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.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.

Feel free to post how and why you voted, but please DO NOT ENGAGE OTHERS IN DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE RULES SAY. Please create a separate thread if you feel the urge to have this kind of discussion.



• The advanced battlefield terrain rules for 'Woods' say: "INFANTRY units that are entirely on the base of a wood receive the benefit of cover...Other units only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is actually obscured from the point of view of the shooting unit."

• The advanced battlefield terrain rules for 'Ruins' say: "INFANTRY units that are on a ruin receive the benefit of cover. Other units only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is actually obscured from the point of view of the shooting unit."

• The advanced battlefield terrain rules for 'Hills' say: "Hills are always considered to be part of the battlefield rather than a terrain feature, and so models on top of them do not receive the benefits of cover. Some particularly large hills may block a model's visibility to a target unit, however, so get a model's-eye-view to se if this is ever the case."

• There are no rules in the 8th edition rulebook indicating that intervening models can provide the benefit of cover to another unit.





QUESTION: How do you play that units get the benefit of cover from random intervening terrain/units that obscures at least 50% of every model in the unit (but the unit is not actually in terrain)?


Examples:

OPTION A. I play that non-infantry units need to both be in a ruin/forest and also obscured at least 50% by it order to benefit from cover. For infantry units, they only benefit from cover when entirely in terrain (never from being obscured). So for all the examples (#1-4), I'd say no, they would not get the benefit of cover in any of those cases.


OPTION B. I play that non-infantry units can benefit cover by being obscured at least 50%, but only by ruins and forests (not any other type of terrain or intervening unit). For infantry units, they only benefit from cover when entirely in terrain (never from being obscured). So for example #1, I'd say the Land Raider does get cover from the ruin/forest, but in all the other examples (#2-4) I'd say no, they would not get the benefit of cover in any of those cases.


OPTION C. I play that non-infantry units can benefit from cover by being obscured at least 50% by any type of terrain (but not by other random intervening units). For infantry units, they only benefit from cover when entirely in terrain (never from being obscured). So for examples #1 & 2, I'd say the Land Raider does get cover from the ruin, forest & hill, but in the other examples (#3-4) I'd say no, they would not get the benefit of cover in those cases.


OPTION D. I play that both infantry and non-infantry units can benefit from cover by being obscured at least 50%, but only by terrain (not by other random intervening units). So for examples #1, 2 & 4, I'd say the Land Raider/Infantry unit does get cover from the ruins, forest & hill, but for example #3 I'd say no, the Land Raider does not get cover from the intervening Ork Gorkanaut.


OPTION E. I play that both infantry and non-infantry units can benefit from cover by being obscured at least 50% by absolutely anything (including other random intervening units). So for all the examples (#1-4), I'd say yes, they get the benefit of cover in all those cases.


OPTION F. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.


OPTION G. I do not use the advanced terrain rules or otherwise have no opinion.

Option A seems to be following the RaW most IMHO, thus how I would play it.

OK, I've now cross posted this into 40k general discussions because having watched quite a few video battle reports I think its safe to say that a whole lot people seem to be playing this aspect of 8th edition very differently, and I think we need to shine a light onto that, especially for tournament organizers and such to be able to deal with head-on.

So please, vote and let everyone know how you choose to play this (not necessarily what you think the RAW are).

Thanks!

I'd like to use E, but as we're testing the new edition, we might use A until we're well acquainted with the rules before applying house rules.

E seems closest to 7th cover system and it was nice.

Something that always annoys me about the 50% obscurity rule

I personally use a flat neoprene cutouts to represent forests. It's easy to transport, doesn't cause wobbly models, and doesn't obstruct things with additional tree models. This obviously doesn't cause ANY visual obscurity in real life. So it's assumed that if a significant portion of your aim line would cross a forest terrain, then the model would benefit from cover.

After that partially unrelated tidbit, I think I would play using B. Tho that might be a partial hold out from previous edition. It just feels like that if we were to use A, then cover wouldn't appear very often. I feel like maximizing your cover without completely sacrificing your mobility is one of the last few movement tactical options left.

Option D is how we play here.

