ITC first floor wall LOS rule

[peter.cosgrove]

Want to initiate a conversation about this.

ITC=Ruins: The bottom level walls of all ruins are considered to block LoS even if they do not actually do so. This means existing openings in them such as those created by windows, doors, bullet holes, etc. block LoS. This rule does not mean the players create walls where none existed. If in doubt as to where to define these barriers, clarify with your opponent before the game begins.

Ok. I got it. I understand why this would be necessary. 8th edition is definitely seeing the return of the 4th edition Imperial gunline and combinational first turn alpha strike/assault charges from 5th edition/Apocolypse in combination with the first turn manipulation embedded in 8th edition that ITC also changed with the +1 to first turn roll off rule. Old school style footslogging has needed to really ramp up the model count of screening forces and tarpitting. I also understand how this rule is supposed to offset some of the overpowering simplified cover rules/360 fire/split fire/move & shoot heavy weapons that are also a part of 8th edition. As a valid replacement for the loss of "Going to Ground" and the horribly broken "Jink" I got it, I understand it.

I just don't think this is the way to do it. To me, 8th edition is supposed to simplify things, make things go MUCH faster. 40k Terrain is SUPPOSED to be thematic, panoramic, and beautiful. Movement to and through terrain is supposed to be relevant. Terrain is supposed to be used as a key portion of how you fight a battle. When I read this rule what I see is, "ok, fine let's just grab some cardboard, duct tape and a knife and hack a bunch of 4" tall strips out, tack it together with duct tape, and throw it on the table." 

To me this rule reeks of laziness and expediency. Instead of taking the time/energy to carefully build the terrain so that it satisfies the perceived necessity instead it's "ok nobodies got time for that, we'll just throw in a meta-game rule that does it instead". In short it makes me uncomfortable. I don't even want to contemplate the intense "Table discussions" this rule will obviously eventuate.

If you want the terrain to provide MORE LOS blocking, then BUILD it that way, and build it pretty. No need to discuss it, it's right there in plain sight. Or not actually, it's not in plain sight, the plain sight is blocked.

[Pyre Warden]

I actually fully agree with you. If you want line of site blocking terrain then build or field line of sight blocking terrain. Because if we do this only for ruins then what prevents us from using it for forests or other terrain features in the future? 

[peter.cosgrove]

the thing is, I really like 8th edition. I like the cover save/terrain rules. It is simple and there really isn't any argument. Is a portion of your base on the terrain? ok. you get a +1. Roll dice. I see you, you see me. Done.. no more talking.. roll dice. Hard cover/soft cover is gone, To and through LOS blocking is gone, Area/Standard terrain LOS blocking is gone.

I just think a much better solution is just put better terrain on the table instead of forcing even more "table discussion"

[WestRider]

I believe this was intended as a stop-gap measure, until more places could get better Terrain together, but it's ended up looking like it's just becoming a standard, which, as you mention, is really not a good thing.

[ninefinger]

I think this ruling should mostly be aimed at large tournaments with an existing stock of terrain.   Makes sense as a stopgap  

 

Stuff built for 6th ed might not work as well for the game these days.   A better ideal is obviously to board up all the windows on your ruins.   Should be feasible for, say, less than 8 tables worth of terrain.  

[CaptainA]

Here is the problem. The amount of terrain needed in 7th is vastly inadequate 8th. The firepower that armies can put out makes line of sight terrain and absolute necessity. In 7th, all you needed was ruins for your troops as all you had to do was be in them and you were protected. Now, you have to be in them and completely out of line of sight or your forces will be decimated by the player going first on a table with no good line of sight terrain.

I say this with a lot of tournament and league running experience, having run the Guardian Cup and Boise Cup as well as weekly leagues for years. When 8th came out, I saw the devastating firepower that static Guilliman backed gunlines can dish out and absolutely wreck armies. Without enough LOS terrain, alpha strike armies and static gunlines will rule the day and make the game static and boring. Having good LOS terrain is paramount to making the game more interesting.

