The Densest Most Beautiful Cover, So Dense

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.

**Vilehydra**

Okay, so here is my crack at rewriting it - because it does seem extremely wordy. But I also like the concept of it, as it increase the potential value of short range breacher type squads, well like Tau breachers.

"When resolving a ranged attack at a unit that is potentially blocked by a [Dense Cover] terrain feature that has a height of at least 3" (at the highest point), draw a 1mm thick line from any point on the attackers base to every part of one model's base (or hull) in the target unit. If the line at any point passes over the [Dense Cover] terrain feature then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving that ranged attack.

Models do not suffer this penalty if:
- They are on or within Area Terrain with the [Dense Cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait.
- They are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature that has the [Dense cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait."

This could potentially be shortened to below, because we should be doing the check every time we shoot but we can often skip it if there is no potentially dense cover

"When resolving a ranged attack draw a 1mm thick line from any point on the attackers base to every part of one model's base (or hull) in the target unit. If the line at any point passes over the [Dense Cover] terrain feature with a height of at least 3" at its highest point then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving that ranged attack.

Models do not suffer this penalty if:
- They are on or within Area Terrain with the [Dense Cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait.
- They are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature that has the [Dense cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait."

I think I got the same RAI or RAW as well, but it feels easier to read (at least for me).

**McGibs**

I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

We've already been making these checks for... all of 40k.
Check LoS is per model. Check Range is per model.
It's usually very obvious what has a clear shot and what doesnt. There might be a single model on the edge that you actually have to check.

**rbstr**

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
From the perspective killteam, 90% of the time you glance down and immediately know they're obscured or in the open. And that was when EVERY piece of terrain obscured. Now its only in terrain with this key word (and a 3" antenna lol).

I think people will try this in game and find it pretty intuitive.

Yeah it's a pretty simple thing to put into practice: Is there something in the way of complete base visibility? Is the majority of the issue.

**Therion**

I’m Finnish and these rules seem crystal clear to me, so count me in on the ’fail to see a problem here’ group.

**Spoletta**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:

If the current rules for resolving the attacks are kept, then you have to resolve each attacking model on its own. This means that I get to remove models between one model attacking and the next model attacking. This will change which models are affected by the -1 to hit,

No. The rule is either on the unit or it is not. If you can draw unobstructed to any model in that unit then the unit does not benefit.

That's not how determining cover currently works.

**Blastaar**

Therion wrote:
I’m Finnish and these rules seem crystal clear to me, so count me in on the ’fail to see a problem here’ group.

I agree they are clear. They are also more time-consuming to parse simply because there are more words to read, and not the best way to make terrain impactful.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Blastaar wrote:

Yes, Area Terrain and Obstacles exist in 9th. But their rules are written poorly. We don't need the insight of the full ruleset- which is only tweaking 8th- to spot poor rules.

These are pretty far beyond what I'd call tweaks.

Eh, the core rules and majority of the codex rules aren't changing, so I'd consider these new rules to be tweaking 8th.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tycho wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm amused by the people saying this rule is written too complicated. The last 3 (or... 8?) years I read on dakka GW rules are too sloppy and leave too much room for interpretation...

The way it's written is still pretty sloppy. Believe it or not, you CAN have a well written rule set that is approachable but eliminates so much of the grey area GW rules tend to cause. You'll never totally eliminate the grey areas, but it seems so often like GW's rules pretty much live in the grey area. This rule probably has less room for interpretation, but is now written like an overly verbose word problem on a high-school multiple choice test. It's worded in a needlessly convoluted fashion, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the way it's currently written causes problematic interactions later when we see the rest of the rule set.

Right? Wizards of the Coast does the with Magic:The Gathering all the time. The game's balance may be especially poor of late, but the rules are explicit, yet approachable. Even the massive core rules document on the WOTC site is pretty easy when you're familiar with the rules.

**chaos0xomega**

Vilehydra wrote:
Okay, so here is my crack at rewriting it - because it does seem extremely wordy. But I also like the concept of it, as it increase the potential value of short range breacher type squads, well like Tau breachers.

"When resolving a ranged attack at a unit that is potentially blocked by a [Dense Cover] terrain feature that has a height of at least 3" (at the highest point), draw a 1mm thick line from any point on the attackers base to every part of one model's base (or hull) in the target unit. If the line at any point passes over the [Dense Cover] terrain feature then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving that ranged attack.

