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.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Ahh, I suppose the first part of that is true (for now). The second part I don't think is paradoxical once we acknowledge the abstraction.
On the flip side to all of it, people have been complaining about the inclusion of superheavies and flyers in the game for years. This is a distinct and specific nerf to those units. Rejoice!
Yeah because we should rejoice that we are nerfing codex's that hit 40% win ratio as part of soup. Whike buffing Marines the 65% win ratio faction.
Also those people complaining about superheavies and flyers have a game tailer made for them it's called killteam, it's got more in common the the 2nd/3rd edition vibe they want.
So they can stop trying to have valid codex's nerfed into unplayable trash to have them soft banned from the game.
Do you have inside knowledge as to what all the new point values are?
at this point if it's upwards in any direction they'll suck and given every overcosted weapon they have is likeky to pick up the blast keyword which Stu was very adminet are getting "significant points increases, for their improved versatility" I'm certainly not hopeful that actually any of the proposed changes actually help anyone outside of marines primarily, Custodes maybe.
Marines haven't been 65% winrate since the second round of nerfs came out. Also, tau, Eldar, SoB, and Crons benefit as much or more from these changes as marines do. Crons especially.
Marines for 2020 once you take out all the marine vrs marine scores avarage win ratio for Codex Spacemarine supliments is 62%
They still are over powered and nothing in the rules previews for 9th indicate a Marine nerf if anything GW still seem to be on Marines need buffs charge.
That's hard to say. We have pretty much no data for 2020. Most of the world was not allowed to play 40K, so the data is skewed by those few local metas which somehow managed to play.
I guess that you are taking your data from 40K stats, but for most people that data is even more useless than it usually already is (being ITC only).
Having had time to think about it a bit more, I quite like what they're doing with terrain and am looking forward to getting the full picture.
Would i have preferred a flat cover save rather than a modifier to the existing save? Yes, but its not going to ruin my day.
After initially being dubious about the Obscuring terrain, I quite like it. It all comes down to what terrain features are given this keyword.
Ruins have it and armoured containers don't. I would expect that soild objects in general don't have it but broken up things do - ruins are broken/crumbling, trees have gaps etc. I think this means the LOS to see 18w+ and flyer models makes a bit more intuitive sense, representing seeing the flyer high above or the knight through the gaps.
Walls with windows and doors could be given obscuring.
I would expect solid walls and buildings etc not to have the obscuring trait and to block LOS or not using TLOS.
It seems like the main driving force behind these rules is to allow people to have useable rules for attractive terrain, whether GW official pieces or otherwise. There shouldn't be any need now for boring looking solid L-shaped walls everywhere just to make the game playable.
One thing people seem to have forgotten regarding heavy cover is that if the model has to be wholly within the terrain to receive the benefit, then the simplest way to prevent chargers getting the save bonus is to make sure there is no room for any of their models to be wholly within the terrain after making their charge move...
i.e. stationing your models within an inch of the edge will prevent any of the chargers getting far enough onto the terrain to be 'wholly within'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/12 17:17:42
The confusing and unintuative nature of the new Terrain rules is putting me off a bit.
I am going to dive behind [[Hard Cover]] - so that the attacker can be protected on the way in and it gives me no extra protection....
The [[Obscuring]] Terrain only obscurs some things but a solid piece of non [[Obscuring]] terrain can potentially screen anything.
WTF
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Mr Morden wrote: The [[Obscuring]] Terrain only obscurs some things but a solid piece of non [[Obscuring]] terrain can potentially screen anything.
This at least makes sense to me. 'Obscuring' is a tag used exclusively on non-solid terrain, like jungles or ruins; if you have a solid wall then the tag would be redundant.
Aside from the weird interaction with Obscuring and height, the exact details of which remain to be seen.
Mr Morden wrote: The [[Obscuring]] Terrain only obscurs some things but a solid piece of non [[Obscuring]] terrain can potentially screen anything.
This at least makes sense to me. 'Obscuring' is a tag used exclusively on non-solid terrain, like jungles or ruins; if you have a solid wall then the tag would be redundant.
Aside from the weird interaction with Obscuring and height, the exact details of which remain to be seen.
But you know someone will come up with it being the default to hand it out to all Ruins at which point cover on the board just becomes another thing that will be used to game the system in certain armies favour.
Mr Morden wrote: The confusing and unintuative nature of the new Terrain rules is putting me off a bit.
I am going to dive behind [[Hard Cover]] - so that the attacker can be protected on the way in and it gives me no extra protection....
The [[Obscuring]] Terrain only obscurs some things but a solid piece of non [[Obscuring]] terrain can potentially screen anything.
WTF
One of the things I hate most about stuff like this is "defining terrain" because half the rules inevitably get forgotten. I'm surprised none of the naysayers have come onto to claim that people will inevitably argue about is terrain modelled as an intact building considered a ruin or some such.
Mr Morden wrote: The confusing and unintuative nature of the new Terrain rules is putting me off a bit.
I am going to dive behind [[Hard Cover]] - so that the attacker can be protected on the way in and it gives me no extra protection....
The [[Obscuring]] Terrain only obscurs some things but a solid piece of non [[Obscuring]] terrain can potentially screen anything.
WTF
One of the things I hate most about stuff like this is "defining terrain" because half the rules inevitably get forgotten. I'm surprised none of the naysayers have come onto to claim that people will inevitably argue about is terrain modelled as an intact building considered a ruin or some such.
Well as GW have defined Buildings as parts of your army ie Tectonic fragdrill, Battle Sanctum etc which have specific rules the implications of that is Buildings can't be "general terrain" so yes the likely hood is buildings will still remain as effectively ruins.
Mr Morden wrote: The [[Obscuring]] Terrain only obscurs some things but a solid piece of non [[Obscuring]] terrain can potentially screen anything.
This at least makes sense to me. 'Obscuring' is a tag used exclusively on non-solid terrain, like jungles or ruins; if you have a solid wall then the tag would be redundant.
Aside from the weird interaction with Obscuring and height, the exact details of which remain to be seen.
But you know someone will come up with it being the default to hand it out to all Ruins at which point cover on the board just becomes another thing that will be used to game the system in certain armies favour.
Or people are not going to be interested in having hour long arguments over what build is what kind of terrain, and will go for the easy and simple every building is this one specific thing.
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.
Karol wrote: Or people are not going to be interested in having hour long arguments over what build is what kind of terrain, and will go for the easy and simple every building is this one specific thing.
which is about as lame as you can get, but I guess if that's what idiots who want to make the game into something it isnt, fine. But those of us that are not donkey-caves will enjoy the variety in how you can interact with terrain.
Yes of course, the people who agree with you are enlighted adults with moral traits up to the heavens, while everyone who disagrees or sees something different is a donkey cave who does everything wrong. Probably with low morals and bad looks too.
Because it is not like GW employs themselfs said multiple times on twitch that games in 8th took to long, and they wanted 9th games to go smoother and faster. Who knows maybe GW designers and playtesters are donkeys caves themselfs too.
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.
I think you're misunderstanding, if the person you are playing with(not against) cant agree with you on terrain, etc... maybe they're not someone whom you'd like to play with.
I mean, if you cant agree on something as simple as terrain, how on terra can you come to any reasonable compromise regarding anything in game?
No one is holding a bolter to your head and forcing you to play with someone you don't want to play with. Well maybe in your fethed up meta where your army will get trashed(literally) it's not reasonable.
Spoletta wrote: In AoS there is a spell which creates the equivalent of 9th 40k 5" high obscuring terrain element.
To check the LoS around it, AoS uses base to base measurement. Expect that to come here too.
Also, I think that people have weird ideas about what a ruin is
You can easily see that in ruins, the only possible concept of "inside" is when you are on the second floor or close to the windows, which means that you can get shot and that you can shoot.
Pretty much any terrain element where you can get inside, has so far been described by other rules. The fact that ITC attached a "ruin" label to pretty much any terrain element, doesn't mean that they are ruins for canonic 40k.
The obscuring keyword is something that will appear mostly on linear elements, like ruins.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's not forget also that 9th gave us a new toy which could be more important than what we are discussing.
Obstacles give cover bonuses just by being in the way, that is HUGE!
Hopefully, this will help to make the smaller table feel bigger.
Base to base for line of sight is good. I hope that you are correct.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/12 21:54:04
Keeping in mind that we are seeing partial reveals of rules without the full picture, I think that these Cover rules show that GW is following the competitive scene and what the game had turned into on the circuits. Being able to shoot through windows meant that tables at the big tournies were filled with giant walls and magic boxes. Those horrible-looking tourney tables probably spurred the GW team into action. Obscuring Terrain is a nod to the ITC ruins idea and will mean that we have good looking and functional terrain. The giant walls dominating the centre of tourney tables were likely the result of the prevalence of Knights - normal terrain was often meaningless. The Obscuring twist of LOS not being reciprocal for models with more than 18 wounds means that Knights sitting still in their deployment area will now risk getting lit up by heavy weapons that they cannot touch in return. They will have to stomp forward. Not an intuitive rule but I think it might just do the trick.
Obviously we'll just have to see how it all meshes together. I like that it seems that we can have good-looking, functional tables of terrain now.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