This rule is supposed to be a stop gap as making terrain for events is time consuming and expensive, especially making good terrain.

[MikhailLenin]

3 minutes ago, CaptainA said:

Here is the problem. The amount of terrain needed in 7th is vastly inadequate 8th. The firepower that armies can put out makes line of sight terrain and absolute necessity. In 7th, all you needed was ruins for your troops as all you had to do was be in them and you were protected. Now, you have to be in them and completely out of line of sight or your forces will be decimated by the player going first on a table with no good line of sight terrain.

I say this with a lot of tournament and league running experience, having run the Guardian Cup and Boise Cup as well as weekly leagues for years. When 8th came out, I saw the devastating firepower that static Guilliman backed gunlines can dish out and absolutely wreck armies. Without enough LOS terrain, alpha strike armies and static gunlines will rule the day and make the game static and boring. Having good LOS terrain is paramount to making the game more interesting.

This rule is supposed to be a stop gap as making terrain for events is time consuming and expensive, especially making good terrain.

^^^^^ THIS!

8th Edition Cover Rules has completely shifted the weight towards Shooting Armies especially even if your army is "Reserve" Focus which still requires 50% of your army to be at the Mercy of massive overwhelming Fire power. There is a reason why IG Artilllery Spam is considered the Cheese of Cheese is because it NEGATES any armies capabilities to defend themselves from what would consider spammable cheap firepower in an exponential manner.

[Mr.MoreTanks]

Tell you what, 

You find a way to fix the terrain that tournaments have for 50+ person events that doesn't disrupt my job and I'm in. 

Terrain is stupid in this edition. We might as well play with shoeboxes. Guns shred armies now and blocking line of sight is the only chance some players get. 

 

Build whatever you want at home man, but us TO's have to live in the real world where we're already short on terrain. Feel free to cut us a check for new LoS blocking terrain that's pretty enough for you. 

[CaptainA]

I put like almost $1000 into the terrain for Boise Cup.

[peter.cosgrove]

All this. What you guys are saying. When I read the rule what I see in my head is people just cutting some cardboard and sticking it together with ducktape and throwing it onto the board. In a competitive tournament people care more about what it does than how it looks. I also see people slapping duct tape onto existing terrain to make sure that there is a clear demarcation between "this space has LOS blocked and that space doesn't and we are getting sick and tired of having extended and/or heated "table discussions" about the terrain."

In older editions there was a bunch of meta-game rules like, This area terrain is considered to be ..., models within 2" are considered..., shooting over area terrain.. models moving up and down levels move 3" per level.., models in terrain gain cover, models beyond are blocked.. Template weapons only effect 1 level.. etc etc. I got it, 8th edition got rid of ALL that, this is a GOOD thing.

What I don't see in the ITC rules is how terrain is supposed to be set up. In 'Ard Boys you had to have 6 pieces of terrain, 1 in each 2' square of the 4x6 board, and each piece of terrain had to be at least 1'x1'.

What is going to happen when you build an army that is designed to use a certain amount of "LOS blocking" terrain on the battlefield, painting, basing, packing, list building, etc. And you show up to a table and it has 6 3" cubical rocks on it.

People that have lists that can be played effectively on a neutral board (no terrain at all, just a flat board) i/e gunline tarpits, are going to be more transportable/durable from table to table/tournament to tournament if there isn't a requirement that a certain amount of LOS blocking terrain is placed on the table.

I understand that this rule is supposed to take existing terrain and make it more viable for more armies. I got it, I TOTALLY got it.

BUT I don't like the totality of it. If there's a door or a window through a wall, it's THERE, I can be in the ruins and place a guy that I WANT to shoot through a hole in a wall with it's weapon pointing out of the door or window because I WANT to shoot the weapon.

