Are we doing rules queries on 5th ed yet?

Well having read the rulebook in depth on LOS and area terrain I have been able to draw the following conclusions.

Area terrain works pretty much as before with a few small changes, such as the seeing 6"s in has gone and models shooting more than 2" out of AT give cover saves to the unit they shoot.

But my main concerns lie in the rules that deal with models being shot at behind AT.

We are told that AT doesn't block LOS. Shots passing through it confer a cover save to the target if the shot passes between elements of the AT. The example given is of the GW woods (3 trees with no leaves on a base) and it shows model A actually on the AT, he get's the cover save. A model, B, behind the AT but clearly being spotted between 2 of the trees, so he gets a cover save. And then model C, who's wound comes to him by the shot passing over the edge of the AT, but not between two elements on the AT. He get's no cover save.

Later we are also told that if the shot passes over the elements on the AT, no cover save is conferred. And also on the MC page we are told that they only get a cover save in AT if 50% of their 'body' is covered.

So an MC that can clearly be seen, stood on a piece of AT or betwen two elements that are on the AT while he is stood behind it, gets no cover save.

Anyways, all that I can adapt to. Making new terrain to be '5th ed proof' is something I am now looking at. Blocking LOS is still very important in games otherwise the shooty armies are going to have a ball in 5th. I can't now use the woods I have, so a substitute for that old 'height three large peice of terrain that blocks LOS completely' is required. Buildings seem to be the best thing for this. I would still like woods also, but we all need to realise their new roll as terrain on our battlefileds.

What I am not clear on, rules wise from the new book is, a model that is stood behind AT that can not be see at all, due to the elements on it, can it still be seen, or do the elements on the AT actually block LOS for anything behind them?

My understanding is that the elements on the AT are WYSIWYG. And that LOS is based on the attacking models eye level. So, if the elements of Grass for instance are modeled 'high' enough to prevent eye view targeting then yes LOS would be blocked.

Personally I dislike Model Eye level LOS rules. In a game that encourages players to convert/modify/specialize their model playing pieces, it is too each to convert something that cheats the LOS process. AT as a whole in my opinion was much better in this regard as it was a conferred understanding for the entire footprint of the AT and not the specific modeling of the terrain features.

Now, having played LotR, which uses the True LOS rules, I understand how it worked, but even there somewhat dislike that it is counter to the hobby aspect of the game.

Personally, I plan to recommend to 'all' my opponents that true LOS is tossed for AT affected areas in all cases of terrain for 5th ed games I play in. This was we can simply say this 'blocks' LOS or this 'confers' and x cover save.

Models Eye view is a very war gaming thing. Not to sound pompous, but if you've played mostly 40k, it is a bit of a odd thing. To me it's second nature and I've always used it to determine LoS. Battletech players who use war gaming BT rules will be well used to this.
As for Area Terrain, I'm almost certain that the limit is 2 inches into the terrain for shooting?
Memory isn't what it should be after an 11 hour day

Nah, buildings are the new woods, but so much more also.

They are tall, they block LOS totally, you can cross them, like DTerrain and they give saves.

Add to that, if you want to, you can enter them, and use them as stationary vehicles, embarking and ddisembarking.

I'm making lots of these. With a view to having them able to interlock into larger complexes for some special mission games and apoc.

Algeroth wrote:Models Eye view is a very war gaming thing. Not to sound pompous, but if you've played mostly 40k, it is a bit of a odd thing. To me it's second nature and I've always used it to determine LoS. Battletech players who use war gaming BT rules will be well used to this.
As for Area Terrain, I'm almost certain that the limit is 2 inches into the terrain for shooting?
Memory isn't what it should be after an 11 hour day

u must be tired it was anyone shooting that is more than 2" into the terrain will give a cover save to the target unit.

Algeroth wrote:Models Eye view is a very war gaming thing.

And I would agree for any game that doesn't encourage modification of models and cool posing of models. Also if all terrain was perfectly in scale that would make it more inline with true LOS. The problem is that terrain rarely is. Recently I played a Battletech game that used HeroScape terrain. It game an effect of level changes and such, but was terrible for LOS as mechs are 2 levels high, but could easily see over 2 levels of the terrain. Its just a very imperfect things for True LOS to be used. Area Terrain works imho much better and is fair across the board.

Algeroth wrote:Models Eye view is a very war gaming thing. Not to sound pompous, but if you've played mostly 40k, it is a bit of a odd thing.

umm... we have been using Model's Eye View ever since i started 40K (2nd ed). sometimes it has been suspended in certain situations (woods for example), but its still been there as a general rule.

i wasnt very keen on the new Area Terrain rules, but they are growing on me a little. just avoid using woods and it shouldnt be too bad. (thankfully the only trees on my planet are in the planetary governor's palace in the ornamental garden, so they wont impact our games too much )

~ Tim

Then you're an odd one
Most of the 40k types that I've come across have just looked down at what they can see and decided by terrain type if they could see it.
Then again maybe they're the odd ones. ?

