Terrain is now pointless

[Sugarlessllama]

34 minutes ago, peter.cosgrove said:

Do you come to the Ordo Fanaticus Terrain Days? Where we sit around and fix/make terrain? My point is that the vast majority of our terrain is pointless. It doesn't do anything anymore. All the hills, columns, huts, boxes, etc etc. are pretty much just eye candy now. They don't do anything. Either there has to be a long discussion about how certain things are set up in terrain formations or everything needs to be static based or whatever so it does something besides just sit there and look pretty on the table. And to give non infantry a cover save have to do something like add more visually blocking stuff, or columns and height to the stuff we have.

Well, if you are talking about wasted effort making terrain at the clubhouse than no, it is not "useless". Because there are games other than 40K being played by Ordo members. I know I have played quite a bit of AoS at the clubhouse and have used the terrain to great effect. And I am sure people playing Infinity, 9th Age, etc. all appreciate the effort put in during terrain days.

If you are talking about 40K exclusively; well there are still terrain rules in 8th. You just have to be in the terrain, or blocked by the terrain. So having using the terrain differently is not the same as nullifying it. I had unit hiding in ruins all weekend during my games. In fact, it encouraged the use of more terrain. Which was a delight.

So no, I don't think terrain is moot in the new edition.

[peter.cosgrove]

I didn't say useless, I said pointless, i/e if a piece of terrain doesn't give a cover save to ANYTHING then why is it there, what is the point of it? It has to be modified to gain better viability would be more accurate. I have never been a big fan of the "base is the terrain, not the terrain itself" school of thought. So when you look at, say, a singular baseless pillar, hill or column and the new rules it removes the ability of that singular pillar from creating a majority or all of the cover saves it used to do then as the singular pillar, hill or column as it is it is pointless. Since it doesn't have a base that defines terrain any models you put around it don't get a cover save even if they are 50% obscured. You would have to place 3 or so pillars on the table and then say the area bounded by the 3 pillars gives the terrain based cover save. Which is normal, but with the new addition of requiring the larger models to be completely inside the terrain AND a 50% obscurity it makes the placing of only 3 pillars harder to give a cover save. You would have to place enough pillars and columns around the perimeter of the baseless defined terrain to give 50% obscurity in order to be considered fair play terrain.

[Sugarlessllama]

Well, I still don't think it would be pointless. Even if the terrain didn't do anything, I would rather play on a table full of terrain instead of an empty table. The games are more cinematic, and exciting. Without terrain, it would be completely dull. Sure giving bonuses is nice, but I would rather think that the "point" of terrain is to make an exciting, dynamic, and cinematic game experience for both players.

I mean, that is why we paint models right? There are no rules buffs for a fully painted army. My Space Marines don't get bonuses of any sort for being painted and based. Rules-wise, they are the same no matter how they are painted, or even if they are bare plastic. However, I think the game is more enjoyable when both armies are fully painted. And I think a lot of people agree which is why so many people paint their armies (even if they hate painting; myself included). 

Remember, the goal of the game is to win; the point of the game is to have fun.

[peter.cosgrove]

34 minutes ago, generalripphook said:

Except you cant claim a cover save until the 5 outside of cover were dead. 

Man this makes aegis defence lines stupid. 

Where does it say that? It just says "player commanding the target unit allocates the wound" and you can allocate wounds anywhere in the unit now instead of from the closest model. The only restriction I know of so far is multiple wound models you have to pull the wounds from the worst wounded first. You make your saves after you allocate the wound.

It even says "The chosen model does not have to be within range or even visible to the attacking unit"

[VonVilkee]

50 minutes ago, generalripphook said:

Except you cant claim a cover save until the 5 outside of cover were dead. 

Man this makes aegis defence lines stupid. 

Actually aegis lines have a rule that gives models cover while close to them instead of relying on generic cover rules

[peter.cosgrove]

10 minutes ago, Sugarlessllama said:

Well, I still don't think it would be pointless. Even if the terrain didn't do anything, I would rather play on a table full of terrain instead of an empty table. The games are more cinematic, and exciting. Without terrain, it would be completely dull. Sure giving bonuses is nice, but I would rather think that the "point" of terrain is to make an exciting, dynamic, and cinematic game experience for both players.