This brings up the point of "Then just move up to the 2nd level then" OK I got it, I totally got it. AND only infantry can move up there. I got it. But there isn't a requirement that there has to be a certain amount of ruins that HAVE 2nd levels. What if you show up to a table and nothing has a 2nd level. Then what? You are stuck either being in cover that you can't shoot out of or being outside of the ruins (but still get your cover save because you're toed in) BUT you are then more chargeable by other than infantry models (because you are outside the wall now).

At that point you end up back at the same thought of "Well, put more terrain on the board that has 2nd levels" which then loops back to "Well, BUILD more terrain that has 2nd levels" Which THEN loops back to "We need to build more terrain". If you have to build terrain anyway, and you want the 1st level to have LOS blocking, Then just build the terrain so that the 1st level doesn't have any doors/windows/gaps/mouse holes etc etc.

[MikhailLenin]

1 minute ago, peter.cosgrove said:

All this. What you guys are saying. When I read the rule what I see in my head is people just cutting some cardboard and sticking it together with ducktape and throwing it onto the board. In a competitive tournament people care more about what it does than how it looks. I also see people slapping duct tape onto existing terrain to make sure that there is a clear demarcation between "this space has LOS blocked and that space doesn't"

In older editions there was a bunch of meta-game rules like, This area terrain is considered to be ..., models within 2" are considered..., shooting over area terrain.. models moving up and down levels move 3" per level.., models in terrain gain cover, models beyond are blocked.. etc etc.

What I don't see in the ITC rules is how terrain is supposed to be set up. In 'Ard Boys you had to have 6 pieces of terrain, 1 in each 2' square of the 4x6 board, and each piece of terrain had to be at least 1'x1'.

What is going to happen when you build an army that is designed to use a certain amount of "LOS blocking" terrain on the battlefield, painting, basing, packing, list building, etc. And you show up to a table and it has 6 3" cubical rocks on it.

People that have lists that can be played effectively on a neutral board (no terrain at all, just a flat board) i/e gunline tarpits, are going to be more transportable/durable from table to table/tournament to tournament if there isn't a requirement that a certain amount of LOS blocking terrain is placed on the table.

I understand that this rule is supposed to take existing terrain and make it more viable for more armies. I got it, I TOTALLY got it.

BUT I don't like the totality of it. If there's a door or a window through a wall, it's THERE, I can be in the ruins and place a guy that I WANT to shoot through a hole in a wall with it's weapon pointing out of the door or window because I WANT to shoot the weapon.

This brings up the point of "Then just move up to the 2nd level then" OK I got it, I totally got it. AND only infantry can move up there. I got it. But there isn't a requirement that there has to be a certain amount of ruins that HAVE 2nd levels. What if you show up to a table and nothing has a 2nd level. Then what? You are stuck either being in cover that you can't shoot out of or being outside of the ruins (but still get your cover save because you're toed in) BUT you are then more chargeable by other than infantry models (because you are outside the wall now).

At that point you end up back at the same thought of "Well, put more terrain on the board that has 2nd levels" which then loops back to "Well, BUILD more terrain that has 2nd levels" Which THEN loops back to "We need to build more terrain". If you have to build terrain anyway, and you want the 1st level to have LOS blocking, Then just build the terrain so that the 1st level doesn't have any doors/windows/gaps/mouse holes etc etc.

Peter are you holding ITC to a Standard of abstraction that is different than the standard of abstraction you hold towards the core rules of the game? Cause thats what I read.

 

[peter.cosgrove]

uh. There is a standard doctrinal and traditional response in the american military to questions like this, I read what you say and it automatically make me do the response.

I don't understand the nature of the question.

Now, to get away from the conditioned response, what do you mean by "standard of abstraction"? I don't understand what that means besides the basic english.

[MikhailLenin]

2 minutes ago, peter.cosgrove said:

uh. There is a standard doctrinal and traditional response in the american military to questions like this, I read what you say and it automatically make me do the response.

