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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Although not terribly complex or new I overall like the rules.

Capping the save at 3+ I'd argue is quite good if we want to keep AP Low in this edition. If everyone is in cover with +1 save and no ap then the game comes to a standstill.

I also liked that they removed the -1 to hit. A +1 to save and -1 to hit is annoying gamewise even if lorewise one might like it.

it's not capped at 3+ tho.

It's not possible to get a 2+ in cover.

terminators/custodes agaisnt ap1 in cover?

That's not the cover doing that though? I should have worded that better - Cover will never grant a 2+

Lots of people really bending over backwards in here and general to be upset about these rules with really weird complaints.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Although not terribly complex or new I overall like the rules.

Capping the save at 3+ I'd argue is quite good if we want to keep AP Low in this edition. If everyone is in cover with +1 save and no ap then the game comes to a standstill.

I also liked that they removed the -1 to hit. A +1 to save and -1 to hit is annoying gamewise even if lorewise one might like it.

it's not capped at 3+ tho.

Technically the save is capped at 3+ and can never improve beyond that(as far as we know right now) except for units with 2+ saves built in. However, it can negate a point of AP. For me those are two different things.

 Tyran wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The plunging fire is nice. The hills are nice. It makes them more tactical, at least.

Plunging fire is my big concern. Having a big tower to deploy your shooting units on has often been a balance concern. Giving them +1 AP against stuff on the ground in an edition which is trying to cut back on AP seems nuts.

We are going to need terrain deployment rules that avoid deploying 6"+ ruins in deployment zones.

If the game is much less lethal I think I'm ok with that. Tanks can pick up a save fairly easily now, but won't benefit unless it's AT coming at it so I won't feel so exposed.

I actually hope that people don't fall back on the usual terrain right now and play a more diverse setup and see how it goes.

Maybe I just play a lot with ITC terrain layouts, but 6" advantage is not exactly common in those settings. Usually one building in the far corner that can provide you with that advantage.

So I'd guess this is more if you do not follow terrain layouts and how you approach your own table. Something that can probably be discussed with the opponent beforehand.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Technically the save is capped at 3+ and can never improve beyond that(as far as we know right now) except for units with 2+ saves built in. However, it can negate a point of AP. For me those are two different things.

That feels like splitting hairs for no benefit.

Effectively a marine save becomes 2+ when in cover against a weapon with AP1, which then becomes 3+.

The rules seem interesting at least. I like how they capped the cover bonus for higher armor units and I enjoy the simplicity of the rules so far. It will be easier to judge when we have it all in front of us.

The Benefit of Cover rule is not hard. If you have a save characteristic (i.e. the save stat on your datasheet) of 3+ or 2+ and you get shot by an AP0 attack while in cover, you do not get +1 to your save. That is it, that is the rule how is there so much discussion about it?

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
The Benefit of Cover rule is not hard. If you have a save characteristic (i.e. the save stat on your datasheet) of 3+ or 2+ and you get shot by an AP0 attack while in cover, you do not get +1 to your save. That is it, that is the rule how is there so much discussion about it?

because its somewhat nonsensical in an in-world logic, tbh i'm fine with it, its just clunky somehow.

Its more the 3 different way to check for cover that are turning me off, when a simpler solution wouldve ben much cleaner

I think the cover rules are about as simple as they could reasonably be. Plus at least they kept obscuring (albeit not in name) which is important.

Hmm. Don't like plunging fire at all. Its just a balance problem and argument waiting to happen for terrain setup.

Engagement range extension being specific to 'barricades and fuel pipes' is just weird. This piece was obviously written for GW terrain sales, rather than writing a more general case.

In fact, the weirdest part about this is a lot of this is very general rules (visibility, for example) written to apply only in specific cases, and for the most part doing the same very basic thing.

'Benefit of Cover' doesn't need to be 'attached' to any terrain types. You just... get it when a model is partially obscured.

Other than that, woods and similar can monkey with visibility and cramped spaces/obstacles can feth with engagement.

They overthought this one, though it largely seems better than the trash terrain rules for 9th edition.

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
I think the cover rules are about as simple as they could reasonably be. Plus at least they kept obscuring (albeit not in name) which is important.

"If you cannot draw a line from base to base that does not intersect with a terrain feature, the target benefits from cover. A unit in cover may chose to get +1 to their saves, the result of that roll can never be better than a 3+"

Plunging fire is great. Giving us reasons to maneuver and position on the battlefield is sorely needed. This and the "shoot less if you move" thing from before is giving me a lot of optimism.

Voss wrote:
Hmm. Don't like plunging fire at all. Its just a balance problem and argument waiting to happen for terrain setup.

Engagement range extension being specific to 'barricades and fuel pipes' is just weird. This piece was obviously written for GW terrain sales, rather than writing a more general case.

In fact, the weirdest part about this is a lot of this is very general rules (visibility, for example) written to apply only in specific cases, and for the most part doing the same very basic thing.

'Benefit of Cover' doesn't need to be 'attached' to any terrain types. You just... get it when a model is partially obscured.

Other than that, woods and similar can monkey with visibility and cramped spaces/obstacles can feth with engagement.

They overthought this one, though it largely seems better than the trash terrain rules for 9th edition.

Barricades aren't explicitly a GW terrain thing. It's a battlefield problem, because without an engagement rule you could make your models un-chargeable from certain angles.

Ruins with floors above 6" are pretty rare. I doubt you'll see many except for those wanting to have city fights.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
I think the cover rules are about as simple as they could reasonably be. Plus at least they kept obscuring (albeit not in name) which is important.

