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.

 vict0988 wrote:

I like that more characters like Catacomb Command Barges and Daemon Princes can join units.

No characters can join units any more. Granted, in many ways that's a positive.

I find myself viewing the current rules as being very much "almost good" in almost every way. I don't think there's any rule I'm 100% happy with, but I also don't think it would take much to make many of them really good. 9th's problem is all the overlapping systems that contribute to the complete game, and most of those need a serious overhaul. I think the core rules are fine as a starting point but many need just a bit more depth to make them work properly.

Terrain is a good example. The 9th edition rules are a vast improvement over 8th, but they still aren't interactive enough for me. There needs to be a bit more naunce to them and more variety, and that probably requires a bit more depth to the core rules.

 oni wrote:


For example you only get the bespoke FnP against AP-1 and AP0 weapons.

is that a thing?

and even if it is, you could give a bespoke rule for that :

This unit gains FnP(x+) when resolving damage for attacks with AP-1 or AP0

which would still make use of the USR system

 oni wrote:

Karol wrote:

 oni wrote:
I think it was Robin Cruddace who would go around asking players a two part question; the first part of which was...
What two things do you absolutely love about the rules and think make for a better game?

1. The Keyword system. I think this is one of the best things to have ever been introduced to W40K.
2. Bespoke unit rules. While this can lead to a modicum of bloat, I think this is better for game balance. For example, having a USR for Feel No Pain: 4+ can be fine for some units, but absolutely game breaking when applied to others. Having the ability to tweak the concept of a rule unit by unit or tweak what it applies to via Keywords unit by unit is far better, cleaner and flexible than making endless exceptions to a USR.

Then why not just make the the USR FnP +X, then one unit will have +6, while makkari can run around with a +2.

That could work if we're limiting ourself to only the 'ignore wound' aspect of FnP. The added benefit of a bespoke ability is for example, the ability to change the circumstances in which it applies.
For example you only get the bespoke FnP against AP-1 and AP0 weapons. A USR wouldn't be able to achieve this type of flexibility and a different ability would have to be created to make the exception. At which point we've actually made rules bloat worse because we have a USR + an exception instead of just one bespoke ability that takes care of it all.

A USR might be able to. Even if it can't, the USR system allows you to add caveats to USRs really easily. That doesn't add bloat, because the rule is substantially the same as it was, and that substantially similar part is common knowledge for everyone playing the game.

People bring up the fact you can target individual bespoke rules for changes as a defence of them over USRs, but I don't think GW have ever actually done that, and certainly not in a way that wouldn't be possible with a well-written USR system.

Karol wrote:
Then why not just make the the USR FnP +X, then one unit will have +6, while makkari can run around with a +2.

Because that would be a logical and scalable piece of game design, and that's not what GW's about.

Yes, that does work, but I think you missed my point about rules bloat. The bespoke ability can be one rule that does all the things whereas your example is three rules; the USR + the USR variant + bespoke application. Anyway, this feels like we're getting way off topic debating milk chocolate vs. dark chocolate.

The flipside to your "bespoke" one rule being a benefit is that it increases the cognitive load on people trying to remember what a unit does, whether this rules has a minute difference to it (aside from the save value) because a different writer wrote it in differently, and it increases the load on GW when they need to amend how all FNP-esque rules work.

You create far more bloat over the breadth of the game by having each faction's version of FNP being its own "bespoke" version, let alone when you have different versions within a faction due to the save roll being different.

Sticking with FNP as the example for now, how many instances of it are you aware of on current datasheets that couldn't be replaced by a single, unified FNP(X+) version?

Also, not sure how you got three rules out of Vlad's example - at most it is two, given you'd need FNP(X+) somewhere to reference, and the specific modifier rule to clarify when it applies (i.e., against AP0 and AP-1 only).

- Ap-System
- Psychic phase
- Wound allocation
- Cc-phase
- Detachment system
- Movement
- Tanks, walkers, monsters
- Stratagems to break up Igougo a little bit

These are specifically vast improvements to pre-8th edition rules and the reasons why I'd never go back to an older 40K edition.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
...- Ap-System...

I want to call the AP system out specifically here as an idea that might have worked in theory if they'd had the discipline to not go mad in the Codexes; as-is it's got basically the same problem as the old AP system did (good AP is too common so good saves are basically pointless unless you've got an Invulnerable save, and the few armies left with AP- small arms are left wondering whether there's any point in shooting their rifles at all). If they'd done it more like 1e/2e Sigmar, where AP-1 was a rare and special thing but 2+ armor didn't exist, then AP as modifiers might have worked better.