I don't understand the nature of the question.

Now, to get away from the conditioned response, what do you mean by "standard of abstraction"? I don't understand what that means besides the basic english.

Simple Peter, you are willing to "understand" and "live" with GW Rules writing of the Terrain mechanic which is argumentatively but agreed universally as could be better. But you are having a hard time "living" with ITC Rules writing for dealing with First Floors when they are not mutually exclusive. Both require you to abstract and extrapolate your understanding of the rule in a physical environment...

 

[peter.cosgrove]

Ok, I think I got it. Let me see if I do. 

Let's say I have a spehs muhreen model. It's behind a wall with no gaps, windows, doors. Checking the LOS from a firing model and no part of the model can be seen. I park a rhino on the same spot, and because it's slightly higher it can be seen over the wall by the firing model. Therefore the rhino can be shot at, whereas the space marine can't.

Then I place the space marine in a spot behind a wall that has a divot in it. The firing model can see the space marine over the gap in the wall. Therefore it can be shot at. So in ITC does the definition of 1st level follow a straight line across the gap, or does it define the wall as a variable height down into the gap. If a ruin has a wall that has LOTS of gaps/divots adjusting the height is the abstracted height of the wall  defined as the height of the highest portion of the wall across the entire ruin? If the wall is continuous across say, 12 inches and one side is 4 inches high but the other side drops to 2" is the height of the entire wall now considered to be 4 inches? Are all the walls on the table considered to be at least 3 inches high? If I park a rhino behind a section of wall that drops to 2", but the highest portion of the wall is 4" can the rhino be seen, or not?

[peter.cosgrove]

That's not simple. That's "extended table discussion". I don't like "extended table discussions"

[Lord Hanaur]

I dislike this rule immensely.

[MikhailLenin]

Just now, Lord Hanaur said:

I dislike this rule immensely.

Well, LH how do your events tackle massive shooty armies with terrain?

[Lord Hanaur]

17 minutes ago, MikhailLenin said:

Well, LH how do your events tackle massive shooty armies with terrain?

Can you be more specific?

[peter.cosgrove]

1 hour ago, MikhailLenin said:

Well, LH how do your events tackle massive shooty armies with terrain?

I agree with this. 8th edition really, REALLY brought back the 4th edition Imperial gunline tactic. And made it even more viable across multiple armies because missile launcher/lascannon. I'm doing it. I start my builds thinking "ok, I need 16 lascannons and/or missile launchers. Because 48" is 48" and move/shoot heavy weapons/split fire. And because people are starting to use all the weapons that don't require LOS. This means I am shorting myself because of points on backfield effects. It's easier and more durable to just bring ranged shooty rather than riskier deep strike. 

Now, all that. That's fine. I adjust, I bring longer range shooty, I roll dice, I move on. I'm not going to whine about it. I will still throw Khorne Zerkers or Death Company into the midfield as speed bumps because MMMM Zerker double tap spam is WORTH it. (because Khorne zerkers are also CSM 3rd cheapest troop choice and OBTW death company jump packs are ONLY 3 points???!?!!!)

What I don't like is looking at a piece of terrain and having to conceptualize imaginary lines and hoping that the person I am playing can see the glowy lines in my head so I don't have to explain what I see. I also don't like the ensuing "table discussion" that will happen when they don't. I would much prefer someone just kill my models by rolling dice rather than having to "discuss" why they can't.

[peter.cosgrove]

Now, please don't get me wrong. It's a viable rule. It's a cost saving rule. But I can honestly say, across 35+ years experience in the military, it SCREAMS stopgap/pencil whip.

[Lord Hanaur]

Peter is making a valid point.  

I will add this:  abstract statements like "8th needs it more than 7th" just aren't objectively true.  The truth is 7th needed more LOS blockers also and tournaments needed more terrain IN GENERAL.

But that's beside the point.

