruin for rules purposes, except magic boxes, which were like ruins on steroids.
Ok, let's put it this way: this makes it a lot easier to shield your tanks and big models (which can't enter ruins anyway) from being shot at. It makes it much harder for melee infantry to hang out in a central ruin and threaten the board without being shot off it. And it makes it much easier for shooty infantry to draw LOS to a wide range of targets while getting the cover bonus.
This is another big buff to tanks and shooty infantry and another big nerf to melee infantry compared to how ITC used to work.
You really want invulnerable melee infantry sitting in the middle of the table? That's seems niche, weird and gamey. I know there's a really threatening unit in the building I can see with all my army but I can't shoot at it/them? That's goofy, man. I ought to be able to take my siege weaponry and start leveling that building on top of them.
We don't know all the rules yet. Maybe assaulting out of moving transports is a thing again.
But it's not goofy that if they're 1mm on the far side of the ruin instead - even if there's no back wall, so literally they just stepped back 1mm - now you can't see them?
I understand your reasoning, but I understand their reasoning, too. They did it like this to remove confusion, as opposed to the older way of measuring into the terrain to see if they were fully hidden or not.
yukishiro1 wrote: What you are calling goofy is how the ITC rule worked. Whether you think they're goofy or not, this represents a dramatic reduction of LOS-blocking for infantry models compared to the ITC rule. Compared to the ITC rule, it's a big buff for bigger models and shooting infantry, and a big nerf for melee infantry.
It all depends on what terrain you're putting down. IMO this is better.
Let's say we define "light infantry" in this case as a humble Guardsman. Currently, they have 5+ armor save.
Light cover gives them +1, so effectively a 4+ save. Unless you're shooting AP -3 weaponry at them (or "ignore cover" ap -2 weaponry), they will get a save. I would call that significant.
Seriously. What are people really wanting? Do you want Guardsmen in ruins to have a 3+ invuln? Are light infantry your centerpiece models that you can't stand to have removed from the board as casualties?
I think it is implied that "ruins" should come with bases, but I could be wrong.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh jesus now I'm reading it the other way. WTF is going on? This is like those reversible images or soemthing.
Lol, nice Daedalus.
Yea it is super easy to get turned around, because we're pretty wired to think it should work a certain way. It makes some sense that a charging unit has enough momentum to get into that heavy terrain and cancel the bonus. Then in a protracted combat both the units have settled into the terrain.
Yeahhh, this is weird. . . I'm trying to understand if A: I'm only NOW reading it correctly, and B: What their reasoning behind the rule is. It's annoying that they didn't elaborate in the article.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh jesus now I'm reading it the other way. WTF is going on? This is like those reversible images or soemthing.
Lol, nice Daedalus.
Yea it is super easy to get turned around, because we're pretty wired to think it should work a certain way. It makes some sense that a charging unit has enough momentum to get into that heavy terrain and cancel the bonus. Then in a protracted combat both the units have settled into the terrain.
Yeahhh, this is weird. . . I'm trying to understand if A: I'm only NOW reading it correctly, and B: What their reasoning behind the rule is. It's annoying that they didn't elaborate in the article.
Maybe that's part of buffing melee? Essentially gives you a bonus for assaulting dug in infantry. Actually sounds pretty tasty for people playing melee armies to me.
I don't really have a problem with it, and I don't even play melee-focused armies.
speaking sister, is the floaty preacher thingy a monster or a vehicle maybe? If it can hide behind buildings that are 5" and then use its mega flamer in melee, it could be downright scary to some armies.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Let's say we define "light infantry" in this case as a humble Guardsman. Currently, they have 5+ armor save.
Light cover gives them +1, so effectively a 4+ save. Unless you're shooting AP -3 weaponry at them (or "ignore cover" ap -2 weaponry), they will get a save. I would call that significant.
Realistically: You're Guardsmen, you have a 5+ save. You sit in cover, so it's 4+. You get engaged by Tactical-doctrine Bolt Rifles, and now it's a 6+ save. Your total increase in durability due to cover is a measly 17%.
Meanwhile, a group of Intercessors in cover goes from a 3+ to a 2+. Your lasguns are now half as effective as before. The Marines get far more benefit from cover than you do.
Quasistellar wrote: Seriously. What are people really wanting? Do you want Guardsmen in ruins to have a 3+ invuln? Are light infantry your centerpiece models that you can't stand to have removed from the board as casualties?