(P.S.: Better discipline about AP mods is one of two things I've ever liked about Sigmar (that and a better CP/stratagem system than 40k), I'm not trying to claim it's an improvement generally, just in that one specific case.)

 oni wrote:
Yes, that does work, but I think you missed my point about rules bloat. The bespoke ability can be one rule that does all the things whereas your example is three rules; the USR + the USR variant + bespoke application.

That's two rules. The USR, which includes some capacity for different values, and the bespoke condition. So you have a USR which you already know because it's part of the core rules, and then a bespoke exception that specifies how the USR is applied.

It might seem like a trivial example, but it's clearer than the confusing soup of rules that results from slightly different implementations of the same rule, like take a MW on a 1 vs slain outright or re-roll any vs re-roll failed. Or worse, when you look at a rule, see that it appears to be a reprint of a typical rule, and miss some subtle difference- eg a deep strike that doesn't have a 9" restriction.

Having USRs makes the implementation of rules consistent, and then applying bespoke conditions when needed makes it clear that hey, this is a different rule from what you might think it is, pay attention. It also means you can directly write rules that affect Deep Strike or Feel No Pain rather than abstractly describing 'abilities which allow models to be set up as reinforcements' or 'abilities which allow models to ignore damage'.

Bloat isn't about how many words are used to create an effect; it's about cognitive load that you need to sustain during play. Structure, repetition, and consistency reduce cognitive burden, even if it means more rules on paper than a bespoke implementation.

Anyways, things I like about 9th:
-Core rules are simple and streamlined. Nothing is particularly complex. I think that's a double-edged sword, but I'm focusing on positives.
-Psychic powers having a separate phase but being driven by simple two-dice checks is a good balance. They're neither glorified shooting attacks nor their own minigame.
-Movement values on the datasheet, rather than a myriad of unit types.
-Straightforward owner-picks wound allocation.
-AP modifiers are a good concept, though I think they could really use some refinement and general scaling back of how much AP everyone is dishing out.
-Vehicles no longer using a totally different system for determining damage.
-Degradation for monstrous creatures, and now vehicles as well.
-No more templates. I never hated them, but their removal speeds up the game and is better for the scale it currently operates at.

Not unique to 9th but I like that units don't have to shoot all their weapons at the same target.
I like that units can fall back from melee. Now if only we could ditch the whole 'locked in combat' mechanic completely.
I like that Advancing is done during the movement phase, so you don't move all your units and then move them all again.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This took me a while, but I think I'm all right with WS being a flat number nowadays.

I think my issue with the current WS/BS paradigm is that there's so little room to really differentiate characters and such.

Almost every character and their dog is walking around with WS2+/BS2+. So, rather than having a way to differentiate the exceptional fighters based on stats alone, you immediately have to start giving them special rules.

Indeed, I'd argue that this is one of the central issues with the core rules. They're short but not because of conciseness or solid simplicity. Rather, they're so short because there's absolutely nothing to them. Not only are there no USRs, there are no core concepts to build on.

This is why codices are chock to the brim with bloat and bespoke rules - because the core rules give them absolutely nothing to work with.

Sorry but I bang my head on the table every time I hear people extolling the simplicity of 9th's core rules. It's like someone telling me that their favourite book is much easier to carry now that they've ripped out 90% of the pages.

Keyword system, detachment organization, core rules, terrain rules, psychic phase.

 vipoid wrote:
I think my issue with the current WS/BS paradigm is that there's so little room to really differentiate characters and such.

Almost every character and their dog is walking around with WS2+/BS2+. So, rather than having a way to differentiate the exceptional fighters based on stats alone, you immediately have to start giving them special rules.

Given the current lethality issues, I imagine you could kill a couple birds with one stone by re-tuning most armies around hitting on 4+ rather than 3+. Then you only get 3+ if you're particularly good and 2+ if you're exceptionally skilled; while units like Guardsmen might hit on 5+.

Having a generally 2+ to 4+ paradigm would be fine if GW was willing to make heavier use of modifiers, but they explicitly aren't, so the difference between the high end and low end (ignoring Orks- and even they get a special rule to make up for it) isn't that great. So then GW has to start handing out tons of extra dice (additional rolling) and special rules to make up the difference. Reconfiguring to have greater variance in to-hit values would allow more room for differing skill to be represented.