I mean, that is why we paint models right? There are no rules buffs for a fully painted army. My Space Marines don't get bonuses of any sort for being painted and based. Rules-wise, they are the same no matter how they are painted, or even if they are bare plastic. However, I think the game is more enjoyable when both armies are fully painted. And I think a lot of people agree which is why so many people paint their armies (even if they hate painting; myself included). 

Remember, the goal of the game is to win; the point of the game is to have fun.

Well, if you make the comparison between a completely infantry list and a completely vehicle list, if you are maneuvering through a bunch of columns, the infantry unit has the movement advantage now because the vehicles can't blow through the columns, they have to turn and pivot around each one. This is fine and as it should be. However, those same columns not only don't give the vehicles cover, they don't give the infantry cover either. On that I have to call shenanigans. Especially since what we have so far in the rules isn't so much a bias for/against vehicles/infantry, but instead a bias for (arguably) GW terrain and against home made terrain.

Additionally, I feel that terrain should be fair play. There shouldn't be a table that only gives cover to only 1 type of unit and no cover to anything else.

[pretre]

1 minute ago, peter.cosgrove said:

Additionally, I feel that terrain should be fair play. There shouldn't be a table that only gives cover to only 1 type of unit and no cover to anything else.

I think you may be missing the point of the new cover rules. Infantry is supposed to be able to get cover easily. It is meant to be very difficult for other units to get it.

[peter.cosgrove]

Just now, VonVilkee said:

Actually aegis lines have a rule that gives models cover while close to them instead of relying on generic cover rules

ya. it's basically "see this thing here, ok now imagine an invisible basing around it, anything on that invisible basing gets the benefit of the fortification" 

[peter.cosgrove]

3 minutes ago, pretre said:

I think you may be missing the point of the new cover rules. Infantry is supposed to be able to get cover easily. It is meant to be very difficult for other units to get it.

Only if the terrain is built that way. Sure, you can build it in such a manner that says "I only want infantry to get cover in this" Or you can build it "I want to make sure it's built so everything can fit inside of it."

or you can take multiple pieces and put them into a perimeter and call the area inside the perimeter terrain.

You can have terrain that is all completely 1" tall so no big models can get obscurement, you can even build or place them so there is no area for large models to fit into defined terrain. Or you can have a mixture of tall objects and short objects so there are places where large models could get cover

One of my discussion points was specifically for pieces of terrain where, as built, nothing gets a cover save, nothing gets obscurement. In which case, why would they be on the table?

[VonVilkee]

Just now, peter.cosgrove said:

ya. it's basically "see this thing here, ok now imagine an invisible basing around it, anything on that invisible basing gets the benefit of the fortification" 

Read it again shooting across it gives cover to the unit behind within 1" or  if obscured... like old school hills. Generic terrain cover rules are pretty strict... just like 7th really, but players will play whatever terrain rules they remember/ choose to. 

 

On the gw vs home made, GW has not released data faxes for a bunch of their terrain. It is now effectively home built. I think they are getting to push fortifications more... if you need terrain bring your own via detachment and points. 

[pretre]

Just now, peter.cosgrove said:

Only if the terrain is built that way. Sure, you can build it in such a manner that says "I only want infantry to get cover in this" Or you can build it "I want to make sure it's built so everything can fit inside of it."

I think an easy way to judge the intent of the cover rules and terrain is to look at the terrain that GW both put in the book and that they sell.

Is there terrain to give landraiders cover in GW's terrain that they sell? If not, they probably don't intend for LR to get cover.

[Lord Hanaur]

well...  there are some easy fixes on some terrain.

in the last edition there was rubble and there was ruins.  The base of the terrain might have a smattering of actual walls and the like and the rest is just clutter and blown up wood etc...  We just called the parts inbetween Rubble and the ruins ruins.  So you had two types of terrain but they effectively had the same effect:  4+ saves when you were in it with the advantage of not making the terrain so difficult to built or having to get so specific with the rubble.

In 8th I think Warscape and ruins will often need to be considered on one piece of terrain.  This will solve some of it.

 

It does not solve the hills and buildings.  Buildings will need to be "ruins" I suppose?  