It makes terrain relevant, but it speed things when you have not any terrain and are just running in the middle of the battle with your troops. Characters have already a rule to protect them when they are between your own units, theres no need for more rules to models providing cover.

The way me and my friends tend to play is as close to RAW as we can, so our games have used option a, and cover has come up exactly never.

I want to play LOS/terrain the way 4th edition did it (closest answer E)

I like how E affects the game more and it's closest to how I'll be house ruling it. Though I'd go further and say if 50% of the unit is out of sight/obscured.

I play sort of halfway between d and e where anything can get a cover save. However the cover bonus can only come from terrain or bulky vehicles, infantry is ignored.

Just bumping this because I really think it would be helpful to have some more data on how people are playing this issue.

Please feel free to share your opinion (just don't argue with someone else's opinion)!

I get that 40k requires suspension of reality, but it's nice to minimize that, especially reality within the game universe. The idea that a tree can give a Raider cover but a huge rock can't is just too silly. Given that the rule is vague, I choose to play the non-silly way. That said, I clearly have no ground to stand on for claiming troops get cover when behind something (see what I did there?). But I'll play that way unless my opponent prefers elsewise.

I'm happy to play A which seems to be the most RAW if anyone wants to. However my club is mostly historical gamers and I'm the most enthusiastic 40k player so something closer to usual terrain rules like option D/E goes over better. I'll ever throw in area terrain if they want it.

Something I was thinking of is all our terrain is scratch build and page 251 says you can make you own rules for them if you want. So something like D should be fine anyway if I made it up as a rule for our terrain.

Me and my buddy probably do sort of a mix of them.

For example in our first game of the 8th his TwinLas razor and Dred had a los onto my immolator but the only thing they could see was the front corner/front (about 1/8 of the model) drive wheel of it as it was sitting behind a hill. We decided that the immolator would get a +1 for a cover save.

Option A here. It's RAW, so theoretically easier to do it this way for the sake of pick-up games/tournaments etc. Having now played quite a few games using these rules I think it's a pretty balanced way to play too. Maybe not the most intuitive, but it is at least clear what the rule says.

I want to play like D, as it feels more natural to me (also, I don't usually play with hills, so how they affect cover is irrelevant to me).
But I actually play with A.

Option F:

I use the rules from Battlefield Terrain and City Ruins. I house Rule that the rules from City Ruins are expanded to include any piece of terrain that is at least 3" tall, and all non infantry units can gain the benefits by being obscured at least 50% without being in terrain the same way infantry can just by being behind the ruins.

Option A, because that's how this game is intended to be played.

I would say option A is "correct", but I would say that option E is my preference, and how I will usually play.
Personally I think that "anything 50% obscured gets cover bonus" is so much simpler, with exceptions for terrain where it should be easy to hide if models were crouching and such

I mean it really comes down to who you're playing; in matched play you have to use option A, but otherwise it's up to those playing whether they want to keep things simple (terrain is for blocking line of sight only) or have more of a discussion about what terrain counts as and does.

E.

Would like a shoot through your own infantry units rule whereby missing on ones resolves wounds against said units in addition.

Can't even vote since in the german rulebook the terrain rules are written completly different...

Crater: infantry model
Ruins: infantry unit
Woods: infrantry model

yes it says indeed "model" on Crater and Woods....
Which means that it is not required for the infrantry unit to be fully in the Crater or Woods terrain, it is indeed per model in the german version

Currently A (but without it mattering what's providing the 50% obscurement), but I'm going to be discussing some house rules with the rest of my club.

I stick with A and assume any further benefits that cover may provide to already be subsumed in the various units' Ballistic Skill. If a Marine can see a bunch of Cultists or a mob of Orks through a small wood, he'll be excellently capable of taking aim and hitting them. If the Cultists or Orks are actually in the woods, then they'll be making the best of the available cover - which is likely to difficult to bother with while they're still 30 feet away from the woods.
A Land Raider peeping around the side/over the crest of a hill is a simple enough target for a trained soldier with a good gun to hit.

Himmelweiss wrote:
Can't even vote since in the german rulebook the terrain rules are written completly different...