But of course at this point, such a change just isn't happening.

Karol wrote:
The terrain rules are better then they were in 8th, and LoS rules are better too, unless you play knights.

Side Note:

I feel like the survivability of things such as knights should rely less on terrain and more on the weight of their technology. A giant, Ceramite armored Knight should be a monster to take down even if it isn't hiding behind a building or having half a foot in a crater.

 Togusa wrote:

Karol wrote:
The terrain rules are better then they were in 8th, and LoS rules are better too, unless you play knights.

Side Note:

I feel like the survivability of things such as knights should rely less on Terrain and more on the weight of their technology. A giant, Ceramite armored Knight should be a monster to take down even if it isn't hiding behind a building or having half a foot in a crater.

I would extend that to heavily armored units in general, but the way the cover rules have been written means that tanks, Knights, or Marines get a lot more mileage out of cover than Guardsmen do, which is pretty much the opposite of how it 'should' be.

 catbarf wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Karol wrote:
The terrain rules are better then they were in 8th, and LoS rules are better too, unless you play knights.

Side Note:

I feel like the survivability of things such as knights should rely less on Terrain and more on the weight of their technology. A giant, Ceramite armored Knight should be a monster to take down even if it isn't hiding behind a building or having half a foot in a crater.

I would extend that to heavily armored units in general, but the way the cover rules have been written means that tanks, Knights, or Marines get a lot more mileage out of cover than Guardsmen do, which is pretty much the opposite of how it 'should' be.

Absolutely. I do miss some of the USRs from previous editions, like the general command to "Go to Ground" to get +1 armor save. AoS sort of has this with all out attack, all out defense commands.

 catbarf wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Karol wrote:
The terrain rules are better then they were in 8th, and LoS rules are better too, unless you play knights.

Side Note:

I feel like the survivability of things such as knights should rely less on Terrain and more on the weight of their technology. A giant, Ceramite armored Knight should be a monster to take down even if it isn't hiding behind a building or having half a foot in a crater.

I would extend that to heavily armored units in general, but the way the cover rules have been written means that tanks, Knights, or Marines get a lot more mileage out of cover than Guardsmen do, which is pretty much the opposite of how it 'should' be.

Vehicles can't benefit from LIGHT COVER (the +1 to armour saves that benefits high armour save units more than low armour save units), they only benefit from DENSE (-1 to be hit) and OBSCURRING. And TITANIC units like Knights don't benefit from any of the cover types. If it isn't something big enough to completely hide behind, then all terrain does is hinder their movement.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Vehicles can't benefit from LIGHT COVER (the +1 to armour saves that benefits high armour save units more than low armour save units), they only benefit from DENSE (-1 to be hit) and OBSCURRING. And TITANIC units like Knights don't benefit from any of the cover types. If it isn't something big enough to completely hide behind, then all terrain does is hinder their movement.

All true, but not exactly what I was getting at. My experience has been that most vehicles exist in a state of either hidden or dead, as dedicated anti-tank units are capable of throwing out enough firepower to wreck them outright. Knights are rarely able to hide (except Armigers), but if the table allows it it makes a massive difference to their survivability. You want to hide your tanks and Knights when possible.

Meanwhile infantry blobs are very difficult to hide since if anything is exposed the whole unit is vulnerable, and getting +1 to your save for being in cover isn't too advantageous in a game where most armies are slinging lots of AP-1 and AP-2. Generally, I find it difficult to make effective use of terrain with infantry, especially since most don't have the range to be useful unless they're pushing forwards.

It's not just about light cover giving +1 to your save. It's the sum of how units interact with cover that produces a game state where infantry hide on the other side of terrain rather than seeking cover within it, or don't bother trying to hide since there are too many of them, while vehicles that in the fluff should be spearheading assaults instead creep behind buildings and pop out to make suicide attacks.