Well, if you look at literally every other edition before 8th, you have an example alternative: Basic cover provides a 5+ invuln save. Heavy infantry still benefit from it as protection against anti-tank weapons, light infantry benefit as either equivalent to their armor or better but not mitigated by AP. Was there something wrong with that system?
FWIW, I don't consider light infantry centerpieces, but I appreciate when expensive models that I put a lot of time and effort into do more than occupy the table for ten minutes before being removed by the handful.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh jesus now I'm reading it the other way. WTF is going on? This is like those reversible images or soemthing.
Lol, nice Daedalus.
Yea it is super easy to get turned around, because we're pretty wired to think it should work a certain way. It makes some sense that a charging unit has enough momentum to get into that heavy terrain and cancel the bonus. Then in a protracted combat both the units have settled into the terrain.
Yeahhh, this is weird. . . I'm trying to understand if A: I'm only NOW reading it correctly, and B: What their reasoning behind the rule is. It's annoying that they didn't elaborate in the article.
Maybe that's part of buffing melee? Essentially gives you a bonus for assaulting dug in infantry. Actually sounds pretty tasty for people playing melee armies to me.
I don't really have a problem with it, and I don't even play melee-focused armies.
So I'm noticing now that the Ruins bit at the bottom of the article says Ruins are Light Cover and Defensible. Defensible must be the sort of bonus I was thinking Heavy Cover gave. The scenario for Heavy Cover still seems odd, I'm trying to imagine what it's supposed to represent.
Let's say we define "light infantry" in this case as a humble Guardsman. Currently, they have 5+ armor save.
Light cover gives them +1, so effectively a 4+ save. Unless you're shooting AP -3 weaponry at them (or "ignore cover" ap -2 weaponry), they will get a save. I would call that significant.
Realistically: You're Guardsmen, you have a 5+ save. You sit in cover, so it's 4+. You get engaged by Tactical-doctrine Bolt Rifles, and now it's a 6+ save. Your total increase in durability due to cover is a measly 17%.
Meanwhile, a group of Intercessors in cover goes from a 3+ to a 2+. Your lasguns are now half as effective as before. The Marines get far more benefit from cover than you do.
Quasistellar wrote: Seriously. What are people really wanting? Do you want Guardsmen in ruins to have a 3+ invuln? Are light infantry your centerpiece models that you can't stand to have removed from the board as casualties?
Well, if you look at literally every other edition before 8th, you have an example alternative: Basic cover provides a 5+ invuln save. Heavy infantry still benefit from it as protection against anti-tank weapons, light infantry benefit as either equivalent to their armor or better but not mitigated by AP. Was there something wrong with that system?
FWIW, I don't consider light infantry centerpieces, but I appreciate when expensive models that I put a lot of time and effort into do more than occupy the table for ten minutes before being removed by the handful.
Hehe, play Jorm like I do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/11 17:29:22
Let's say we define "light infantry" in this case as a humble Guardsman. Currently, they have 5+ armor save.
Light cover gives them +1, so effectively a 4+ save. Unless you're shooting AP -3 weaponry at them (or "ignore cover" ap -2 weaponry), they will get a save. I would call that significant.
Realistically: You're Guardsmen, you have a 5+ save. You sit in cover, so it's 4+. You get engaged by Tactical-doctrine Bolt Rifles, and now it's a 6+ save. Your total increase in durability due to cover is a measly 17%.
Meanwhile, a group of Intercessors in cover goes from a 3+ to a 2+. Your lasguns are now half as effective as before. The Marines get far more benefit from cover than you do.
I understand this. I am fine with cheaper units with lower base armor gaining less from cover.
I’m not sure what to make if the terrain rules revealed so far. I like that they’re making an effort to make terrain meaningful, but we’ve only been given a small portion of the whole.
Overall I think I’m happy with what I’ve seen, but would have preferred a flat cover save rather than a save modifier.
I agree that the heavy cover/charging interaction is counterintuitive, but I suppose it’s representative of the charging unit breaking into the terrain and surprising the unit in cover?
I admit I’m still a bit confused by the Obscuring rule ( there’s a thread specifically about that in YMDC).
For the rules that haven’t been revealed yet these are my musings:
Scalable: can be scaled, so I guess that’s multi level buildings, ladders, staircases etc. I’m guessing that it will mean infantry, beasts and swarms can move up levels but other things can’t.
Breachable: can be breached, so probably allows infantry, beasts and swarms to move through walls, similar to moving through ruins in 8th.
