Switch Theme:

10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Servoarm Flailing Magos




Germany

 Platuan4th wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
.

Snakes and Ladders or Monopoly has a fanbase too but the difference in defending those games vs 40k fans is remarkable.


Monopoly stands against your point considering it's known as "the game that ends friendships".


Well, Monopoly was originally made as a teaching tool by a member of a religious movement, and was supposed to hammer home that 'Landlords bad', so that checks out
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

Tsagualsa wrote:
 Platuan4th wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
.

Snakes and Ladders or Monopoly has a fanbase too but the difference in defending those games vs 40k fans is remarkable.


Monopoly stands against your point considering it's known as "the game that ends friendships".


Well, Monopoly was originally made as a teaching tool by a member of a religious movement, and was supposed to hammer home that 'Landlords bad', so that checks out
Funny. I thought it was Diplomacy that ended friendships. Monopoly just made you want to shoot yourself in the head because the damn game never ends if everyone plays cutthroat.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






Just a thought... I was looking at the new Dataslates and it occurred to me that there is no unit composition listed. The min/max number of models is easily handled in the points listing, but what about default wargear, available wargear upgrades and their quantities? I'm thinking that the index/codex datasheet will have more detail than the reference cards and the examples we're seeing are the cards.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Wayniac wrote:
And, let me tell you, this is a pale shadow of what came before. This is like the tail end of the Roman Empire acting like it's still the days of Augustus and the Legionaries.


Jesus those are some rosy glasses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 catbarf wrote:
And since the tactical considerations at a squad level and at a company level are so different, you'll probably wind up with a game that fails to adequately model one end or the other. Usually, that manifests as a game that is fundamentally squad/platoon in its design and tactics, but then doubles or triples its model count to hit squad/platoon/company game size but without adopting the C&C considerations that become relevant at that level.


This might be an alluring aspect for gamers though -- part of why 40K feels different from other games and part of why it continues to have success.

I forget the reason but one edition the standard list size was 2,001. The extra point was to allow for the size limitations of a 2001+ point game. GW didn't decide that - we did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
Its tempting to say 3rd edition was not balanced. The end.

But it seemed so to me at the time - because I was 12-16~ or so playing other 12-16 year olds. Our lists were soft-highlander collections - not "just take the best stuff". You ran the good with the bad because that's the models you owned. You didn't spam starcannons, because why would you own the minis to spam anything? People who did that were mocked rather than the norm.

Based on say White Dwarf (which undoubtedly was in a Golden Age) this was how GW has always "imagined" people would play. But its rarely been like that the moment people have been able to pay to win. Cue lots of "we went to a tournament and our innocent eyes were shocked at what we saw" responses from GW as late as last year.

This is why I didn't enjoy 5th much. I imagine if I'd been 10 years younger it would have been great great. But I'm now 22-26, playing other people in their early-mid 20s or so. If something seemed good, you just went out and bought it - even whole armies weren't actually "that" expensive (especially second hand). The meta became much more cut-throat, and the imbalances much more explicit as a result. And yes, this weighed on "my fun". For some reason losing feels much worse when it seems you never had a chance, because their list was just so much better than yours. I hated Grey Knights, Space Wolves and Necrons with the sort of fire Karol directs at the Sun Elfs.

Flash forward to 7th, and it wasn't "tournament cheese" to see Wraithknights, Riptides or bike-riding Marine character blobs at over half the tables. It was a random Saturday night in the FLGS. But I kind of accepted it by this point. Play casually with casuals, play competitively with competitive people. 8th and then 9th tried to reduce the number of outright traps in the books, which was a good thing. Its sad certain armies were weak all edition (GK, Necrons to a degree in 8th, Guard until 5 minutes ago in 9th) - but this was better than before.


Ding ding ding! And that's why people love putting on those glasses.

I even remember how White Dwarf threw around the term 'Beardy' quite often.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oni wrote:
Just a thought... I was looking at the new Dataslates and it occurred to me that there is no unit composition listed. The min/max number of models is easily handled in the points listing, but what about default wargear, available wargear upgrades and their quantities? I'm thinking that the index/codex datasheet will have more detail than the reference cards and the examples we're seeing are the cards.


It's on the other "half" of the datasheet.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/04/20 14:16:47


 
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




20/04/2023

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/20/safe-terrain-is-now-simple-terrain-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/



Safe Terrain Is Now Simple Terrain in the New Edition of Warhammer 40,000
  • Having the Benefit of Cover will not improve saves of a 3+ or better against weapons with an Armour Penetration characteristic of 0. This means a unit will never have its save improved to 2+ by terrain. Cover is not cumulative.

