Hey all

had another look at the 5th ed rulebook today, and i managed to have a read of some of the Cover rules. before i start, i just want to say that i was chatting while i was reading, and i didnt study the rules - im writing this from memory as well, so please take it as 'rumour'.

some points:

- when you shoot out of cover, your opponent gets a Cover Save from it if you are more than 2" in
- even if a model's base is only partially in a piece of Area Terrain, it counts as being in cover (regardless of the direction the shots are coming from)
- when shooting through Area Terrain, your target only gets Cover if it is in the Terrain or if your LOS is passing between 2 pieces of scenery, but even gets this save if completly visible.

this last bit was news to me! (does it mean we are going to start seeing Area Terrain pieces with bits of scenery at either end? )

there is a photo in the book to illustrate these rules, showing 3 marines and some GW trees (the Fantasy ones, from what i could tell). il see if i can recreate it:



in this example:

- Model A gets a Cover Save, as they are in the Area Terrain
- Model B gets a Cover Save, as LOS is passing between 2 trees (even though he is completly visible)
- Model C does not get a Cover Save (even though LOS is passing through Area Terrain, and he is no more visible than mobel B), as LOS is not passing between the trees (just past the end tree)

assuming this is correct, it will lead to some oddities (as illustrated by my own diagrams):
1.


LOS to model A passes through over only a tiny bit of the Area Terrain. LOS to model B passes through a lot of the Area Terrain. however, model A gets a Cover Save while model B doesnt!

hardly intuitive!

2.


Firer A is inside the Area Terrain, and is tracing LOS through just over 2" of it to model A, so his target gets a Cover Save.
Firer B is shooting through much more of the Area Terrain, but because he isnt inside it (and his LOS isnt passing between the trees), his target doesnt get a Cover Save!

surely it should be harder for model B to be hit?!

so im in a wood waiting to shoot out at someone. to make it easier for me to hit my target, i can back out of the wood and shoot all the way through it?!

i get the feeling that the more i look at the new book, the more of these oddities im going to spot...

although in fairness, i may have misread something, or not seen the whole picture - if anyone can disprove how i understand it, i would be most greatful (i dont want to be dissapointed by GW, i really dont).

cheers

~ Tim
EDIT: on the topic of Cover: when charging into CC, if your unit takes a Difficult or Dangerous Terrain Test, then the defenders get the Cover bonus (attackers fight at Init 1, IIRC). this would appear to apply to Slow & Purposeful models as well! (bad news for 1KSons, even the Asp Sorc who isnt S&P, as he is part of a unit that took a DT test )
and good news for Harlies... (although im not sure what their Plasma Grenades are for )

Ummmm!
I hope you're wrong tim.

ruffian4 wrote:Ummmm!
I hope you're wrong tim.

me too!

although oddity 2 could kinda happen under 4th ed (which wasnt perfect either):

if the target models were taller than the terrain, and the firers were not, and the firer in the terrain was more than 6" in, then his target would be out of LOS while the other firer's target would be within LOS.

like i said, 4th wasnt perfect. i was just hoping they were going to fix all the problems with it in 5th...

~ Tim

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:when shooting through Area Terrain, your target only gets Cover if it is in the Terrain or if your LOS is passing between 2 pieces of scenery, but even gets this save if completly visible.

Does the rule specify what constitutes a piece of scenery? Would a bit of lichen used as a small bush constitute scenery? Would this be considered "cheesy" or "beardy"?

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote: (does it mean we are going to start seeing Area Terrain pieces with bits of scenery at either end?

If that's the only way to make the rule make sense, then I would have to say yes, I will make my terrain this way. Understanding full well of course, that it will work both ways (for attacker and defender), but having the cover save more consistant would make the game run smoother, I think. This is why, as I said in another post, that I have put my terrain building on hold until I get my copy of the 5th edition. Then I will look here for some clarifications.
Warseer posters on the other hand, are not letting the fact that the official release of the rulebook is still a month away interfere with their rules questions, answers and interpretations .

timewizard wrote:Does the rule specify what constitutes a piece of scenery? Would a bit of lichen used as a small bush constitute scenery? Would this be considered "cheesy" or "beardy"?

i think the term used was "elements of the terrain" or somesuch. i didnt read the whole page (mainly the bullet points and photo+notes), and i didnt read the previous page, so there could be proper definition in there.

i interepreted it to mean the bits of model scenery that we place within the boundary line of he Area Terrain piece. the example used was the model trees used to represent a wood.

if the Terrain piece was an area of scrubland, then having bits of lichen as "elements" makes perfect sense to me. how it works if the bits are small enough to be seen over (rather than just between), i dont know (the trees in the example were physically taller than the Marines). il try and look into this next time (i have some low terrain myself, which i intended to use as Sz 1 Area Terrain under 4th ed).

hope that helps

~ Tim

Interesting, the rumors I read on warseer made the entire issue of terrain about as clear as murky water! There were discussions about WYSIWYG terrain and they almost made it seem that area terrain would be gone, or at least rather unimportant.
Your post makes it sound like there will be a mix of both. The diagrams just seem to make the issue of cover more confusing than ever. I guess that's the reason for the rumored "if you disagree on cover modify it with +1 (or is that -1?) and continue the game". Almost sounds like GW is anticipating the new cover rules to be ambiguous and confusing. I hope that is not the case.