Unstable: can be “unsted”?! I would expect this to be some sort of movement penalty, maybe a dangerous terrain roll, or it could mean -1 to hit if you’re shooting out of this terrain.
Defensible: I expect this to be similar to heavy cover, but the charging unit is the one that doesn’t get the save bonus.
Exposed position: If you’re placed on top of this terrain feature you don’t get the save bonus.
I’m very interested in the implications of this:
Obstacles, on the other hand, are a footslogger’s best friend as they offer the benefit of cover (which, for the most part, means, +1 to your saving throws against ranged weapons)...
Is this referring to heavy cover providing a save in melee or to some other as yet unrevealed benefit provided by cover in certain circumstances? A to hit modifier or a morale boost for units in cover?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/11 17:34:39
So I'm noticing now that the Ruins bit at the bottom of the article says Ruins are Light Cover and Defensible. Defensible must be the sort of bonus I was thinking Heavy Cover gave. The scenario for Heavy Cover still seems odd, I'm trying to imagine what it's supposed to represent.
There's all sorts of junk. Defensible, breachable, exposed...I'd bet quite a few more in the book.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's all sorts of junk. Defensible, breachable, exposed...I'd bet quite a few more in the book.
Is it me, or is GW piling a particularly large number of caveats, exceptions, and special cases into everything they can.
8th edition was bad enough with every unit obscured under five layers of faction/aura rules, strategems, unique special rules, and so on, but at least cover was just cover and you didn't have to individually count the models in the unit before each shot.
Let's say we define "light infantry" in this case as a humble Guardsman. Currently, they have 5+ armor save.
Light cover gives them +1, so effectively a 4+ save. Unless you're shooting AP -3 weaponry at them (or "ignore cover" ap -2 weaponry), they will get a save. I would call that significant.
Realistically: You're Guardsmen, you have a 5+ save. You sit in cover, so it's 4+. You get engaged by Tactical-doctrine Bolt Rifles, and now it's a 6+ save. Your total increase in durability due to cover is a measly 17%.
Meanwhile, a group of Intercessors in cover goes from a 3+ to a 2+. Your lasguns are now half as effective as before. The Marines get far more benefit from cover than you do.
Quasistellar wrote: Seriously. What are people really wanting? Do you want Guardsmen in ruins to have a 3+ invuln? Are light infantry your centerpiece models that you can't stand to have removed from the board as casualties?
Well, if you look at literally every other edition before 8th, you have an example alternative: Basic cover provides a 5+ invuln save. Heavy infantry still benefit from it as protection against anti-tank weapons, light infantry benefit as either equivalent to their armor or better but not mitigated by AP. Was there something wrong with that system?
FWIW, I don't consider light infantry centerpieces, but I appreciate when expensive models that I put a lot of time and effort into do more than occupy the table for ten minutes before being removed by the handful.
There is a huge difference between a Guardsman and an Intercessor. as such, there should be a huge difference in how beneficial cover is to the respective infantry.
I'm enjoying all of this ITC talk like it impacts the game for those of us that dont give 2 gaks about ITC. Let's make a comparison between house rules and rules from the company that makes them. By that logic we should all play w no strats/rerolls/auras/Tau etc. Cuz I'm sure those are house rules somewhere in the world.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's all sorts of junk. Defensible, breachable, exposed...I'd bet quite a few more in the book.
Is it me, or is GW piling a particularly large number of caveats, exceptions, and special cases into everything they can.
8th edition was bad enough with every unit obscured under five layers of faction/aura rules, strategems, unique special rules, and so on, but at least cover was just cover and you didn't have to individually count the models in the unit before each shot.
No, I think they're getting us proper variety so that terrain feels different and does more. These extra rules don't need to apply to every piece. It will be interesting to see what tournaments adopt for their pieces.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/11 17:59:00
Daedalus81 wrote: There's all sorts of junk. Defensible, breachable, exposed...I'd bet quite a few more in the book.
Is it me, or is GW piling a particularly large number of caveats, exceptions, and special cases into everything they can.
8th edition was bad enough with every unit obscured under five layers of faction/aura rules, strategems, unique special rules, and so on, but at least cover was just cover and you didn't have to individually count the models in the unit before each shot.
No, I think they're getting us proper variety so that terrain feels different and does more. These extra rules don't need to apply to every piece. It will be interesting to see what tournaments adopt for their pieces.
I expect it won’t be so much what tournaments adopt, but more what the “recommendations” are in the rule book regarding how much terrain and if what type.