  • Terrains is now divided into 6 categories : craters, barricades, debris, hills, woods, or ruins.

  • Craters : wholly on top. INFANTRY only

  • Barricades : charges must end within 2" of a enemy unit behind a barricade
    In the Fight phase, attacks can be made trough barricades if units are within 2" of each others
    Cover bonus : INFANTRY only

  • Debris : need to be wholly within. No unit category restriction.

  • Hills, which includes buildings that units can stand on. Model must be not fully visible to every attacker model. No unit category restriction.

  • Woods : need to be wholly within. Model must be not fully visible to every attacker model. Aircraft an Towering models ignore Woods' cover. No unit category restriction for the benefit of Cover.

  • Ruins : need to be wholly within. Model must be not fully visible to every attacker model. Gives +1AP-ranged when standing above 6" of another model. No unit category restriction for the benefit of cover


  • This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/22 09:16:04


     
       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    To repeat what I said in the N&R thread, these rules feel like a step backwards to me. Removing everything except Light Cover puts us right back to 8th and seems to make terrain less impactful overall. I would at least have liked to see them keep Dense as its own type of terrain.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     oni wrote:
    Just a thought... I was looking at the new Dataslates and it occurred to me that there is no unit composition listed. The min/max number of models is easily handled in the points listing, but what about default wargear, available wargear upgrades and their quantities? I'm thinking that the index/codex datasheet will have more detail than the reference cards and the examples we're seeing are the cards.

    The key thing to remember about the dataslates is they're effectively a playing aid. They're designed to allow you to use the unit on the battlefield and it's assumed everything will be WYSIWYG. All the pre-game stuff you need to know like default equipment, options and unit size will be in the Codex/Index as that's not directly relevant once you're at the table.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/20 14:30:51


     
       
    Made in us
    Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






    Welp, there it is, now i recognize GW. These terrain rules are so complicated for no reason, why is there that many different rules on how you get cover?
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut





    Slipspace wrote:
    To repeat what I said in the N&R thread, these rules feel like a step backwards to me. Removing everything except Light Cover puts us right back to 8th and seems to make terrain less impactful overall. I would at least have liked to see them keep Dense as its own type of terrain.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     oni wrote:
    Just a thought... I was looking at the new Dataslates and it occurred to me that there is no unit composition listed. The min/max number of models is easily handled in the points listing, but what about default wargear, available wargear upgrades and their quantities? I'm thinking that the index/codex datasheet will have more detail than the reference cards and the examples we're seeing are the cards.

    The key thing to remember about the dataslates is they're effectively a playing aid. They're designed to allow you to use the unit on the battlefield and it's assumed everything will be WYSIWYG. All the pre-game stuff you need to know like default equipment, options and unit size will be in the Codex/Index as that's not directly relevant once you're at the table.


    But the key pieces are more impactful and it's less faffing about. Plunging fire is great and hills are somewhat useful again. Larger terrain pieces affect all models ( but not the 2+/3+ ones ). If lethality is down then it doesn't make sense to hand out cover like candy.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    Welp, there it is, now i recognize GW. These terrain rules are so complicated for no reason, why is there that many different rules on how you get cover?


    INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.

    Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.

    And that's about it.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/04/20 14:37:33


     
       
    Made in de
    Servoarm Flailing Magos




    Germany

     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Slipspace wrote:
    To repeat what I said in the N&R thread, these rules feel like a step backwards to me. Removing everything except Light Cover puts us right back to 8th and seems to make terrain less impactful overall. I would at least have liked to see them keep Dense as its own type of terrain.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     oni wrote:
    Just a thought... I was looking at the new Dataslates and it occurred to me that there is no unit composition listed. The min/max number of models is easily handled in the points listing, but what about default wargear, available wargear upgrades and their quantities? I'm thinking that the index/codex datasheet will have more detail than the reference cards and the examples we're seeing are the cards.

    The key thing to remember about the dataslates is they're effectively a playing aid. They're designed to allow you to use the unit on the battlefield and it's assumed everything will be WYSIWYG. All the pre-game stuff you need to know like default equipment, options and unit size will be in the Codex/Index as that's not directly relevant once you're at the table.


    But the key pieces are more impactful and it's less faffing about. Plunging fire is great and hills are somewhat useful again. Larger terrain pieces affect all models ( but not the 2+/3+ ones ). If lethality is down then it doesn't make sense to hand out cover like candy.