"If you cannot draw a line from base to base that does not intersect with a terrain feature, the target benefits from cover. A unit in cover may chose to get +1 to their saves, the result of that roll can never be better than a 3+"

Thats... awful. As written it gives LOS to everything, and only something fully blocked (ie, completely out of LOS in normal rules) ever gets the benefit of cover.
Not sure why it would be optional, either.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
I think the cover rules are about as simple as they could reasonably be. Plus at least they kept obscuring (albeit not in name) which is important.

"If you cannot draw a line from base to base that does not intersect with a terrain feature, the target benefits from cover. A unit in cover may chose to get +1 to their saves, the result of that roll can never be better than a 3+"

Were you attempting a re-write? That misses a bunch of nuance to the current rules and as a result gets it wrong.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Hmm. Don't like plunging fire at all. Its just a balance problem and argument waiting to happen for terrain setup.

Engagement range extension being specific to 'barricades and fuel pipes' is just weird. This piece was obviously written for GW terrain sales, rather than writing a more general case.

In fact, the weirdest part about this is a lot of this is very general rules (visibility, for example) written to apply only in specific cases, and for the most part doing the same very basic thing.

'Benefit of Cover' doesn't need to be 'attached' to any terrain types. You just... get it when a model is partially obscured.

Other than that, woods and similar can monkey with visibility and cramped spaces/obstacles can feth with engagement.

They overthought this one, though it largely seems better than the trash terrain rules for 9th edition.

Barricades aren't explicitly a GW terrain thing. It's a battlefield problem, because without an engagement rule you could make your models un-chargeable from certain angles.

I call that a feature. I hate the 'Kool-Aid Man' permeable walls and general indifference to terrain.

Ruins with floors above 6" are pretty rare. I doubt you'll see many except for those wanting to have city fights.

Except people are now incentivized to bring and use them. Hence the problem.

I do wonder if Breachable is even thing any more. I feel like it could be gone.

I'm not sure how plunging fire is supposed to make sense unless the target is almost directly below the shooter?
Does being on the second floor of a ruin rather than the first actually make that much difference if your target is on the other side of the battlefield?

out of interest, those craters in the article look like thier a standardise scuplt, but i've not seen them before. are they an old GW kit they have lying about, or some new kit they might be bringing out?

I'd be okay if brechable was gone.

Thematically not a huge fan of hiding behind and running through solid L's for the terrain standard.

I’m glad they’ve thrown out pretty much all the terrain rules from 9th. Our group just straight up made our own terrain rules instead.

These look easy to remember and simple to use. Don’t see what’s wrong with them.

xerxeskingofking wrote:
out of interest, those craters in the article look like thier a standardise scuplt, but i've not seen them before. are they an old GW kit they have lying about, or some new kit they might be bringing out?

They're the quake craters, think they came out in 6th/7th? Sets come up on ebay from time to time but they're stupidly expensive. I honestly have no idea why I never bought a set when they came out, easily one of the best terrain sets they made.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I'm not sure how plunging fire is supposed to make sense unless the target is almost directly below the shooter?
Does being on the second floor of a ruin rather than the first actually make that much difference if your target is on the other side of the battlefield?

It's a rules abstraction intended to replicate the significant advantage in lethality that firing on an enemy position from above provides.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I'm not sure how plunging fire is supposed to make sense unless the target is almost directly below the shooter?
Does being on the second floor of a ruin rather than the first actually make that much difference if your target is on the other side of the battlefield?

Depends on the region, but where I live you'd say they are on the third floor as the first floor is technically ground level.

Kill Team gives a model advantage of having higher ground overall. It seems 40K just has it more explicit so a unit can't be on a barstool and claim plunging fire. A 6" height difference isn't something that I'd say is common in the game unless you are playing with a very specific set of terrain.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I'm not sure how plunging fire is supposed to make sense unless the target is almost directly below the shooter?
Does being on the second floor of a ruin rather than the first actually make that much difference if your target is on the other side of the battlefield?

Angle of attack is definitely a benefit in shooting at tanks in real life.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I'm not sure how plunging fire is supposed to make sense unless the target is almost directly below the shooter?
Does being on the second floor of a ruin rather than the first actually make that much difference if your target is on the other side of the battlefield?

It's over Anakin, you know the rest.

Having the high ground is advantageous in terms of having a clearer line of fire and more defensible position. Castles are built on hills, not in valleys.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:
Terrain/cover rules are the first miss for me with these new rules previews. While I don't expect them to get rid of TLOS and go back to 4th edition's terrain rules, I expected something better than just +1 to armor save, with 3+ being the maximum. I think I would have preferred invulnerable saves (4+, 5+, or 6+) depending on the type and density of the cover.

Invulnerable saves are bad. Also you can get cover with a 3+ as long as the weapon has AP.

In practice does mean you aren't getting anything better than a 3+ with cover.

Which I think is great. With AP dropping giving terminators easy cover would have made them central to the game. It might not be perfect, but they at least thought about the consequences.

Yes, the consequences of Terminators already having benefitted from cover this edition and not breaking anything?

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Yes, the consequences of Terminators already having benefitted from cover this edition and not breaking anything?

Hi, this is referencing the new edition, which has so far been demonstrated to be less lethal.

You are talking about the current edition, which is far more lethal. It wasn't for no reason that many TS players brought several blocks of Scarab terminators.

I hope in the future you will be able to think about the differences between editions more explicitly.

I don't think we've seen the LoS rules yet, but the wording of some of the terrain rules seems to indicate TLOS is still in the game in some capacity at least?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Yes, the consequences of Terminators already having benefitted from cover this edition and not breaking anything?

You are talking about the current edition, which is far more lethal. It wasn't for no reason that many TS players brought several blocks of Scarab terminators.

Probably because Scarabs were explicitly better than regular Rubrics? That has nothing to do with cover I hate to tell you.