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.

 p5freak wrote:
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.

Not got mine out to measure but a knight is what, 8" tall more or less? The weapon points aren't 6" off the group for the arms generally and might be bobbing about or ducking, also the model itself is not elevated more than 6" off the ground in this instance. A marine stood on a 6" high floor is about the same height as a knight carapace weapon for their bolter level?

Where I'm going with this is I understand what you're saying but if you consider dynamic movement of the unit, being 6" tall is not the same as firing from a platform 6" up, so I wouldn't expect the same to apply and if it did, just bake it into the profiles.

Dudeface wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
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.

Not got mine out to measure but a knight is what, 8" tall more or less? The weapon points aren't 6" off the group for the arms generally and might be bobbing about or ducking, also the model itself is not elevated more than 6" off the ground in this instance. A marine stood on a 6" high floor is about the same height as a knight carapace weapon for their bolter level?

Where I'm going with this is I understand what you're saying but if you consider dynamic movement of the unit, being 6" tall is not the same as firing from a platform 6" up, so I wouldn't expect the same to apply and if it did, just bake it into the profiles.

There’s also the Towering keyword mentioned, so that may have Plunging Fire as well.

TL/DR if folks could spare the Pearl clutching until we have the full picture, that’d be grand.

Hmm. On that note, assuming skimmers are still good at hopping up on top of terrain, does that mean I can start sticking my wave serpents and raiders up on top of ruins to get plunging fire onto the enemy's down below? That would be fluffy and add some interesting verticality to the game. Bunch of kabalites shooting out of a raider onto the squishy mon-keigh below.

Voss wrote:

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.'

Personally I'm 300% okay with this approach. Scatter terrain has a reason to exist again, and tables won't have to be packed so wall-to-wall that tanks can hardly maneuver in order for units to benefit from cover.

My only substantial complaint is that I also feel that woods ought to prevent shooting all the way through them, rather than just giving cover to guys on the other side. Easy enough houserule with like-minded friends, of course.

 catbarf wrote:

Voss wrote:

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.'

Personally I'm 300% okay with this approach. Scatter terrain has a reason to exist again, and tables won't have to be packed so wall-to-wall that tanks can hardly maneuver in order for units to benefit from cover.

My only substantial complaint is that I also feel that woods ought to prevent shooting all the way through them, rather than just giving cover to guys on the other side. Easy enough houserule with like-minded friends, of course.

Yeah, you'd basically just say, "Hey, can we say these trees are thick enough to count as ruins?" right? And then by virtue of not physically have a platform to set your models on, you wouldn't have to worry about plunging fire, etc. Unless you *do* have a place to set the models in which case shooting down from tall trees seems valid.

glad that the terrain rules not only seem clean and simple but that there is an actual point to painting and using nice scatter terrain. Seems like you are going to be able to create much more dynamic battlefields that still provide cover

 catbarf wrote:

Voss wrote:

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.'

Personally I'm 300% okay with this approach. Scatter terrain has a reason to exist again, and tables won't have to be packed so wall-to-wall that tanks can hardly maneuver in order for units to benefit from cover.

My only substantial complaint is that I also feel that woods ought to prevent shooting all the way through them, rather than just giving cover to guys on the other side. Easy enough houserule with like-minded friends, of course.

I definitely wouldn't object to room to maneuver. Its more a reaction to how hard they swung the pendulum last time.
I just hope that they also clean up Schrodinger's Walls, that seem to only exist to block incoming gunfire and specific unit types.

 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."

You're right, but the problem is that it doesn't benefit Astartes players, so they're unlikely to write that rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Getting rid of Breachable or treating ruins as difficult ground of some sort would be a good move imo.

What happens if a shooting unit is on the second floor of a ruin at the bottom of a slope, such that a target unit on ground level at the top of the slope is actually higher up..?

You apply some ing common sense and don’t apply Plunging Fire.

Hecaton wrote:


You're right, but the problem is that it doesn't benefit Astartes players, so they're unlikely to write that rule.

They literally have given a rule which does not benefit 2+ an 3+ save which is mostly astartes....

 Lord Damocles wrote:
What happens if a shooting unit is on the second floor of a ruin at the bottom of a slope, such that a target unit on ground level at the top of the slope is actually higher up..?

RAW it kicks in.