    I hope we get some more, and more interesting interactions as unit skills. We do already know that at least a variant of Termagaunts gets BoC if around an objective, other stuff could include e.g. increasing an units OC rating if they have BoC or stuff like that.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/20 14:39:46


     
       
    Made in us
    Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






     Daedalus81 wrote:


    INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.

    Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.

    And that's about it.


    Except that

    craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
    Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
    debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it

    so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/20 14:39:35


     
       
    Made in gb
    Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:


    INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.

    Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.

    And that's about it.


    Except that

    craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
    Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
    debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it

    so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.



    Not to sound too condescending but that's really not difficult to track or work out compared to what we have today.
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut





    Tsagualsa wrote:

    I hope we get some more, and more interesting interactions as unit skills. We do already know that at least a variant of Termagaunts gets BoC if around an objective, other stuff could include e.g. increasing an units OC rating if they have BoC or stuff like that.



    Quite likely, but do note that only the CP version of 'gants has that rule.
       
    Made in us
    Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






    Dudeface wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:


    INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.

    Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.

    And that's about it.


    Except that

    craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
    Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
    debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it

    so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.



    Not to sound too condescending but that's really not difficult to track or work out compared to what we have today.


    oh i'll get used to it, but i don't get why it couldnt just be the same for everything

    Wholly within 3" and not fully visible.
       
    Made in de
    Servoarm Flailing Magos




    Germany

     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:


    INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.

    Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.

    And that's about it.


    Except that

    craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
    Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
    debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it

    so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.



    Also, good luck argueing the difference between rubble, debris and barricades in practice. Sorry i literally need to do this If i wanted to game with a thesaurus i'd play italian Lizardmen.
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut





     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:


    INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.

    Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.

    And that's about it.


    Except that

    craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
    Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
    debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it

    so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.



    Yea there's a little positioning logic, but it's way easier to check for. Barricades are pretty rare around here so I doubt I'll see that one.
       
    Made in gb
    Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:


    INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.

    Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.

    And that's about it.


    Except that

    craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
    Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
    debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it

    so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.



    Not to sound too condescending but that's really not difficult to track or work out compared to what we have today.


    oh i'll get used to it, but i don't get why it couldnt just be the same for everything

    Wholly within 3" and not fully visible.


    Because often craters won't clear the base rim, in which case the model itself is fully visible.
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut





    Tsagualsa wrote:
    Also, good luck argueing the difference between rubble, debris and barricades in practice. Sorry i literally need to do this If i wanted to game with a thesaurus i'd play italian Lizardmen.


    It's common to discuss what each piece of terrain is before a game so that there's no confusion. But the differentiation here is easy enough. Craters and rubble you need to get able to get inside. You can't get inside a barricade.
       
    Made in gb
    Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




    Tsagualsa wrote:

    Also, good luck argueing the difference between rubble, debris and barricades in practice. Sorry I literally need to do this If i wanted to game with a thesaurus I'd play Italian Lizardmen.


    Barricade = any object with a vertical element a model can hide behind that's greater than ankle height, limited depth horizontally
    Rubble = piles of stuff that aren't greater than ankle height and have a large horizontal surface area
    Craters = everyone knows what a crater looks like, come on, but it's a large horizontal surface area with raised edges creating a dip in the middle

    If people assign vents or other weird stuff to any of these categories, it's a quick chat before game and doesn't need much debate as it benefits everyone equally really?
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    Annandale, VA

    First glance is that it's still lawyer-speak word salad, but on further review it does actually seem simpler.

    I notice that they're changing terrain to give you cover if you're obscured to any member of the attacking unit, not all members. That means scatter terrain is actually relevant again.

    Not allowing cover to benefit 3+ or better against AP0 is a clunky solution to MEQs becoming unreasonably durable against small arms, but it seems positive.

    Well, it's not what I would call a clean and simple terrain system, but it's better than the nonexistent terrain of 8th or the keyword mess of 9th.

       
    Made in us
    Dakka Veteran





    10 Ed. Terrain Rules Summary: quintessential faffing about
       
    Made in us
    Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






    Dudeface wrote:


    Because often craters won't clear the base rim, in which case the model itself is fully visible.


    now if only GW did LoS from base to base
       
    Made in ca
    Longtime Dakkanaut





    Somewhere in Canada

    I don't like the way they say "If you're in woods or ruins you're not visible, so you get cover."