But yeah throw in the fact that there is no provision for monsters or vehicles entering terrain that you'd think they should be able to stomp/grind through, and the constrictive terrain layouts used for competitive events, and I just find the terrain/cover implementation frustrating. It simultaneously feels like an afterthought (did anyone playtest how a Leman Russ drives around these closely-packed buildings and cargo containers?) and far too complex for its own good with an unintuitive implementation of a keyword system.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Vehicles can't benefit from LIGHT COVER (the +1 to armour saves that benefits high armour save units more than low armour save units), they only benefit from DENSE (-1 to be hit) and OBSCURRING. And TITANIC units like Knights don't benefit from any of the cover types. If it isn't something big enough to completely hide behind, then all terrain does is hinder their movement.

Total aside... I maybe have been doing this wrong...

The terrain types "obstacles" and "area terrain" (big categories) only grant the "benefits of cover" for infantry, beasts, and swarm models when within it and/or within 3" of it is LoS is partially blocked by it. The "benefits of cover" can then be "Dense" (-1 to hit), Light (+1 to ranged saving throws), Heavy (+1 to melee saving throws, etc.). Per your line, how does a vehicle (or monstrous creature) benefit from one type of cover but not other types?

There are a lot of good ideas that are being wasted. I think bespoke rules and Core are two rules with the most potential that are ruined by simply not being used properly and unthematic implementation respectively.

I like the keyword system?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
...- Ap-System...

I want to call the AP system out specifically here as an idea that might have worked in theory if they'd had the discipline to not go mad in the Codexes; as-is it's got basically the same problem as the old AP system did (good AP is too common so good saves are basically pointless unless you've got an Invulnerable save, and the few armies left with AP- small arms are left wondering whether there's any point in shooting their rifles at all). If they'd done it more like 1e/2e Sigmar, where AP-1 was a rare and special thing but 2+ armor didn't exist, then AP as modifiers might have worked better.

(P.S.: Better discipline about AP mods is one of two things I've ever liked about Sigmar (that and a better CP/stratagem system than 40k), I'm not trying to claim it's an improvement generally, just in that one specific case.)

You're not wrong but since OP asked about core rules specifically I took that. Codizes ruined a lot of things that were actually good ideas in the Core rules (stratagems as another example). In earlier editions the morale system was pretty nice - alas 90% of the factions in the game outright ignored it. In earlier editions the only AP that mattered was Ap2 (Ap1 was rare and AP 2 punched through every armour anyway). Now it's much broader and your AP is usually not wasted (aside from Daemons and Harlequins). But you're right, 9th edition spreading Ap-1 like candy is a problem.

Now that I've read some more posts I'd also like to add splitfire and being able to shoot and charge to my list. Having played One Page rules where you can only either shoot or charge you realize that there are a lot of units in 40K that rely on doing both and not just one or the other but these units are overshadowed by specialists if the base rules allow only one or the other.

Now there is the opposit, while the AP doesn't get wasted the armour, considering GW still makes you pay premium for it, very much does. And with how much -2AP/-1AP weapons are run it makes really hard to run high armour stuff and it working without additional rules.

catbarf wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Vehicles can't benefit from LIGHT COVER (the +1 to armour saves that benefits high armour save units more than low armour save units), they only benefit from DENSE (-1 to be hit) and OBSCURRING. And TITANIC units like Knights don't benefit from any of the cover types. If it isn't something big enough to completely hide behind, then all terrain does is hinder their movement.

All true, but not exactly what I was getting at. My experience has been that most vehicles exist in a state of either hidden or dead, as dedicated anti-tank units are capable of throwing out enough firepower to wreck them outright. Knights are rarely able to hide (except Armigers), but if the table allows it it makes a massive difference to their survivability. You want to hide your tanks and Knights when possible.

Meanwhile infantry blobs are very difficult to hide since if anything is exposed the whole unit is vulnerable, and getting +1 to your save for being in cover isn't too advantageous in a game where most armies are slinging lots of AP-1 and AP-2. Generally, I find it difficult to make effective use of terrain with infantry, especially since most don't have the range to be useful unless they're pushing forwards.

It's not just about light cover giving +1 to your save. It's the sum of how units interact with cover that produces a game state where infantry hide on the other side of terrain rather than seeking cover within it, or don't bother trying to hide since there are too many of them, while vehicles that in the fluff should be spearheading assaults instead creep behind buildings and pop out to make suicide attacks.

But yeah throw in the fact that there is no provision for monsters or vehicles entering terrain that you'd think they should be able to stomp/grind through, and the constrictive terrain layouts used for competitive events, and I just find the terrain/cover implementation frustrating. It simultaneously feels like an afterthought (did anyone playtest how a Leman Russ drives around these closely-packed buildings and cargo containers?) and far too complex for its own good with an unintuitive implementation of a keyword system.