Models do not suffer this penalty if:
- They are on or within Area Terrain with the [Dense Cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait.
- They are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature that has the [Dense cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait."

This could potentially be shortened to below, because we should be doing the check every time we shoot but we can often skip it if there is no potentially dense cover

"When resolving a ranged attack draw a 1mm thick line from any point on the attackers base to every part of one model's base (or hull) in the target unit. If the line at any point passes over the [Dense Cover] terrain feature with a height of at least 3" at its highest point then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving that ranged attack.

Models do not suffer this penalty if:
- They are on or within Area Terrain with the [Dense Cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait.
- They are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature that has the [Dense cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait."

I think I got the same RAI or RAW as well, but it feels easier to read (at least for me).

Still too wordy, like I said on page 2, you can simplify it down to

"If this terrain feature is at least 3" in height, measured from its base to its heighest point, then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack with a ranged weapon, unless:

-The attacking model can resolve Line of Sight; or
-The attacking model is in an Area Terrain feature and the only terrain feature that Line of Sight is resolved through is the terrain feature that the attacking model is on or within; or
-The attacking model is within 3" of an Obstacle feature with this trait if it is the only feature through which Line of Sight is resolved; or
-The target model is an Aircraft; or
-The target model has 18+ wounds."

where "resolving Line of SIght" is a standardized rule defined elsewhere because I assume all line of sight needs to be resolved in the same manner by drawing 1mm wide lines from one part of one models base to all parts of another models base, etc., as I cannot fathom why this one specific rule would require its own specific version of line of sight resolution otherwise.

**the_scotsman**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Vilehydra wrote:
Okay, so here is my crack at rewriting it - because it does seem extremely wordy. But I also like the concept of it, as it increase the potential value of short range breacher type squads, well like Tau breachers.

"When resolving a ranged attack at a unit that is potentially blocked by a [Dense Cover] terrain feature that has a height of at least 3" (at the highest point), draw a 1mm thick line from any point on the attackers base to every part of one model's base (or hull) in the target unit. If the line at any point passes over the [Dense Cover] terrain feature then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving that ranged attack.

Models do not suffer this penalty if:
- They are on or within Area Terrain with the [Dense Cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait.
- They are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature that has the [Dense cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait."

This could potentially be shortened to below, because we should be doing the check every time we shoot but we can often skip it if there is no potentially dense cover

"When resolving a ranged attack draw a 1mm thick line from any point on the attackers base to every part of one model's base (or hull) in the target unit. If the line at any point passes over the [Dense Cover] terrain feature with a height of at least 3" at its highest point then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving that ranged attack.

Models do not suffer this penalty if:
- They are on or within Area Terrain with the [Dense Cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait.
- They are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature that has the [Dense cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait."

I think I got the same RAI or RAW as well, but it feels easier to read (at least for me).

Still too wordy, like I said on page 2, you can simplify it down to

"If this terrain feature is at least 3" in height, measured from its base to its heighest point, then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack with a ranged weapon, unless:

-The attacking model can resolve Line of Sight; or
-The attacking model is in an Area Terrain feature and the only terrain feature that Line of Sight is resolved through is the terrain feature that the attacking model is on or within; or
-The attacking model is within 3" of an Obstacle feature with this trait if it is the only feature through which Line of Sight is resolved; or
-The target model is an Aircraft; or
-The target model has 18+ wounds."

where "resolving Line of SIght" is a standardized rule defined elsewhere because I assume all line of sight needs to be resolved in the same manner by drawing 1mm wide lines from one part of one models base to all parts of another models base, etc., as I cannot fathom why this one specific rule would require its own specific version of line of sight resolution otherwise.

Because presumably line of sight is permissive (if any point of model A can trace to any point of model B) and this rule is exclusive (If a single point of model A CANNOT trace to any point of model B.)

**yukishiro1**

Honestly, I hope that this shows that LOS is also going to be the same "all of base to all of base" instead of the current "you can blast the whole unit off the table because someone stuck out a lance" It would be worth the tedium just for that alone.

They'd have to come up with standard model and terrain heights for that to work, but they're already kinda doing it with the 3" / 5" thing.

**Daedalus81**

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

You don't. Just look for the model whose base is the most exposed and use that one. If you can't see every part of its base from the most advantageous model in your unit then they get the bonus.