timewizard wrote:Interesting, the rumors I read on warseer made the entire issue of terrain about as clear as murky water! There were discussions about WYSIWYG terrain and they almost made it seem that area terrain would be gone, or at least rather unimportant.

from what ive been told (local manager), Area Terrain doesnt automatically block LOS. however, the bits of scenery within the piece will block LOS, acting essentially as separate pieces of WYSIWYG Terrain.

for example, a wood is Area Terrain and you can shoot through it. however, if your LOS from a model's eye view is physically blocked by a model tree, then you cannot see the target. the empty space within the boundary of the Area Terrain piece wont block LOS at all, however (even to targets on the other side altogether).

so on the whole, Area Terrain wont be very important in terms of blocking LOS (not like it is in 4th!), but it will be important for providing Cover Saves, and might block LOS (for example, if you have a squad in a model ruin, then models can hide behind solid wall sections or stand at windows, doorways and other holes in order to see out).

it will also depend on whether people carry on using the same collection of Area Terrain scenery in 5th as they do currently. a square of grey felt with "Ruin" written on it wont do much in 5th ed, and neither will a bit of green board with a couple of trees stuck to it.

timewizard wrote:Your post makes it sound like there will be a mix of both.

oh there is definately going to be a mix.

timewizard wrote:The diagrams just seem to make the issue of cover more confusing than ever.

well the first diagram is a recreation of the photo in the book, which seems to do a fairly good job of conveying the rules. the other diagrams are my own take on the oddities that these rules can cause. the photo in the book seems pretty unambiguous, IMO (but like i said, im not sure how it applies to low terrain, but that was probably more down to me skimming it).

timewizard wrote:I guess that's the reason for the rumored "if you disagree on cover modify it with +1 (or is that -1?) and continue the game". Almost sounds like GW is anticipating the new cover rules to be ambiguous and confusing. I hope that is not the case.

i think thats more for WYSIWYG LOS arguments ("i think he's in the open!" "well i think hes partially obscured!" etc), rather than actually applying the mechanics (which themselves seem to be quite straight forward, despite being potentially quite flawed).

cheers

~ Tim

ruffian4 wrote:Ummmm!
I hope you're wrong tim.

He isn't from what I have read...

Hmm, I think I might start a Dark Eldar army just for the Soul Seeker Ammo after seeing this.

We do seem to be going from one extreme to the other; under 4th ed rules Models C, B & B wouldn't have been shootable at all. Hmm.

Antubis wrote:We do seem to be going from one extreme to the other; under 4th ed rules Models C, B & B wouldn't have been shootable at all. Hmm.

i think they are trying to make the game more "Fun!" by upping the death tolls (both in CC and shooting). i think they caught the Apoc "remove casualties by the bucketful" bug...

~ Tim

And by making troops scoring people might have lots more models in the table to be removed!

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote: i think they are trying to make the game more "Fun!" by upping the death tolls (both in CC and shooting). i think they caught the Apoc "remove casualties by the bucketful" bug... ~ Tim

mattjgilbert wrote:And by making troops scoring people might have lots more models in the table to be removed!

Backed up by this quote from GW site on 40K preview; "Without a doubt, the new rulebook brings both the Warhammer 40,000 game and universe into an exciting new age of carnage and war!"

As to shooting through area terrain, I am reminded of the last words of General John Sedgwick, Union General in the civil war. While his men were maneuvering in a trench line, some shiper's bullets wizzed by and some of the men dodged the shots. Sedgwick said, "What! what! men, dodging this way for single bullets! What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."
Shortly afterwards, the General was struck in the left cheek by a sniper and was mortally wounded. So even in the real world, it is possible for single models to be hit and removed.

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:i think they are trying to make the game more "Fun!" by upping the death tolls (both in CC and shooting). i think they caught the Apoc "remove casualties by the bucketful" bug...

~ Tim

mattjgilbert wrote:And by making troops scoring people might have lots more models in the table to be removed!

And those increased sales won't hurt GW.



Well since I must shoot at a unit, couldn't I purposefully not shoot at anyone that would get a cover save. I see Trooper C and will pour everything I can into him. I don't say Marine A is shooting at Trooper A, Marine B is shootingat Trooper B, and Marine C is shooting at Trooper C. Instead my unit can fire at your unit based on one guy seeing a Trooper trough a window.

I don't see how that meshes with the diagram unless the defender can dictate who I am shooting at and do so in a manner which results in the best saves for him (everyone shooting at A for instance).

I agree that it is confusing. Maybe when someone (Tim?) gets another look at the rulebook, they can note;
Is the rule that a given model may chose to shoot or not still in there?
Does the entire unit get a cover save based on the majority of the models or is it on a model by model basis like Tim's diagram?
Should be very interesting. As most are saying, the game will focus more on tactics and battlefield terrain management than 4th ed.
(Just as a side note, I started playing 40K with 4th edition so I am clueless about how the earlier rules worked, so if you refer back to a 3rd edition or earlier rule I might need a little extra explaination. Thanks.)