Honestly this seems super silly.  "Im behind the building but this solid building doesnt give me more cover than that ruin?".  Equally absurd is suggesting an entire hillside isnt at least the equivalent of a barricade.  You could simply rule that hills are NATURALLY OCCURRING barricades.

 

 

 

 

[VonVilkee]

 

2 minutes ago, Lord Hanaur said:

well...  there are some easy fixes on some terrain.

in the last edition there was rubble and there was ruins.  The base of the terrain might have a smattering of actual walls and the like and the rest is just clutter and blown up wood etc...  We just called the parts inbetween Rubble and the ruins ruins.  So you had two types of terrain but they effectively had the same effect:  4+ saves when you were in it with the advantage of not making the terrain so difficult to built or having to get so specific with the rubble.

In 8th I think Warscape and ruins will often need to be considered on one piece of terrain.  This will solve some of it.

 

It does not solve the hills and buildings.  Buildings will need to be "ruins" I suppose?  

Honestly this seems super silly.  "Im behind the building but this solid building doesnt give me more cover than that ruin?".  Equally absurd is suggesting an entire hillside isnt at least the equivalent of a barricade.  You could simply rule that hills are NATURALLY OCCURRING barricades.

 

 

 

 

While I appreciate this line of thought realize the rule book goes to great length to say hills don't give cover. Changing this will need to be clearly communicated and is a house rule not just a clarification... also I don't think ruins are meant to give big stuff saves as only infantry can enter them to be within and gain cover... so the solid building and ruins so they same thing for vehicles and mc...

[peter.cosgrove]

3 minutes ago, Lord Hanaur said:

well...  there are some easy fixes on some terrain.

in the last edition there was rubble and there was ruins.  The base of the terrain might have a smattering of actual walls and the like and the rest is just clutter and blown up wood etc...  We just called the parts inbetween Rubble and the ruins ruins.  So you had two types of terrain but they effectively had the same effect:  4+ saves when you were in it with the advantage of not making the terrain so difficult to built or having to get so specific with the rubble.

In 8th I think Warscape and ruins will often need to be considered on one piece of terrain.  This will solve some of it.

 

It does not solve the hills and buildings.  Buildings will need to be "ruins" I suppose?  

Honestly this seems super silly.  "Im behind the building but this solid building doesnt give me more cover than that ruin?".  Equally absurd is suggesting an entire hillside isnt at least the equivalent of a barricade.  You could simply rule that hills are NATURALLY OCCURRING barricades.

 

 

 

 

It's all just a +1 to your save. If you qualify for having it. That's it. Some units if they get it get +2, but it's Scouts and the like.

The demarcation is how it effects advancing/charging/shooting. Each one kind of has it's own thing.

And they specifically say hills are not terrain. you have to be wholly INSIDE terrain to gain a cover save bonus. If you can use the hill to completely block line of sight, that's workable, otherwise if they can see any portion of a model they can shoot you with no cover save bonus.

[Lord Hanaur]

7 minutes ago, VonVilkee said:

 

While I appreciate this line of thought realize the rule book goes to great length to say hills don't give cover. Changing this will need to be clearly communicated and is a house rule not just a clarification... also I don't think ruins are meant to give big stuff saves as only infantry can enter them to be within and gain cover... so the solid building and ruins so they same thing for vehicles and mc...

No not really.  the FAQ says the entire unit must be partially within.  so a toe in vehicle is "in" the terrain.  the type of terrain sometimes specifies that INfantry specifically get special treatment, others do not.  So obviously thats still a factor.  

But all buildings need to be "ruins" to avoid absurdity.  A ruin is not going to give you better cover than a structurally sound version of that ruin.

The hill is the wrost offender though.  and that is definitley going to have to be ruled on.  A barricade could never be more effective than an enormous pile of packed and grassy dirt.  That's just my opinion. 

[pretre]

Hanaur, you're misreading the faq in reference to the terrain rules. The whole unit needs to be partially within for any part of the unit to get cover, but the parts that get cover still need to be wholly within (and 50% obscured if not infantry).

[pretre]

And how about we play with the rules we have for a few months before we start modifying them with the way you think they should work.