Edit: no it wouldn't, they're not at "ground floor" any more, as they're on a hill of some kind.

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
What happens if a shooting unit is on the second floor of a ruin at the bottom of a slope, such that a target unit on ground level at the top of the slope is actually higher up..?

RAW it kicks in.

Edit: no it wouldn't, they're not at "ground floor" any more, as they're on a hill of some kind.

Hmm. So this is me being a little silly/pedantic, but I wonder if they'll clearly define where "ground level" begins/ends. Like, lots of ruins I've played with have bases that are just a millimeter or two thick and pretty much just there to sprinkle some flocking on. *Technically*, that means that a model standing on those ruins is some distance off of the table/play mat itself, but we'd still probably consider it ground level. So then let's go the opposite direction. Say my ruins feature a crumbling stair case with each stair being roughly half an inch higher than the last. At what point on that staircase am I no longer on "ground level" and thus no longer affected by plunging fire? Can I theoretically be several inches off the ground and still be at "ground level?" If so, how many inches? If not, where's the cut-off?

(Obviously the simple answer is to just try and clarify with your opponent beforehand and roll off if there's a dispute, but it's still worth talking about, I think.)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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.

As noted already, there are GW terrain pieces that are over "woods height", ruins are only one of them, and could just be the piece of terrain occupied by the firer. There's also the case of a piece of terrain being on a hill.

Those pieces of terrain have stuff on top that would obscure the model thereby granting cover. Ruins grant cover.

Neither scenario precipitates worrying about a forest between two buildings except in the narrowest of cases and its such a weird hill ( pun intended ) to die on.

Glad to see its per model instead of needing the entire unit to qualify for cover. That said I still wish they went back to having actual cover saves instead of AP being able to defeat cover (never liked the 8th system of making low armor useless against AP even when taking cover). Have they said about how wound allocation is done yet?

That said I am a bit unsure about all the focus on vertical mechanics when vertical stuff rarely came up due to 40k's generally terrible movement system for trying to get models up or down something. The abstraction that a bolter can only shoot 24" gets weird when each floor of a building is 3-4". The bolter couldn't hit the top of a 6-8 story building in this scenario.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Those pieces of terrain have stuff on top that would obscure the model thereby granting cover. Ruins grant cover.

Neither scenario precipitates worrying about a forest between two buildings except in the narrowest of cases and its such a weird hill ( pun intended ) to die on.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/battlezone-mechanicus-galvanic-magnavent-2021
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/battlezone-mechanicus-transterranic-gantries-2021
Lots of space in between those tiny barricades!

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
What happens if a shooting unit is on the second floor of a ruin at the bottom of a slope, such that a target unit on ground level at the top of the slope is actually higher up..?

RAW it kicks in.

Edit: no it wouldn't, they're not at "ground floor" any more, as they're on a hill of some kind.

Yeah?

What happens if the ruin is inside a depression, such that the second floor is at ground level?

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
What happens if a shooting unit is on the second floor of a ruin at the bottom of a slope, such that a target unit on ground level at the top of the slope is actually higher up..?

RAW it kicks in.

Edit: no it wouldn't, they're not at "ground floor" any more, as they're on a hill of some kind.

Yeah?

What happens if the ruin is inside a depression, such that the second floor is at ground level?

Same thing. Ground floor will the the lowest floor point on the board. If the ruin is in a depression, logically the rest of the board is on a hill. Which is stupid, because its a stupid example. If you wanted to play a game with a mysterious 6"+ deep bowl cut out the board with a building in and decide the rest of the board isn't a hill, then yes, the rule would take effect for those firing laterally at the other units.

I just hope that L shaped ruins are put to rest. They were my least favorite part of 9th.

Give me more debris, barricades and craters.

Debris even give cover to vehicles now! Use them!

Spoletta wrote:
I just hope that L shaped ruins are put to rest. They were my least favorite part of 9th.

Give me more debris, barricades and craters.

Debris even give cover to vehicles now! Use them!

Speaking of vehicles and cover, I want my vehicle wrecks back!

I would love to see some pictures of all those beautiful mountainside gaming boards which can fit a whole ruin inside a 6" deep depression.

 Jidmah wrote:
I would love to see some pictures of all those beautiful mountainside gaming boards which can fit a whole ruin inside a 6" deep depression.

