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.

I understand the difference between the three from a rules perspective but I am wondering what it is from a model perspective. If I have a terrain piece that doesn't fit neatly into the common terrain types I am wonder how to decide which of the three would be best fit.

Don't use terrain that doesn't fit a easy to agree on terrain description or agree on it before game or have third party decide what something should be counted as what.

Agree with opponent to what makes most sense and what provides most interesting battlefield.

Karol wrote:Don't use terrain that doesn't fit a easy to agree on terrain description or agree on it before game or have third party decide what something should be counted as what.

tneva82 wrote:Agree with opponent to what makes most sense and what provides most interesting battlefield.

That what I am asking. How do I decide what makes the most sense or if I am the third party how do I make that decision?

Well by the look and see rulebook examples. Without seeing terrain piece hard to see. Also I would look more at how it affects game. Pick traits that make good effect for game. Sprinkle good amount of obscuring and dense traits to the game to hinder shooting so it's not turkey shoot board.

It is hard to decide without seeing the terrain in question. But if there is a cubic meter of wall or something similar it is heavy to me. A let say wreck of a rhino as terrain would be heavy terrain.

Dense is something that blocks a lot of line of sight. Tall gras, woods, but a ton of pipes or barrles piled on to each other.

Light is something that can give cover, but not to a full humanoid. A single pillar or a pipe is something like that to me.

Dense cover is a type of cover which does not stop a bullet, or at least reduce its momentum, but makes you harder to see. Foliage, darkness, tents and similar are dense cover.

Light cover will actually stop a bullet, or at least slow it. Concrete and rock cover is usually light cover.

Heavy cover is something given by cramped areas where swinging big weapons is hard. Intact urban landscapes are typically heavy cover.

Spoletta wrote:
Dense cover is a type of cover which does not stop a bullet, or at least reduce its momentum, but makes you harder to see. Foliage, darkness, tents and similar are dense cover.

Light cover will actually stop a bullet, or at least slow it. Concrete and rock cover is usually light cover.

Heavy cover is something given by cramped areas where swinging big weapons is hard. Intact urban landscapes are typically heavy cover.

This seems to be the perfect explanation.

Don't forget it can be more than one type.

So, the real choice is between Light and Dense.

Heavy and Defensible are very small bonuses. I would almost always lump them together personally, in terrain types that appear to be good for defending vs close combat attack (terrain with low walls or upper levels, purpose built terrain like aegis lines, etc)

Light cover = terrain that stops bullets

Dense Cover = terrain that makes you harder to see, like foliage, etc.

Obviously don't use dense for cover that is less than 3" tall, that'd be pointless.

Karol wrote:
Don't use terrain that doesn't fit a easy to agree on terrain description or agree on it before game or have third party decide what something should be counted as what.

Exactly, my last game we just agreed on what rules a piece of odd terrain had before the game, read off a few traits I thought fit the terrain and asked my opponent if he thought that was appropriate, he agreed with them or suggested alternatives. The rest of the terrain was ruins so we just agreed on what was considered part of the ruins for the ruins without a base.

We had a few issues pop up but we resolved them pretty easily by just discussing it during the game.

The simplest answer is to buy the GW terrain that's shown in the rulebook, and use the types/traits that the rulebook recommends for those pieces.

But if you make your own, yes you will have to agree with your opponent before the game (unless a tournament is deciding for you) what trait(s) each piece has.

Question - can cover be both light and heavy?

It seems counterintuitive that light cover only benefits against shooting and heavy cover only benefits against hth. Surely heavy cover should provide the same benefit against shooting as light cover. But that would require it to have both keywords.

You can (and should) stack any of the cover rules together, none of them are mutually exclusive.
The naming conventions they picked are horrible, because you're correct... they sound very counter intuitive. Logically "heavy" cover is MORE than "light" cover, right?

It should have just been something like this:
-Cover (shooting)
-Cover (melee)