[VonVilkee]

Also ruins are off limits to vehicles

[peter.cosgrove]

I mentioned this bit in my original post. You could say that a hill isn't a hill, it's terrain and therefore gives a cover save. That's fine and viable. But when you add the 50% obscurity to it a hill, shaped like a hill, doesn't work. If you wanted the additional 50% obscurity you would have to build stuff onto it that gives something on the terrain/hill construct obscurity.

In fact, having a bunch of hills all over the table and calling them terrainothills would be one of the easiest ways of ensuring infantry only cover, because only infantry would get cover from it. Unless you arranged some of it to block line of side big enough for vehicles/monsters.

[peter.cosgrove]

2 minutes ago, pretre said:

And how about we play with the rules we have for a few months before we start modifying them with the way you think they should work.

I think the discussion is valid. That is, the discussion as a discussion has it's own validity. The rules clarifications alone have merit.

[Lord Hanaur]

9 minutes ago, pretre said:

Hanaur, you're misreading the faq in reference to the terrain rules. The whole unit needs to be partially within for any part of the unit to get cover, but the parts that get cover still need to be wholly within (and 50% obscured if not infantry).

A: All of the models in a unit need to be at least partially on or within terrain if any of the models are to receive the +1 bonus to their saving throw.

 

I'm not misreading it.  All the models (1 in the case of a vehicle) need to be at least PARTIALLY on OR within.

It's pretty clear.  Different terrains (like yes ruins) have their own particulars as I said.  No need to beat that dead horse.  But in the general sense the model need only be partially within.

It goes on to explain that if 4 were out, 4 were in, you could allocate and try and save them one at a time until you got to the 5th one, at which point the 5th-8th would then gain the advantages of cover saves the other poor sods did not.

 

Barricades are a bit different and are the easiest one to use for hills with the least amount of need to mess with the rules.

[peter.cosgrove]

1 minute ago, VonVilkee said:

Also ruins are off limits to vehicles

Technically true, also technically not true.

If you take a piece of terrain and add a full 4 walls to it, then vehicles can't breach the walls they have to move around them. But if you build a piece of terrain that has walls only on 2 or 3 sides but is still on a full base that the vehicle can fully fit into and with a gap in the walls that the vehicle can move into then the terrain will then give the vehicle a cover save bonus if the walls also give 50% obscurity to the vehicle.

[peter.cosgrove]

3 minutes ago, Lord Hanaur said:

A: All of the models in a unit need to be at least partially on or within terrain if any of the models are to receive the +1 bonus to their saving throw.

 

I'm not misreading it.  All the models (1 in the case of a vehicle) need to be at least PARTIALLY on OR within.

It's pretty clear.  Different terrains (like yes ruins) have their own particulars as I said.  No need to beat that dead horse.  But in the general sense the model need only be partially within.

It goes on to explain that if 4 were out, 4 were in, you could allocate and try and save them one at a time until you got to the 5th one, at which point the 5th-8th would then gain the advantages of cover saves the other poor sods did not.

 

Barricades are a bit different and are the easiest one to use for hills with the least amount of need to mess with the rules.

The resolving of the attack is done one attack at a time. Before any one model that has a wound allocated to it can gain the cover save bonus for it's saving throw, first the whole unit must qualify as being wholly or partially in cover, then that specific model must be wholly in cover before the model can add the cover save bonus to it's saving throw.

[Lord Hanaur]

3 minutes ago, peter.cosgrove said:

Technically true, also technically not true.

If you take a piece of terrain and add a full 4 walls to it, then vehicles can't breach the walls they have to move around them. But if you build a piece of terrain that has walls only on 2 or 3 sides but is still on a full base that the vehicle can fully fit into and with a gap in the walls that the vehicle can move into then the terrain will then give the vehicle a cover save bonus if the walls also give 50% obscurity to the vehicle.

yes the entire base isnt ruins, the ruins are ruins.  the rest is rubble which can be categorizes as Warscape oooor...not.  Again in my opinion.

[Lord Hanaur]

19 minutes ago, peter.cosgrove said:

The resolving of the attack is done one attack at a time. Before any one model that has a wound allocated to it can gain the cover save bonus for it's saving throw, first the whole unit must qualify as being wholly or partially in cover, then that specific model must be wholly in cover before the model can add the cover save bonus to it's saving throw.

okay.  But understand that the unit isnt getting a Cover Save Bonus until all the models are in.  so once four are dead, the unit is in.