I insist on gaming on a board that fits on the inside of a cube, and have some very pointed questions about vertical and horizontal distances!

Yes it's an edge case example, but that's the point - the rules shouldn't fall apart at the edges to such a point that it becomes necessary to declare that the entire board is a hill in order to get plunging fire to work.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Yes it's an edge case example, but that's the point - the rules shouldn't fall apart at the edges to such a point that it becomes necessary to declare that the entire board is a hill in order to get plunging fire to work.

Imho these vignettes we've been shown aren't the full rules, who knows if they even fall apart at the edges... Ultimately, there will be cases where you just have to find a solution with your opponent (such as fully modelled boards, where there is no clean delineation between many things) and trying to cover every eventuality is a futile exercise. It's still a social game, some level of cooperation between participants is necessary. That does not mean that designers should get lazy and have the players do all the lifting, but a bit of common sense is not an unreasonable thing to ask for.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Yes it's an edge case example, but that's the point - the rules shouldn't fall apart at the edges to such a point that it becomes necessary to declare that the entire board is a hill in order to get plunging fire to work.

You call it an edge case, I'd call it an illogical mental construct to try and be nit picky. That will never really happen, even if it does there are 2 very simple solutions. Stop trying so hard to make something clear and simple sound like an impossible puzzle.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Yes it's an edge case example, but that's the point - the rules shouldn't fall apart at the edges to such a point that it becomes necessary to declare that the entire board is a hill in order to get plunging fire to work.

How to Fix Edge Cases? Maybe Just Don’t.
So now how do we fix the edge cases we just identified? If you can’t restructure your logic so that there is no edge case, you have two options: prevention (limit the boundaries) or support the scenario.

You do not have to and nor should you support every edge case. There is an infinite number of scenarios you would run into. Edge cases are impossible to completely avoid. So keep it simple! For example, if you aren't releasing your product internationally, then don't worry yet about translating to different languages.

Especially early in the design, your focus should remain on the happy path as not to get too distracted. Focus on your core functionalities! Every time you support a new edge case, chances are you are adding complexity and bugs. So it's up to you to prioritize the cases with higher risks.

A quote from a book on writing software.

TL;DR: You're wrong.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Yes it's an edge case example, but that's the point - the rules shouldn't fall apart at the edges to such a point that it becomes necessary to declare that the entire board is a hill in order to get plunging fire to work.

Terrain rules are one of the trickier parts of a ruleset to get right, unless you strictly mandate the exact dimensions of each terrain piece. They are the one area where a small amount of pre-game discussion is likely required, just to define the various types in use. If these edge cases were ever to come up they can be dealt with at that point. I'm not convinced they ever will come up except in some really weird cases where you're already playing on a highly non-standard board anyway. In those instances you need to more carefully define terrain in the first place. This is a complete non-issue, IMO, unless you can show some practical examples of the kind of thing you're worried about.

Do we have any idea if LoS will change at all? Really hoping they go back to an "ignore wings, aerials, etc" system instead of the "if I can see the tiniest bit of one model I can wipe the unit" crap they have now.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Yes it's an edge case example, but that's the point - the rules shouldn't fall apart at the edges to such a point that it becomes necessary to declare that the entire board is a hill in order to get plunging fire to work.

How to Fix Edge Cases? Maybe Just Don’t.
So now how do we fix the edge cases we just identified? If you can’t restructure your logic so that there is no edge case, you have two options: prevention (limit the boundaries) or support the scenario.

You do not have to and nor should you support every edge case. There is an infinite number of scenarios you would run into. Edge cases are impossible to completely avoid. So keep it simple! For example, if you aren't releasing your product internationally, then don't worry yet about translating to different languages.

Especially early in the design, your focus should remain on the happy path as not to get too distracted. Focus on your core functionalities! Every time you support a new edge case, chances are you are adding complexity and bugs. So it's up to you to prioritize the cases with higher risks.

A quote from a book on writing software.

TL;DR: You're wrong.

designing a tabletop game is not software. While that advice is true for software where you have reasonable expectations of how people will use it, I'm generally somebody hitting that edge case is only going to do something to themselves and no one else in which case they just open a bug and you look at it or manually resolve it for that user so they can get back to work It is not good for a game where it's going to be open to abuse and bog things down at best or cause arguments at worst.

Try again