Scenario one you have a perfectly solid building between you and the guy firing it, YET because you're not in it you dont benefit from something you would have, had you been an inch closer to the bullet.

The terrain being solid means the shooter gets NO chance to shoot.  How is taking that away from the shooter by making it solid more fair?  The terrain is supposed to represent a battleground and its understood that the players need to bring the terrain and make it cool.  So...  wouldnt the easier and more fair solution be to BOTH build more LOS blocking stuff (Im a TO, I GET what that means but it is what it is) AND to instead have the ITC rule that intervening terrain grants its save to those being fired at through it?  

Peter is arguing that this creates both an unfairness to an army that decided it wanted to be shooty (which is a completely legitimate and sensible thing to do) and it is creating an entire new area of disagreement on LOS which we can do without.  One of the beauties of 8E is its simplicity.  It really IS easy to play.  There are necessarilygoing to be some incongruities but the fairer solution is not to penalize the shooters for doing what seems obvious.  Just benefit the targets who should probably be getting cover far more often than they now do.

 

 

[pretre]

It isn't about the cover save; it's about the LOS blocking.

Yeah, that's bad for the shooter, but right now, no amount of +1 to your cover save is going to save you from a gunline.

[Lord Hanaur]

4 minutes ago, pretre said:

It isn't about the cover save; it's about the LOS blocking.

Yeah, that's bad for the shooter, but right now, no amount of +1 to your cover save is going to save you from a gunline.

The point I was making is that it is better to simply change this part of the cover rules to "mitigate" the effects of shooting (assuming you've convinced yourself that this change matters enough in the first place)  than to create another argument, as Peter has said he'd rather not.  And i get where he's coming from completely.

I think that this statement about gunlines is a golden generality.  "Gunline" of what against what at what range etc...  "No amount" isn't true.  Cover is significant statistically.

I see nothing but rolling eyes when i mention this rule to people and we've just been ignoring it in our casual games.  Having enough terrain is the answer of course.  but if you were looking for some way to help against a shooting army, the "Firing through" rule would go leaps and bounds farther while maintaining the lines of sight the terrain naturally creates.

[peter.cosgrove]

1 hour ago, Lord Hanaur said:

Peter is arguing that this creates both an unfairness to an army that decided it wanted to be shooty

No I'm not. I apologize if that's the logical inference. My thoughts have NOTHING to do with shooty armies and unfairness. 

My portion is completely encapsulated around WYSIWYG terrain and why you should have it, completely neutral regarding shooty/assaulty armies.

In 8th edition, if you can see it, you can shoot it. I LIKE that. I like that a lot. I feel that 8th edition really ramps up the requirements for terrain quality and quantity. I feel that 8th edition is best played with lots of terrain on the board. Far more than the 1 square foot per 2x2 feet of table of previous editions. What I don't like is the lack of ands in the ITC rule.

Things like.

AND all walls are considered to be 3" in height (or 4")

AND all tables will be set up with minimum 6 pieces of multi level terrain

AND all tables will be set up so that each 2x2 square will have at least 18" x 18" combined terrain area.

[Lord Hanaur]

Just now, peter.cosgrove said:

No I'm not. I apologize if that's the logical inference. My thoughts have NOTHING to do with shooty armies and unfairness. 

My portion is completely encapsulated around WYSIWYG terrain and why you should have it, completely neutral regarding shooty/assaulty armies.

In 8th edition, if you can see it, you can shoot it. I LIKE that. I like that a lot. I feel that 8th edition really ramps up the requirements for terrain quality and quantity. I feel that 8th edition is best played with lots of terrain on the board. Far more than the 1 square foot per 2x2 feet of table of previous editions. What I don't like is the lack of ands in the ITC rule.

Things like.

AND all walls are considered to be 3" in height (or 4")

AND all tables will be set up with minimum 6 pieces of multi level terrain

AND all tables will be set up so that each 2x2 square will have at least 18" x 18" combined terrain area.

Well I agree in any event.