    In my mind, if you're not visible, you don't get cover- you just can't be shot.

    If you're just going to give me cover, cut out the lines that tell me I'm not visible.

    I loved the simple old area terrain rule- shoot in with a penalty, but shooting through is not possible.
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut





    PenitentJake wrote:
    I don't like the way they say "If you're in woods or ruins you're not visible, so you get cover."

    In my mind, if you're not visible, you don't get cover- you just can't be shot.

    If you're just going to give me cover, cut out the lines that tell me I'm not visible.

    I loved the simple old area terrain rule- shoot in with a penalty, but shooting through is not possible.


    I think you've read it wrong.

    Wood - fully in or partially obscured - cover.

    Ruins - fully behind - not visible and cover. Fully within - cover and can shoot out and be shot at.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/04/20 15:07:29


     
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    Tsagualsa wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:


    INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.

    Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.

    And that's about it.


    Except that

    craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
    Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
    debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it

    so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.



    Also, good luck argueing the difference between rubble, debris and barricades in practice. Sorry i literally need to do this If i wanted to game with a thesaurus i'd play italian Lizardmen.

    Honestly that might be the best hobby related joke I've seen the last two years
       
    Made in us
    Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






    Posted this in the other 10th thread...

    At best I'm lukewarm to these terrain rules. They do not strike me as being very comprehensive.

    The woods... as written you can have one model in the open and high up on a Hill shooting another model in the open, high up on a Hill with absolutely nothing obscuring LoS, but if theirs Woods in the valley between the high Hills, the target receives the Benefit of Cover.
       
    Made in us
    Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






     oni wrote:
    Posted this in the other 10th thread...

    At best I'm lukewarm to these terrain rules. They do not strike me as being very comprehensive.

    The woods... as written you can have one model in the open and high up on a Hill shooting another model in the open, high up on a Hill with absolutely nothing obscuring LoS, but if theirs Woods in the valley between the high Hills, the target receives the Benefit of Cover.


    most hills i've played with are usually 2" tall at most, trees are usually taller than that
       
    Made in ca
    Longtime Dakkanaut





    Somewhere in Canada

     Daedalus81 wrote:

    I think you've read it wrong.

    Wood - fully in or partially obscured - cover.

    Ruins - fully behind - not visible and cover. Fully within - cover and can shoot out and be shot at.



    I reread it, and I now see the place where it says that Ruins fully block line of sight for shots that pass through the footprint. I still think this info should have been in the little box with the picture of the terrain and its rules headings- that's why I didn't see it in the first pass.

    Woods, however, DO allow shooting through the footprint with a -1. I guess the textual distinction on the rule card is "never wholly visible" as opposed to "obscured."

    Either way, better than what I thought it was.

       
    Made in gb
    Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




    PenitentJake wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:

    I think you've read it wrong.

    Wood - fully in or partially obscured - cover.

    Ruins - fully behind - not visible and cover. Fully within - cover and can shoot out and be shot at.



    I reread it, and I now see the place where it says that Ruins fully block line of sight for shots that pass through the footprint. I still think this info should have been in the little box with the picture of the terrain and its rules headings- that's why I didn't see it in the first pass.

    Woods, however, DO allow shooting through the footprint with a -1. I guess the textual distinction on the rule card is "never wholly visible" as opposed to "obscured."

    Either way, better than what I thought it was.



    There's no -1 on shooting through the woods.
       
    Made in us
    Nasty Nob




    Crescent City Fl..

    so far I like the terrain rule. seems easy enough and that's nice. I make all my own terrain still need to make hills and woods again, I've been putting it off for a year. I'm going to shoot for hills that top at 4 or 5 inches with a few levels as ways for models to make their ways to the top, those usually look good. Trees I'm not so sure yet I thought about pipe ruins as count as trees to fit with my terrain theme. May still go that way.
    Oh, and Craters as well, need to bother with a few of those at some point.
    Over all these are easily playable rules and the 3+ save rule is fair I would say but also with plunging fire suddenly 3+ saves may start to find cover from some AM troopers, which is a little funny but fair I would say.

    The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.

    Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.  
       
    Made in us
    Focused Dark Angels Land Raider Pilot






    I think these terrain rules are good.

    It does follow their simplified, not ismple motto.

    essentially models with a 3+ or better cannot be improved.

    Gives reason to position your shooter suphigh, whihc is nice and narrative, snipers on high ground or create a kill box where troops can shot down.

    All good from what I can see.

    5500
    2500 
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
    Go to: