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.
2023/04/20 15:59:35
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Yeah, sorry- meant +1 save. That's just me being lazy and not looking up the "Benefit of Cover" rule before typing.
Still happy about not being able to shoot through the footprint of ruins- that's a huge improvement over the previous obscuring rule that demanded terrain be a particular height to obscure.
2023/04/20 16:02:31
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
I definitely like attaching 'Towering' to models rather than the wound limitation. That got really stupid, as the game produced models that could hide that were twice the size of models that couldn't.
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2023/04/20 16:11:48
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Voss wrote: I definitely like attaching 'Towering' to models rather than the wound limitation. That got really stupid, as the game produced models that could hide that were twice the size of models that couldn't.
I wonder if they'll have the good sense to attach "Towering" to things that actually "Tower": IE, are really TALL, and not just anything that they consider "big".
2023/04/20 16:13:04
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
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
Fully intact buildings and hills are now treated the same. So, you can replace 'Hills' in my post with 'buildings' or even 'ruins' and the same issue is present.
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/20 16:13:42
2023/04/20 16:14:22
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Voss wrote: I definitely like attaching 'Towering' to models rather than the wound limitation. That got really stupid, as the game produced models that could hide that were twice the size of models that couldn't.
I wonder if they'll have the good sense to attach "Towering" to things that actually "Tower": IE, are really TALL, and not just anything that they consider "big".
"I don't know what you mean, of course doomstalkers have retractable legs to hide behind single storey buildings!"
2023/04/20 16:16:21
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
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.
So virtuallo never in forests and hills. Much of rubles etc also won't give one in practice
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2023/04/20 16:24:52
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
Sure, but that's a really contrived example.
2023/04/20 16:26:42
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
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
Fully intact buildings and hills are now treated the same. So, you can replace 'Hills' in my post with 'buildings' or even 'ruins' and the same issue is present.
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
Most battlefields do not have 24” tall buildings on them. If yours do, houserule how high you have to be to see over the Woods.
2023/04/20 16:31:54
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
You know I'm the first one to give GW gak for crappy rules writing, but I think they would have to be legitimately insane to make allowances for the two lunatics out there trying to put an eight story tenement on a 40k table.
It's totally outside of the game's scope, if you want to play a game that lets you shoot across a park at another skyscraper just go play battletech or something.
Did you know the game also breaks down if you try to play it on a sphere? Also, who gives a gak?
2023/04/20 16:34:08
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Fully intact buildings and hills are now treated the same. So, you can replace 'Hills' in my post with 'buildings' or even 'ruins' and the same issue is present.
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
While technically true, I think you'd have to be cognitively impaired to believe this is intended. It is an example of exactly why the rules in 9th sound like they're written in legalese. It gets easier to write rules when you count on your players to have a modicum of common sense; I don't mean that as an insult to you- what you've seen here is correct, the text as written means exactly what you say it does... But man, I didn't even see it because I know absolutely what the intent of the designers was, and this certainly isn't it.
2023/04/20 16:36:38
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
Sure, but that's a really contrived example.
The Fronteris buildings are roughly the same height as GW's Woods, so the example stands with GW's official building and forest models. It can't really get any less contrived than that.
My armies:
14000 points
2023/04/20 16:37:33
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Fully intact buildings and hills are now treated the same. So, you can replace 'Hills' in my post with 'buildings' or even 'ruins' and the same issue is present.
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
While technically true, I think you'd have to be cognitively impaired to believe this is intended. It is an example of exactly why the rules in 9th sound like they're written in legalese. It gets easier to write rules when you count on your players to have a modicum of common sense; I don't mean that as an insult to you- what you've seen here is correct, the text as written means exactly what you say it does... But man, I didn't even see it because I know absolutely what the intent of the designers was, and this certainly isn't it.
100%. It's a tabletop game. Tabletop games only function on social interaction and subjective agreement within a suggested system. They need to stop pretending there's a way to write the rules to a point it plays like a video game, which it seems like they might be starting to come back to. It's precisely the reason we got TLoS counting spikes and chains and banners. The worst crime against immersion of all time.
Thought for the day
2023/04/20 16:43:44
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Voss wrote: I definitely like attaching 'Towering' to models rather than the wound limitation. That got really stupid, as the game produced models that could hide that were twice the size of models that couldn't.
I wonder if they'll have the good sense to attach "Towering" to things that actually "Tower": IE, are really TALL, and not just anything that they consider "big".
"I don't know what you mean, of course doomstalkers have retractable legs to hide behind single storey buildings!"
Pretty much. Though I was more wondering if "Towering" is just the new "Super Heavy/LoW", and we'll be right back to a super heavy tank that can get completely behind a Ruin getting the same benefit (or lack thereof) as a Knight that sticks up halfway over it. But yeah, "Towering" should be a "really tall walker/monster" thing.
2023/04/20 16:44:50
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
Sure, but that's a really contrived example.
The Fronteris buildings are roughly the same height as GW's Woods, so the example stands with GW's official building and forest models. It can't really get any less contrived than that.
Right so as long as we have two buildings opposite each other and a forest in between and units on each building and the target models are fully visible ( which on the fronteris buildings there is that wall that can block vision ) then we have to worry about a weird cover issue.
2023/04/20 16:47:46
Subject: Re:10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
*should* be, but I guarantee, given its mechanic and thus balance effects, it will be applied unevenly and thier WILL be cases of units either having or not having it that make you "eh?".
To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.
Coven of XVth 2000pts
The Blades of Ruin 2,000pts Watch Company Rho 1650pts
2023/04/20 16:57:05
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
Sure, but that's a really contrived example.
The Fronteris buildings are roughly the same height as GW's Woods, so the example stands with GW's official building and forest models. It can't really get any less contrived than that.
Right so as long as we have two buildings opposite each other and a forest in between and units on each building and the target models are fully visible ( which on the fronteris buildings there is that wall that can block vision ) then we have to worry about a weird cover issue.
My point is that the weird cover issue is enabled by GW's official terrain lineup. You don't need 24" high buildings with 8" high woods, just GW's fully official buildings with GW's fully official woods. It isn't supposed to be an uncommon or unusual scenario et all.
My armies:
14000 points
2023/04/20 17:14:37
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
Sure, but that's a really contrived example.
The Fronteris buildings are roughly the same height as GW's Woods, so the example stands with GW's official building and forest models. It can't really get any less contrived than that.
Right so as long as we have two buildings opposite each other and a forest in between and units on each building and the target models are fully visible ( which on the fronteris buildings there is that wall that can block vision ) then we have to worry about a weird cover issue.
My point is that the weird cover issue is enabled by GW's official terrain lineup. You don't need 24" high buildings with 8" high woods, just GW's fully official buildings with GW's fully official woods. It isn't supposed to be an uncommon or unusual scenario et all.
Yah, Ruins that are higher than 8" are not uncommon.
So standing in a ruin 6" above ground level increases you AP by 1 if you shoot at ground level. By that logic every knight should also have its AP increased by 1. And aircraft should have that too. Anything that is at least 6" tall and shoots at ground level shoudl have better AP.
2023/04/20 17:23:00
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
I don't hate these rules, though they could be better. I like that terrain seems to function as just area terrain in many cases, and being even partially obscured grants cover instead of peeking through windows negating it.
I'm curious what "towering" means, because I don't quite understand if GW understands how tall trees are. If its something like an imperial knight, I mean, a quick online look says 9-12m tall. A search on titans say 40-80 feet tall (woo on units altering). Just a casual lookup of common trees like Oak or Maple, and the heights are 50-70ft (~15-21m) on average, with possibility of over 100 feet (30ish m). So unless all forests in warhammer world are short, maintained trees for say gardens, it just seems odd that anything could be considered "towering" to them.
2023/04/20 17:23:59
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Hmm. Not sure how I feel about these. Mostly neutral but also mildly confused, I guess?
Scattered thoughts:
* Not sure how I feel about not being able to improve saves to 2+. I get that easily-accessible 2+ saves are a pain, but also it feels weird that an AP-1 weapon is functionally paying for AP that won't matter wihle an AP0 weapon is not. So if you're trying to kill marines, it's probably more points efficient to *not* use the armor piercing guns and instead just use the (presumablly cheaper) AP0 guns? Then again, AP-2 and better would probably still be worthwhile even with cover, so maybe I'm overthinking it.
It just feels weird that my striking scorpions don't have an incentive to be in cover against bolters.and lasguns.
* So theoretically, a model on a somewhat tall sealed structure (hill) will theoretically always have cover against anything infantry-heigh on the ground, right? Like, I can have my marines standing right at the edge of a sealed structure. The models on the ground below can see99% of that model, but the backs of their heels are over the lip of the structure, so they get cover, right? How does that interact with bases? Is the base part of the model? Or does it block line of sight to my marines' toes?
* More thoughts on base weirdness. Does this mean that my tactical rocks actually might let me ignore certain types of cover by making the model physically tall enough to look down at a shorter hill?
* Plunging fire is neat. Seems like it could just apply to any units at a lower elevation in generally rather than needing the enemy to be on the ground, but that would only really come up for those of us who like really tall terrain.
* On the whole, these rules seem fine, but they don't excite me. Probably a mostly horizontal change.
EDIT: It has been a while, but I feel like I didn't have this many questions about the 9th edition terrain rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/20 17:26:19
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
2023/04/20 17:47:58
Subject: Re:10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
kurhanik wrote: I don't hate these rules, though they could be better. I like that terrain seems to function as just area terrain in many cases, and being even partially obscured grants cover instead of peeking through windows negating it.
I'm curious what "towering" means, because I don't quite understand if GW understands how tall trees are. If its something like an imperial knight, I mean, a quick online look says 9-12m tall. A search on titans say 40-80 feet tall (woo on units altering). Just a casual lookup of common trees like Oak or Maple, and the heights are 50-70ft (~15-21m) on average, with possibility of over 100 feet (30ish m). So unless all forests in warhammer world are short, maintained trees for say gardens, it just seems odd that anything could be considered "towering" to them.
Most miniature wargamers are conditioned to have a warped sense of scale for things like buildings, plants and natural formations. Many players living in large-ish cities doesn't particularly help either, as your usual decorative tree isn't going to be allowed to grow into a mighty log it could be. Regular Imperial battle titans are between 20-30 m tall, which is pretty big all right, but way smaller than normal buildings or large trees. Even on our very mundane planet without any scifi weirdness trees can theoretically grow to around 130 m (redwood pines, for example) before they can't support their water transportation anymore. Similarly, water features like rivers should easily take a batter part of a normal battlefield on the table but are almost always represented with piddly little streams.
But that's not the theme here. Showing those larger features in meaningful ways is something you do at Epic scale, like hiding behind huge factories in Titanicus before city-smashing guns atomise your cover. In 40k, where the fight really happens at the pub-side brawl level, it's easier to have those 10 m knights feel towering over trashcans and burning cars where your knife-wielding infantrymen are busy stabbing each other in the throat. If it's larger than the burger grill at the corner, it sure feels towering in that grill queue punch-out
* Not sure how I feel about not being able to improve saves to 2+. I get that easily-accessible 2+ saves are a pain, but also it feels weird that an AP-1 weapon is functionally paying for AP that won't matter wihle an AP0 weapon is not. So if you're trying to kill marines, it's probably more points efficient to *not* use the armor piercing guns and instead just use the (presumablly cheaper) AP0 guns? Then again, AP-2 and better would probably still be worthwhile even with cover, so maybe I'm overthinking it.
.
This is a necessary part of the game math.
First of all it gives AP0 a larger role.
Secondarily, it provides a drawback to the first point of AP, which otherwise would be disproportionally better than the other AP increments.
2023/04/20 18:13:14
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
* Not sure how I feel about not being able to improve saves to 2+. I get that easily-accessible 2+ saves are a pain, but also it feels weird that an AP-1 weapon is functionally paying for AP that won't matter wihle an AP0 weapon is not. So if you're trying to kill marines, it's probably more points efficient to *not* use the armor piercing guns and instead just use the (presumablly cheaper) AP0 guns? Then again, AP-2 and better would probably still be worthwhile even with cover, so maybe I'm overthinking it.
.
This is a necessary part of the game math.
First of all it gives AP0 a larger role.
Secondarily, it provides a drawback to the first point of AP, which otherwise would be disproportionally better than the other AP increments.
It is a little counter-intuitive though, right?
"Which guns do you use against the armored infantry?"
"Anything but the anti-infantry armor piercing weapons. Either drown the enemy in non-armor piercing rounds, or go after the armored infantry with anti-tank guns. But whatever you do, don't shoot at them with guns that are designed to get through infantry armor."
Not that it makes AP-1 useless by any means. It's still useful against Sv4+ and worse against marines standing out in the open.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/20 18:13:45
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
2023/04/20 18:29:26
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
These cover rules seem bearable, if rather clunky.
However, it really seems like we should be going back to a cover save, rather than the "+1 to a model's armour save except sometimes not except again for the exceptions to that exception."
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2023/04/20 18:29:47
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Tyel wrote: Presumably there will be times when you get to shoot 3+ save models with AP-1 when they don't benefit from cover...
I suspect they didn't like the feel/look of the tournament tables packed to the gills with blocking walls, so we're going to see the pendulum swing back on terrain. It would be pretty easy to create a table where infantry qualifies for 'Benefit of Cover' roughly 90% of the time, at least outside 6"
I expect official guidelines of 'Some, but not too much, but not Planet Bowling Ball but not so much you always have cover, but enough that we came move some terrain kits.'
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/04/20 18:37:45
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2023/04/20 18:37:17
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
vipoid wrote:These cover rules seem bearable, if rather clunky.
However, it really seems like we should be going back to a cover save, rather than the "+1 to a model's armour save except sometimes not except again for the exceptions to that exception."
Yeah, I was kind of thinking that. One of the main complaints about the old cover save system was that marines had no reason to use cover unless they were facing sufficiently gnarly AP. So cover just wasn't a thing when your marines were being shot at with lasguns and bolters. This seems like a half-step back towards that situation, just with a bit more granularity. I suspect I'll still prefer this to the old cover save system, but it does feel like a slightly weird choice.
Tyel wrote:Presumably there will be times when you get to shoot 3+ save models with AP-1 when they don't benefit from cover...
Sure. It's just a bit of a weird quirk. Won't ruin my game experience (may even improve it), but it's not as intuitive and is probably going to be one of those abstractions that feels a bit odd.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
2023/04/20 18:52:10
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Insectum7 wrote: Yah, Ruins that are higher than 8" are not uncommon.
Being inside ruins is different from being on top of an enclosed building. Ruins will always grant cover and so that particular interaction is irrelevant.
14000 points 
Thought for the day 
Coven of XVth 2000pts
The Blades of Ruin 2,000pts 
Watch Company Rho 1650pts