**the_scotsman**

yukishiro1 wrote:
Honestly, I hope that this shows that LOS is also going to be the same "all of base to all of base" instead of the current "you can blast the whole unit off the table because someone stuck out a lance" It would be worth the tedium just for that alone.

They'd have to come up with standard model and terrain heights for that to work, but they're already kinda doing it with the 3" / 5" thing.

That would be amazing, and I can already taste the beautiful salty tears from the people making potato photo/MSpaint rage posts about how you won't be able to draw LOS to a carnifex standing behind an Aegis line, or something like that.

So many years of having people go "no, I'm standing on the top floor of a ruin and so you're not able to hit me in melee cus your base isn't within 1" of my base"....seeing those posts would probably restore a year of my youth.

....but I doubt it. I figure they've added Obscuring, so they'll keep LOS totally permissive, any part of the model to any part of the model.

**McGibs**

Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

You don't. Just look for the model whose base is the most exposed and use that one. If you can't see every part of its base from the most advantageous model in your unit then they get the bonus.

Well, no... the rules checks each ranged weapon. The -1 doesnt apply to the entire firing unit as a whole.
Same way rapidfire doesnt trigger for the whole unit if only 1 model is within half range.

**the_scotsman**

Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

You don't. Just look for the model whose base is the most exposed and use that one. If you can't see every part of its base from the most advantageous model in your unit then they get the bonus.

...You see this rule is model by model, right? Not unit by unit?

In a situation where, say, 3 guardsmen want to make a shot at some orks and one is totally out in the open but the other two guardsmen are behind the forest 4" away, the orks get -1 to hit vs the 2 behind the ruin but the third one gets to shoot normally.

The penalty is applied by model in the attacking unit. So indeed, you may have to check sight from individual models in your unit.

**Gregor Samsa**

chaos0xomega wrote:
laws are often poorly written because they often have to abide by archaic language in order to enmesh themselves within the larger "canon" of law. Even if you're writing a law in 2020, chances are its building upon or tied into another law that was written in 1850, etc. which requires you to utilize similar terminology and definitions in order to maintain legal consistency within the established framework. On top of that, certain terms and phrases have taken on precise and different meanings within legal circles than what would be understood in laymans parlance - this is something that basically happens organically and haphazardly over time (to tie it into the hobby, something like "MEQ" or "tripointing" or "wholly within" or even "d3" are terms that have specific meanings within the 40k community which don't necessarily translate to the same meanings in other games or even to the general public, while these terms aren't generally (yet) part of the games "legal framework", i.e. rules, given time they could eventually be) - in the case of the law we're talking hundreds of years and much of that terminology has been long established as a result, such that those terms and phrases are at this point archaic but are still regularly used because they are understood by legal practitioners.

i.e. if the original law you're expanding upon defines an orange as "an orange, or Citrus orantium, together with all the appurtenances thereto of skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, and juice, to have and to hold the said orange together with its skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, and juice" then you also have to define it as such - unless you're replacing the original law in its entirety, and all other laws within which an orange may be defined, simply referring to it as "an orange" in the new law opens it up to legal challenge - i.e. "this new law doesn't apply under xyz conditions because unlike other laws it doesn't define the term orange in the same way and thus this orange is not considered an orange for the purposes of this law."

Under the US (and IIRC UK) law, there is the concept of stare decisis - i.e. the use of legal precedent to interpret modern laws. Thus modern laws as a result tend to hew closer to the language of older laws where it is merited in order to ensure that precedent can hold to the new laws intended outcomes.

The need to account for more variables is also a factor, but not as big as some make it out to be as there are shorter and more precise ways to legally define most terms to produce the desired understanding than what is sometimes seen. Within the US (and perhaps other countries) legal systems, there are certain elements of the Constitution which also essentially encourage a certain degree of specificity (and sometimes vagueness) in terminology used, as concepts like lenity (ambiguity in criminal law will be ruled in the defendants favor) mean that a law intended to prevent something may end up allowing for it anyway under specific circumstances if its not iron tight. Add on top of this the fact that laws are usually intended to last more or less forever (at least until they are revised) and that language evolves over time, the overly specific definitions contained in laws are often put there as a way of guaranteeing that the laws intent will remain in effect even if the colloquial understanding of the words and phrases used shift underneath it.

But I digress.

This is a very interesting perspective. thanks for taking the time to spell it out.

**Seabass**

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

**yukishiro1**

Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

You don't. Just look for the model whose base is the most exposed and use that one. If you can't see every part of its base from the most advantageous model in your unit then they get the bonus.

Not how the rule works. Read it again carefully. It's by model for the shooting unit, but by unit for the unit being shot at.

**Daedalus81**

the_scotsman wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

You don't. Just look for the model whose base is the most exposed and use that one. If you can't see every part of its base from the most advantageous model in your unit then they get the bonus.

...You see this rule is model by model, right? Not unit by unit?

In a situation where, say, 3 guardsmen want to make a shot at some orks and one is totally out in the open but the other two guardsmen are behind the forest 4" away, the orks get -1 to hit vs the 2 behind the ruin but the third one gets to shoot normally.

The penalty is applied by model in the attacking unit. So indeed, you may have to check sight from individual models in your unit.

Yes - I'm extrapolating a real scenario.

This model on the outside can't see every part of the base. That means the rest of the models in my unit won't be able to see either and the minus applies to everyone. If I moved my unit to get a better angle I'm not going to check the outer most units that are a dead giveaway. I'm going to start with the one that is the most dubious and work the other way.

**Tycho**

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I'm usually one of the first people to accuse Dakka of complaining just to complain, but I don't think your post is fair. When several of the new rules have required folks to make flow charts (and when they then needed several attempts to get the charts right), that's a problem. When the entire community looks at codex rules on day 1 and overwhelmingly points out how stupendously OP they are (Iron Hands), that's a problem. When Grey areas are the rule, instead of the exception to the rule - also a legitimate problem.

These are all problems GW has pretty much always suffered from. It's a system that is successful despite its rules, not because of them. You in fact CAN have rules that aren't living in the grey area, are clear, and specific, and don't require minor essays to describe. What the community wants is pretty clear. A professionally written rule book. Like so many other systems out there. There will always be problems, but the approach to rules that GW takes often amounts to "Wargames Amatuer Hour" and it's a real shame because they make the best models out there.

**Tyel**

The only negative it seems to me is that at least in 8th's quasi-simultaneous shooting for 1 unit, it means that if say your whole unit can draw a line to a single enemy model without touching any dense terrain, they can all shoot without the -1 to hit, even if the rest of that enemy unit is in the terrain. (To be fair, LOS works the same now, so I don't think its apocalyptic.)

Having to potentially split your shooting into shots with and without a -1 may upset those who think the game already rolls far too many dice. But you'd need testing to really know.

**Hellebore**

yukishiro1 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

You don't. Just look for the model whose base is the most exposed and use that one. If you can't see every part of its base from the most advantageous model in your unit then they get the bonus.

Not how the rule works. Read it again carefully. It's by model for the shooting unit, but by unit for the unit being shot at.

That's how I read it too.

Which means a single model exposed in the target unit negates 100% of cover.

So horde armies with crappy stats that need cover to survive for very long are precisely the armies that won't benefit from it.

Space marines on the other hand... Well it's been pretty obvious that they're skewing the mechanics heavily toward MEQ so no surprise there.

**AngryAngel80**

For once I'm forced to agree with Smudge, I didn't see if he changed his mind down the line but from the first bit of the talk, I agree with him.

The way these rules are worded feels like running through a labyrinth of words, not enjoyable and needlessly tiresome. I get what they are trying to say but it feels like a typical GW 180.

" Well, the last rules were far too simple. So this time, lets make them painfully annoying and cumbersome to digest. They will love it. "

Honestly it feels like a chore and not like a fun game with these terrain rules. Who thought it would be cool to make it feel like you're back in school doing homework to make sure units are getting proper use of terrain. Why as well have USRs for terrain uses, but not for unit abilities ?

So, we can't be expected to remember USRs but we can remember a million different bespoke rules that do the same things in many cases and yet manage to remember USRs for terrain use ?

This is what is so damn annoying with GW. They don't ever see the forest for the trees. They hear an issue then arse it all up with the fix.

People don't like such overly simple rules, so they over word them and make them needlessly bothersome while a more abstract yet inclusive system would probably work better. Hordes caused a headache for 8th, so lets make them worthless for 9th. It's hard to imagine they have any kind of method to the madness but for over correction or pushing an agenda of sales I'm not sure at this point.

Just to be clear, I agreed with Smudge on the overly painful wordy nature of the terrain rules, the rest of my ramble I'll assume he wouldn't agree with.

Edit: Reading some of these rules had me feel a certain way, I couldn't put my finger on it. It gives me feelings of 6th edition when I read and digested those rules. Which putting my finger on it, zaps my excitement just a little bit more.

**H.B.M.C.**

They read like:

"Is situation A arises, unless situation B arises, or situation C arisis, or unless factor X is in play, or if factor Y is in play, or if factor Z is in play, unless situation J is also occurring, or if situation K is apparent, then L."

You lose so much of the meaning of the sentence because of all the exceptions to exceptions and caveats. You shouldn't be writing rules like Excel formulae.

catbarf was right when he said that they are writing these rules backwards.

**McGibs**

Bigger units will definitely have to cluster ranks to make use of this sort of cover, or spread out to screen but be more visible.

Unless they overhaul the way wounding and removing models work, cover saves should still be model by model though (or rather, you remove models out of cover until the entire unit is in cover, and then your save improves), you just lose out on the -1 to hit if it's Dense Terrain.
though TECHNICALLY if you want to not fast roll, you could just make your opponent roll one attack at a time until he kills the one model out of cover. The you get your -1 for the rest.

Hm. Actually I hope they overhaul the way wounding and removing models work.

**insaniak**

Seabass wrote:
Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game..

Nobody was asking for rules to be 'overdrawn and intricate' ... just clearly written.

This rule is not clearly written.

**Argive**

looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.

**H.B.M.C.**

Seabass wrote:
Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

I'm just going to quote his entire post, as it very much explains why your complaint above doesn't hold any water:

catbarf wrote:
'When a unit selects a target for shooting, if a straight line drawn from a single point on the attacking model's base cannot reach all parts of the target's base or hull without passing over or through terrain with this keyword, the attacker subtracts 1 from their hit rolls. Ignore any area terrain that the attacker occupies, and any terrain within 3" of the attacker'.

That took me, like, thirty seconds. GW seriously needs a technical writer, this is borderline unreadable. The legalese approach is really not the best way to write rules. The way it's worded is just not intuitive; it sets up the -1 as the default case and then provides the exception of clear LOS, when it should be the opposite, telling you the conditions under which you suffer the penalty.

**Blastaar**

Argive wrote:
looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.

Rues can be clear without being so intricate. Wyrd's rules don't read like this, or Corvus Belli's, or..................

**Krylon**

I'm in some way relieved that even some native english speakers are struggling to understand at first glance their new cover rules. English is not my mother tongue but after living these 4 past years abroad GW had me really doubting.

Something simple should not be complicated or tricky to understand. Period.

This is a good thing to be precise for how a rule is interpreted and played, but it needs precise writing.

**Nazrak**

Argive wrote:
looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.

I dunno, I got round that just fine by simply not playing with dickheads.

It’s not really an issue with word count I have, or suggesting people won’t be bothered to read all that (although in the latter case I think it does raise the question of the effect this has on accessibility to new players), more that it’s *horribly* written – it’s overwrought to the point of completely jettisoning clarity.

**Vilehydra**

There is a difference between complexity and depth that's relevant to the discussion here.

Complexity encompasses how difficult it is for a player to understand rules, and rule interactions. Think of it as an additional price the player has to pay to play the game.
Some players are willing to pay more than others, but it is still a cost.

Depth encompasses the meaningful strategies and tactics that arise out of the complexity. Continuing the analogy, this is what the player is buying with that complexity.
More depth is better, but one still has to be aware of the complexity cost that extra depth requires.

I like these Terrain rules because they add depth (which everyone agreed the game sorely needed) and on the macro rules level terrain rules are generally an elegant way to get good depth with little complexity.
However the rule itself are written more complex then they need to be. As others have pointed out, there are easier ways to write the rule in such a away that it still satisfies the same conditions.
This would mean that a new player - one that has to start learning all the rules from scratch - has to pay just that much less complexity for the exact same depth. In other words, its a straight upgrade because nothing is lost.

The steps so far have shown a notable improvement in a general understanding of game design, but the fact that the Dense Cover rule isn't well written is a valid and (surprisingly, coming from this forum) constructive criticism