As I understand there could be some issues with how they've worded the benefit of cover rule, specifically the 'not fully visible to EVERY model in the attacking unit because of this terrain feature' part. This implies that if you are shooting out of a ruin at a target in the open they would receive cover if one of the attacking models did not have line of sight (being blocked by a wall or something). As not every model in the attacking unit would have full visibility of the targeted model and it would be the ruin they are in that was causing this. As such a target in the open would gain cover.
I'm so happy for this as a marine player. Yes we dony get such a big bonus on a 3+ armour save. But it should prevent the need for AP creep over 10th so will benefit us in the long run
Well, many people are very infantile, idiotic and have no shame repeating memes two decades old that have been unfunny for as long as they have existed.
6:07 I don't understand. It's all model by model so wouldn't it only be the not-fully-visible guy who gets cover, and only when an attack is allocated to him? So you'd have to take the saves on the one in cover and once he dies the rest of the unit would be fully exposed?
I think the changes to SM armour incentivise you to move forward into combat, as implied by their doctrines. Also fits the fluff more, wading through small arms fire, trusting their power armour to ward this off them.
For these specific terrain rules I think the 3+ unless double asterisk on a tuesday is a waste of time, I'd cut it out completely, as well as 'plunging attack'. Terrain is something people discuss or argue over every edition for the whole of the edition because GW can't write plain rules or give specific examples that people go by. I want True LoS completely gone. Only anything over the base, up to a certain height, not counting hull and aircraft (and whatever other fringe exceptions exist). No more shooting from or at spear tips, horns, tails, banners or whatever other stupid excuse people find. This is one part of the game that SHOULD be universally simple, clear and concise.
Although u agree with what you want i doubt its execution would be simple and concise unfortunatly. Defining when a spear (or other similar part) count or not would be hard to keep track of and wether a base is covered could create some weird corner cases im sure. I think this is a simple and relativly functional ruleset, from what we have seen.
@@arvatrontheiv2220 Within a base, main body and limbs, no wings/tails/tentacles/decorations sticking outside the base, or antennas and the like on vehicles. Another way of saying it would be ‘anything that could be tucked in or detached’. For example, a banner is easily rolled up, but a hammerhead rail cannon is vital to its function. Wings can be furled or tucked in. Determine the height of the model to be the top of the main body, so if it’s Magnus it’s the top of his head/horns, but for a large tyranid where the head is lower it’s the top of its back/vents. GW’s rules lawyers can write a better version of what I said. Just imagine a cylinder going up from the base, anything outside it doesn’t count, it’s easily shown in a graphic as well. It’s always been an annoying topic and GW doesn’t make it better when you can clearly see an entire model through a gateway, but it’s a 5” tall terrain piece so you can’t target tge Baneblade on the other side. Or its rearmost track is touching a forest edge, so it’s harder to hit. At that point they might as well have laid out some guidelines for LoS.
when looking at the this rule ''a model cannot benefit from this rule more than once at any one time'' then I assume that they meant things like Eleminators with their Camo Cloaks may not work as it used to like they gain additional cover save when they benefit of cover. So I think instead they might make Camo Cloaks act like they recieve Benefit of cover even if they are not in terrain or they can make camo cloak that they get -1 to hit if they stand on terrain as long they are 12'' inches away from enemies perhaps
10th looks like a throwback to 5th/6th in a lot of ways. Like a lot of them. Though actual LoS mattering is not among them. I liked 9th's "Touch terrain -> profit" approach. Those LoS depending rules are always a bit fiddly.
I'm wondering what happens to rules like camo cloaks... They probably confer a bonus while the model is receiving the benefits of cover but model with a 3+ save like an eliminator cannot receive the benefit of cover against ap 0... Soooo can they also not claim the bonus from a camo cloak against these attacks? I mean they should be able...
erm... craters state infantry MODEL... so you can have a unit partially in a crater, but only the model wholly on top of that crater will get the Benefits of Cover
I'm not a fan of these changes. They tried the 2" engagement through cover already and it failed, this is slightly different but I don't think it will be much better.
