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 like the new terrain rules. I like terrain, I like building terrain and I especially like terrain having a legitimate and varied impact on my games of 40k.

But there's one part that doesn't quite fit right with me so hopefully somebody can justify it to me and then maybe I'll find it easier to understand and therefore remember when playing.

Woods/industrial area terrain is dense cover. If I'm behind them I'm -1 to hit, if I enter them I'm also -1 to hit.

Ruins are obscuring. If I'm behind them I can't be shot at all (therefore more protected than behind a wood, okay happy makes sense!). If I enter the ruins I only get +1 to my cover save?

Should ruins not be obscuring and dense cover rather than light cover as is suggested in the BRB?

You can give them both, it's an expansive system. I'll probably be using Dense and Light tags a whole lot more than your textbook examples would suggest, because the third army isn't on the board just to look nice.

The traits listed on page 264-265 are more suggestions really. You can also choose which traits apply to which terrain with your opponent before the game.

I have played games where everything was dense and some things were also cover and/or obscuring. It worked rather well.

Also, I think you can be IN Dense and still get the benefit. It's only Obscuring that loses it if you're on the terrain.

But ALSO check if your terrain is Area Terrain or Obstacles as that can change things too I think.

Audustum wrote:
Also, I think you can be IN Dense and still get the benefit. It's only Obscuring that loses it if you're on the terrain.

But ALSO check if your terrain is Area Terrain or Obstacles as that can change things too I think.

Correct. And indeed if it wasn't above suggestion to have both obscuring and dense would be nearly pointless(only weapons that ignore LOS would be suffering -1 to hit ever).

But as it is if you add the tag you would be out of LOS if behind terrain, -1 to hit if you are in it. You can even give light cover as well so you would be -1 to hit AND +1 to save rolls.

yeh that's fair enough. I understand you can give any attributes you wish to any terrain piece, i just find it odd that the example GW give (and therefore the easiest to justify to an opponent) gives ruins as only light cover rather than dense.
Having looked again this evening, ruined walls are dense but ruins are light. odd

The names are somewhat misleading, but the thought process is basically to sort things into concealing terrain (harder to hit, no stopping) and cover (stops bullets). Realistically you'd very often find these at the same place, especially in ruined urban areas.

Since you're suggesting things to your opponent anyway, I'd also go with the houserule that allows Dense to stack with other hit minuses (optimally you'd allow one from your actions, one from opponent's and one from terrain, but heyho) so it actually does something when they move closer to you Heavy weapons blazing. Makes for a better game.

That's actually a nice house rule, I will suggest it

Abaddon303 wrote:
Should ruins not be obscuring and dense cover rather than light cover as is suggested in the BRB?

Agreed with everything so far about how terrain can be dense and obscuring.
However, there are ruins out there (typically the more open ruins, without higher floors) that have big ol' gaps, windows etc where it's perfectly reasonable that you'd be able to see someone just inside the wall quite well, especially if they're using said gaps to take shots.
Example:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Sector-Imperialis-Ruins-2018

It'd be perfectly reasonable to see how you'd be able to shoot at something just the other side of those ruins.

Despite being call Sector Imperialis Ruins, based the rule book those are Ruined Walls. That makes them Obstacles with the traits of Defense Line, Breachable, Dense Cover, Defensible, and Unstable Position.

That actually seems to cover them rather well.