Excellent points, and fully agreed. You've boiled down my own problems with the current terrain system, and said it far better than I could.

Mezmorki wrote:Total aside... I maybe have been doing this wrong...

The terrain types "obstacles" and "area terrain" (big categories) only grant the "benefits of cover" for infantry, beasts, and swarm models when within it and/or within 3" of it is LoS is partially blocked by it. The "benefits of cover" can then be "Dense" (-1 to hit), Light (+1 to ranged saving throws), Heavy (+1 to melee saving throws, etc.). Per your line, how does a vehicle (or monstrous creature) benefit from one type of cover but not other types?

You covered it partially yourself, LIGHT COVER requires that a unit be either within an Area Terrain feature, or within 3" of it, and only INFANTRY, BEASTS, and SWARMS can benefit from terrain in that way. DENSE works differently, and only requires that the terrain feature be between the firing unit and the target, with the only caveats being that it doesn't apply to AIRCRAFT and any model with 18+ wounds. That 18+ wound caveat is applied to OBSCURRING terrain as well, which is why terrain only functions as a hindrance for TITANIC units.

Edit: DENSE kind of works like 4th edition terrain rules, where if you can't draw LOS to the entire unit without passing over the terrain, then it applies, if that makes more sense to you. At least for single model units. If it's infantry it gets more complicated, because if one model out of a squad is exposed, then the whole squad is, effectively. It's really a mess, as Catbarf explained above.

 vipoid wrote:
Almost every character and their dog is walking around with WS2+/BS2+. So, rather than having a way to differentiate the exceptional fighters based on stats alone, you immediately have to start giving them special rules.

Oh I never thought of that. That is a good point.

 vipoid wrote:
Not unique to 9th but I like that units don't have to shoot all their weapons at the same target.
I like that units can fall back from melee. Now if only we could ditch the whole 'locked in combat' mechanic completely.
I like that Advancing is done during the movement phase, so you don't move all your units and then move them all again.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This took me a while, but I think I'm all right with WS being a flat number nowadays.

I think my issue with the current WS/BS paradigm is that there's so little room to really differentiate characters and such.

Almost every character and their dog is walking around with WS2+/BS2+. So, rather than having a way to differentiate the exceptional fighters based on stats alone, you immediately have to start giving them special rules.

Indeed, I'd argue that this is one of the central issues with the core rules. They're short but not because of conciseness or solid simplicity. Rather, they're so short because there's absolutely nothing to them. Not only are there no USRs, there are no core concepts to build on.

This is why codices are chock to the brim with bloat and bespoke rules - because the core rules give them absolutely nothing to work with.

Sorry but I bang my head on the table every time I hear people extolling the simplicity of 9th's core rules. It's like someone telling me that their favourite book is much easier to carry now that they've ripped out 90% of the pages.

I'm with you on most of this, but less so on WS/BS, just because of how much time I've spent trying to write variants on these rules and how little the fiddlier versions end up mattering in the long run. Number of Attacks, weapons, and Initiative in older versions of the system just end up making more of a difference, and at the end of the day something on the scale of 40k is still an abstraction that is never going to have the kind of fiddly detail it'd have if it were an RPG and you had five or six models on the table at a time.

 vipoid wrote:


Almost every character and their dog is walking around with WS2+/BS2+. So, rather than having a way to differentiate the exceptional fighters based on stats alone, you immediately have to start giving them special rules.

It wasn't much different before. Characters with current BS2+ used to hit on 2s even in older editions and pre 8th having WS6, WS7, WS8, WS9 or WS10 was basically the same thing.

 Blackie wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Almost every character and their dog is walking around with WS2+/BS2+. So, rather than having a way to differentiate the exceptional fighters based on stats alone, you immediately have to start giving them special rules.

It wasn't much different before. Characters with current BS2+ used to hit on 2s even in older editions and pre 8th having WS6, WS7, WS8, WS9 or WS10 was basically the same thing.

Except...

Not when fighting each other. WS was both an offensive and defensive stat, so two highly-skilled combatants facing each other weren't both going to hit five times out of six (before re-rolls). You'd probably end up in a 3+ vs. 4+ situation, with one combatant having an edge over the other. Yet they'd both absolutely school a Guardsman, say, who would likely need a 5+ to hit them.