Yet again; I'm just glad 10th in shaping up to be an edition where you don't need to carry around a dozen or so rulebooks,supplements and charts like in 9th. These terrain rules are an improvement overral but I'm a little dissapointed dense cover seems to be gone as it added flavour to jungle themed terrain
GW has to do away with True LOS. Dynamic models get penalized because "oh, a sword or banner, or flowing hair is sticking out of a ruin so therefore your whole unit gets melta in the face". It should be strictly base size or a rule caveat like "tank, monstrous, titanic, etc"
New to 40 k , the rules of cover seem really confusing , from what I saw in 10th , having arbitrary limits on cover just to balance the game is just….. seems so awkward .
Cover rules are pretty dumb. If 9 guys in a unit are totally exposed, why would they all benefit from cover because guy#10 is touching a tree. It's not a big deal, I just can't figure out how the rules team decided that this is the way it should work. Given a better target, 100% of shooters won't decide to fire on the one they can't see.
If you pay a close attention to the actual word(ing)s they used in the article (and at least have read the Boarding Actions rules), you will notice they are using a very similar "design language". Take the Woods rules snippet for example: "[...] *to be fully visible to an observing model*." Now, take the Boarding Actions rules, and here's what it says about "Visibility" (aka drawing Line of Sight): ""In Boarding Actions, *a model is visible to an observing model if you can trace a straight line from any part of its base to any part of the observing model’s base, without that line passing through any of the following*: [...]. *If you can draw a straight line to every part of a model’s base from any part of an observing model’s base, as described above, then that model is said to be fully visible to the observing model. [...]*" Fancy how it is quite similar, if not identical, isn't it? And it's using a base-to-base method to check for what they call "visiblity". Tweak and refine this a little further for the scope of 40K, and I'm rather confident you can adapt this kind of ruling for base-to-hull also. Which is what they probably did.
I wonder how they are going to deal with cover saves when half a unit is in cover. Lets say 5 marines can clearly see a unit of 5 orks, but one orc is in cover. Since that MODEL is obsured, that MODEL gets a cover save. Would you have to roll saves until that model is dead and then go on the lower cover save 4 orks that are out of cover? Or are all saves rolled at once with the highest save first. This rule will need clarification I think.
As an avid Tidewall enthusiast, these terrain rules are showing that I'm going to lose my flying trenches in 10th. Yes, the Tidewall was the only unit in the game that stayed as a wreck from my knowledge, but it was pretty much the only reason I took them. Feels Bad.
So dumb. How the hell are we supposed to figure out if there’s a tiny part of a model not visible to any one of the the shooting unts models, especially the hill scenario.. the horizontal plane is easier than the vertical, we physically can’t get our eyes low and close enough to work out the vertical. It’s also cognitively dissonant where 1mm of a tank being behind a wall or debris can grant the whole thing cover. this will cause many disputes on the table just like firing arcs did. Instead of simplifying things this rule makes everything more complicated.
that is line of sight in a nutshell, check if you have line of sight, if you have line of sight, you have line of sight. It does need to be better, I agree
I look forward to shouting “it’s over, I have the high ground!” at every opportunity when I use plunging fire.
Knock Knock
Who's there
Hi
Hi Who?
HIGH GROUND!
0:00 Sponsors
0:08 Intro
1:03 Benefits of Cover
3:07 Craters
6:35 Debris
8:02 Hills
10:01 Woods
12:57 Ruins
18:26 Next Week Topic
18:52 Thoughts
Tyranid wings and tentacles are no longer a liability. You can use them to get cover now! (have to see all parts of a model.)
As I understand there could be some issues with how they've worded the benefit of cover rule, specifically the 'not fully visible to EVERY model in the attacking unit because of this terrain feature' part. This implies that if you are shooting out of a ruin at a target in the open they would receive cover if one of the attacking models did not have line of sight (being blocked by a wall or something). As not every model in the attacking unit would have full visibility of the targeted model and it would be the ruin they are in that was causing this. As such a target in the open would gain cover.
Most likely specific units will have additional benefits based on whether they are receiving cover, such as -1 to hit etc
I'm so happy for this as a marine player. Yes we dony get such a big bonus on a 3+ armour save. But it should prevent the need for AP creep over 10th so will benefit us in the long run
Thanks for doing this so early John. Hope everyone has a great day!