Algeroth wrote:Then you're an odd one
Most of the 40k types that I've come across have just looked down at what they can see and decided by terrain type if they could see it.
Then again maybe they're the odd ones. ?

Tim's right, so I suppose that makes me an odd one too (ha ha the old one two ).

But, imo, this is part of the problem and a reason for gw to change things.
So many players seemed not to understand where true los ended (it was always there) and abstract area terrain rules began.

That's why we always had daft situations like players trying to hide size 3 land raiders behind size 3 rhino's.

Imo, though, they have gone too far.

Allowing shooting through what is in all probability, the most common area terrain piece (woods) is crazy.
Unless we want all of our games totake place in built up areas, this brings the possibility of the worst outcome of all a little closer...the first turn knockout.

Algeroth wrote:Most of the 40k types that I've come across have just looked down at what they can see and decided by terrain type if they could see it.

well that depends on the Terrain in question. for 4th ed:

- if its Area Terrain (woods, ruins etc) then you would just use Sz Categories (and the 6" rule). same goes for shooting over CC.

- but if its WYSIWYG Terrain (hills, linear obstacles, solid buildings etc) - or MCs/Vehicles not Locked in CC - then you use a "model's eye view" instead.

without houserules changing how LOS is checked, the only way to play 4th ed without needing to check "model's eye view" is to leave solid terrain, Vehicles and MCs out of your games.

i can understand why GW changed the LOS rules (from a hybrid of abstract and WYSIWYG to just WYSIWYG) in 5th ed: too many people didnt understand how it worked. this isnt the players' fault though IMO: the 4th ed rulebook was laid out terribly (to get the full picture of how LOS/Cover/Terrain works, you need to read pages 7, 17, 20-21, 25-26, 64 & 69, all at the same time ).

i can also understand why they went with a WYSIWYG LOS (as opposed to an abstract system): there are less rules needed to explain how it works.

while i can understand these decisions from their POV, IMO their logic is flawed (and lazy?): they could have just used more rules, laid them out better, written them more clearly, and given us a better game.

unless they think that either they are incapable of writing their rules properly (if so, why havent they resigned?) or their customers are too stupid to understand the rules even if they are explained clearly (if so, why are they targeting such customers?).

EDIT:

ruffian4 wrote:Tim's right

you do realise that by RaW...

ruffian4 wrote:Allowing shooting through what is in all probability, the most common area terrain piece (woods) is crazy.

given the release of CoD, the crashed Aquilla and the Moonscape Craters, is this still the case though? i happily leave trees out of my games (EDIT: believe it or not, that pun was unitentional ).

and the "new" LOS rules work well for City Ruins (how i play them is as close to how it will work in the new edition as you can get in 4th ed - the only difference to me is the loss of the 6" rule and the "cant see right through and out the other side" rule). conversely, if you try using just the Area Terrain rules for the City Ruins in curent 40K, it doesnt work very well at all (i suspect that 5th ed's LOS rules were either used by the studio to playtest CoD, or were shaped by their experiences of using 4th ed rules to play CoD).

i agree they dont work well for woods, but maybe they are being phased out?

ruffian4 wrote:Unless we want all of our games totake place in built up areas, this brings the possibility of the worst outcome of all a little closer...the first turn knockout.

the new book has a section on Terrain when it tells us how to set up a game. apparantly we are still supposed to have decent amounts of LOS blocking Terrain...

~ Tim

yes we are, and as I've already posted somewhere else... buildings are the new woods for 5th

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:EDIT:

ruffian4 wrote:Tim's right

you do realise that by RaW...

Hoisted + petard =

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:the new book has a section on Terrain when it tells us how to set up a game. apparantly we are still supposed to have decent amounts of LOS blocking Terrain...

Fair enough.
I'm just bemoaning that when we want an "untouched by human hands" or whatever, I will have to use my rock outcrops (which are usually used nly on the mine terrain, to keep them "special").

No great disaster of course.

ruffian4 wrote:Hoisted + petard =

ruffian4 wrote:I'm just bemoaning that when we want an "untouched by human hands" or whatever, I will have to use my rock outcrops

well that depends on the terrain pieces, the physical sizes of the firer & target, and the relative physical positions of the models and the terrain. a man-sized IC can hide quite easily behind a single model tree, for example. and if you get the angle right, even a few trees on a base could hide a Rhino.

IIRC i even saw (or rather didnt see ) a model hidden from LOS behind a chainlink fence made out of car body repair mesh, because of the angle of the shot.

~ Tim