And, having just double-checked the WS vs WS chart for 7th, to make sure my memory wasn't failing me, you never made it to a 2+ to hit just off your WS prior to 8th. There's an argument that at the extremes of the table they could've implemented a 2+ and 6+ to-hit, but it probably wouldn't've come up much.

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm teaching another person how to play, and I think I'm really going to lean into core rules before we start adding things in. We'll play a couple 25PL games without strats, WL Traits, relics or chapter tactics.

Have you taught someone before? In my experience, the only thing you need to strip away is codex Stratagems.

Slipspace wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

I like that more characters like Catacomb Command Barges and Daemon Princes can join units.

No characters can join units any more. Granted, in many ways that's a positive.

*I like that CCBs and DPs can hide from shooting behind friendly units.

 Sim-Life wrote:
There are a lot of good ideas that are being wasted. I think bespoke rules and Core are two rules with the most potential that are ruined by simply not being used properly and unthematic implementation respectively.

What does the good version of CORE look like? I think SM Captains should just have a +1 to hit ability at the end of the Movement phase and then you could add a note about them being able to target every Troops unit in addition to the main target. So you can tell a single Predator to shoot harder same as you can tell a unit of Eradicators to shoot harder, but all nearby Tactical Squads also get to shoot harder. Or maybe something more tactical, like Fall Back and Shoot or Action and Shoot etc.

 vipoid wrote:
Almost every character and their dog is walking around with WS2+/BS2+. So, rather than having a way to differentiate the exceptional fighters based on stats alone, you immediately have to start giving them special rules.

You still have A, S and AP and then exceptional duelists can be -1 to hit in melee.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Almost every character and their dog is walking around with WS2+/BS2+. So, rather than having a way to differentiate the exceptional fighters based on stats alone, you immediately have to start giving them special rules.

It wasn't much different before. Characters with current BS2+ used to hit on 2s even in older editions and pre 8th having WS6, WS7, WS8, WS9 or WS10 was basically the same thing.

Except...

Not when fighting each other. WS was both an offensive and defensive stat, so two highly-skilled combatants facing each other weren't both going to hit five times out of six (before re-rolls). You'd probably end up in a 3+ vs. 4+ situation, with one combatant having an edge over the other. Yet they'd both absolutely school a Guardsman, say, who would likely need a 5+ to hit them.

And, having just double-checked the WS vs WS chart for 7th, to make sure my memory wasn't failing me, you never made it to a 2+ to hit just off your WS prior to 8th. There's an argument that at the extremes of the table they could've implemented a 2+ and 6+ to-hit, but it probably wouldn't've come up much.

Ok, not when fighting each other although in my experience characters fighting other characters was not very common. I surely kept my "always fighting last and no invuln" warboss away from enemy characters, chasing elites or vehicles instead.

And even with herohammer the difference was still +1 or -1 to hit even with extremely different WS. When a character with WS4 fights against another one with WS10 for example the former hit on 5s, the latter on 3s. Not much different than now, when one of the characters has a defensive -1 to hit ability. And there was no chance to hit on 2s or 6s before 8th. Ever. So it's not true that there was more differentiation for characters in combat under the old rules.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Vehicles can't benefit from LIGHT COVER (the +1 to armour saves that benefits high armour save units more than low armour save units), they only benefit from DENSE (-1 to be hit) and OBSCURRING. And TITANIC units like Knights don't benefit from any of the cover types. If it isn't something big enough to completely hide behind, then all terrain does is hinder their movement.

Total aside... I maybe have been doing this wrong...

The terrain types "obstacles" and "area terrain" (big categories) only grant the "benefits of cover" for infantry, beasts, and swarm models when within it and/or within 3" of it is LoS is partially blocked by it. The "benefits of cover" can then be "Dense" (-1 to hit), Light (+1 to ranged saving throws), Heavy (+1 to melee saving throws, etc.). Per your line, how does a vehicle (or monstrous creature) benefit from one type of cover but not other types?

You are right, except "Dense" doesn't require the unit to have "benefits of cover" to get -1 to hit. Meanwhile, rules allowing you to ignore the benefits of cover, allow you to ignore the -1 to hit because GW is gonna GW.

That said, terrain rules, like most of 9th's core rules work fairly well now, though I feel like they could take another iteration to iron out some issues - also like many parts of 9th.