Crater: infantry model
Ruins: infantry unit
Woods: infrantry model

yes it says indeed "model" on Crater and Woods....
Which means that it is not required for the infrantry unit to be fully in the Crater or Woods terrain, it is indeed per model in the german version

The English rules for craters say "model", too. Had that in a game only yesterday, it creates no problem. The controlling player assigns wounds, takes saves with a cover bonus, removes models from inside the crater if he fails them. Essentially works the same way as it did in 7th, except that the controlling player gets to decide which saves (with cover vs without cover) to take.
Example: You have a unit of 5 models, 3 in the crater, 2 in the open. Your unit takes 8 wounding hits. You take 3 saves with a cover bonus, pass all 3. You take 3 more saves with cover bonus, fail all 3. You now have to remove the models from the crater. Then you take 2 more saves for the guys in the open. You pass them and then later badly fail the morale test. After all, it's the Grimdark, where everybody dies!

Snugiraffe wrote:
I stick with A and assume any further benefits that cover may provide to already be subsumed in the various units' Ballistic Skill. If a Marine can see a bunch of Cultists or a mob of Orks through a small wood, he'll be excellently capable of taking aim and hitting them. If the Cultists or Orks are actually in the woods, then they'll be making the best of the available cover - which is likely to difficult to bother with while they're still 30 feet away from the woods.
A Land Raider peeping around the side/over the crest of a hill is a simple enough target for a trained soldier with a good gun to hit.

Himmelweiss wrote:
Can't even vote since in the german rulebook the terrain rules are written completly different...

Crater: infantry model
Ruins: infantry unit
Woods: infrantry model

yes it says indeed "model" on Crater and Woods....
Which means that it is not required for the infrantry unit to be fully in the Crater or Woods terrain, it is indeed per model in the german version

The English rules for craters say "model", too. Had that in a game only yesterday, it creates no problem. The controlling player assigns wounds, takes saves with a cover bonus, removes models from inside the crater if he fails them. Essentially works the same way as it did in 7th, except that the controlling player gets to decide which saves (with cover vs without cover) to take.
Example: You have a unit of 5 models, 3 in the crater, 2 in the open. Your unit takes 8 wounding hits. You take 3 saves with a cover bonus, pass all 3. You take 3 more saves with cover bonus, fail all 3. You now have to remove the models from the crater. Then you take 2 more saves for the guys in the open. You pass them and then later badly fail the morale test. After all, it's the Grimdark, where everybody dies!

Ok but what about the Woods? What is correct now? The english or german version?

I follow the RAW.

Sometimes things need to abstract... Sometimes you need to sacrifice your sacred cow for the sake of better game play.

A is the rules. This isn't the first time "cover" has changed in edition. It's no big deal to change with it.

I chose option A from all the commentaries Ive read and it seems to fit the RaW.

I however think that units that are obscured by a good deal amount of terrain SHOULD benefit from cover like many editions in the past have done.

I have created Heavy Forests terrain (creating terrain is permitted) It works just like Woods but anything on the other side has no LOS past Heavy Forest...just into it

I want to create Rocky Hills. A terrain that gives cover bonus to any models over 50% obscured by the Rocky Hills.

Any other House Rule Terrains ideas you can think of?

You could house rule buildings giving a +1 save if a model is 50% obscured by it, but give a chance of hitting the building instead (either if the hit roll misses, roll to see if the building is hit, or if the target is hit but makes the armor save exactly because of the cover bonus from the building, the building takes damage) I like the idea that if a person is partially hiding behind a building, fire that doesn't hit the target might damage the building and, with enough damage done, reduce the building to a ruin.

I play by A, but I also use a lot generic "Statue" terrain that works the same as the Space Marine statue, just without the faction buff. Gives the +1 obscured bonus for being mostly behind them. It works well for things that aren't really forrests/ruins, like the larger pieces from the Armageddon set, or smaller buildings.

I voted for, and play, A because that's the rules.

I think the rules would be better if "in or on" included "touching" so that the land raider can choose to take cover behind an obstacle by driving into contact with it. This evens things out somewhat for different size/shape vehicles interacting with different size/shape terrain features.