Thanks for the support!
Knowing how line of sight is drawn will help to clarify some of these.
I can feel all the "high ground" memes coming...
Well, many people are very infantile, idiotic and have no shame repeating memes two decades old that have been unfunny for as long as they have existed.
6:07 I don't understand. It's all model by model so wouldn't it only be the not-fully-visible guy who gets cover, and only when an attack is allocated to him? So you'd have to take the saves on the one in cover and once he dies the rest of the unit would be fully exposed?
That's the impression I got
Yes i thought so too. Interested to hear what Art of war say
I think the changes to SM armour incentivise you to move forward into combat, as implied by their doctrines. Also fits the fluff more, wading through small arms fire, trusting their power armour to ward this off them.
Id prefer if line of site was taken from a standard hight for model types and their base size or to their hull. But this is workable.
For these specific terrain rules I think the 3+ unless double asterisk on a tuesday is a waste of time, I'd cut it out completely, as well as 'plunging attack'. Terrain is something people discuss or argue over every edition for the whole of the edition because GW can't write plain rules or give specific examples that people go by.
I want True LoS completely gone. Only anything over the base, up to a certain height, not counting hull and aircraft (and whatever other fringe exceptions exist). No more shooting from or at spear tips, horns, tails, banners or whatever other stupid excuse people find. This is one part of the game that SHOULD be universally simple, clear and concise.
Although u agree with what you want i doubt its execution would be simple and concise unfortunatly. Defining when a spear (or other similar part) count or not would be hard to keep track of and wether a base is covered could create some weird corner cases im sure. I think this is a simple and relativly functional ruleset, from what we have seen.
@@arvatrontheiv2220 Within a base, main body and limbs, no wings/tails/tentacles/decorations sticking outside the base, or antennas and the like on vehicles.
Another way of saying it would be ‘anything that could be tucked in or detached’.
For example, a banner is easily rolled up, but a hammerhead rail cannon is vital to its function.
Wings can be furled or tucked in.
Determine the height of the model to be the top of the main body, so if it’s Magnus it’s the top of his head/horns, but for a large tyranid where the head is lower it’s the top of its back/vents.
GW’s rules lawyers can write a better version of what I said.
Just imagine a cylinder going up from the base, anything outside it doesn’t count, it’s easily shown in a graphic as well.
It’s always been an annoying topic and GW doesn’t make it better when you can clearly see an entire model through a gateway, but it’s a 5” tall terrain piece so you can’t target tge Baneblade on the other side. Or its rearmost track is touching a forest edge, so it’s harder to hit.
At that point they might as well have laid out some guidelines for LoS.
Ya, warmachine has a way more concise and less ambiguous terrain rules that 40k would benefit immensely from
when looking at the this rule ''a model cannot benefit from this rule more than once at any one time'' then I assume that they meant things like Eleminators with their Camo Cloaks may not work as it used to like they gain additional cover save when they benefit of cover. So I think instead they might make Camo Cloaks act like they recieve Benefit of cover even if they are not in terrain or they can make camo cloak that they get -1 to hit if they stand on terrain as long they are 12'' inches away from enemies perhaps
Tanks a lot!
Thanks for the support!
Back in the day vehicles had cover so no surprise it's back. Used to be called Hull Down.
10th looks like a throwback to 5th/6th in a lot of ways. Like a lot of them. Though actual LoS mattering is not among them. I liked 9th's "Touch terrain -> profit" approach. Those LoS depending rules are always a bit fiddly.
I have quite abit of gw terrain...that plunging fire rule kind of worries me that all of my terrain is about to be useless.....
I'm wondering what happens to rules like camo cloaks... They probably confer a bonus while the model is receiving the benefits of cover but model with a 3+ save like an eliminator cannot receive the benefit of cover against ap 0... Soooo can they also not claim the bonus from a camo cloak against these attacks? I mean they should be able...
erm... craters state infantry MODEL... so you can have a unit partially in a crater, but only the model wholly on top of that crater will get the Benefits of Cover
I'm not a fan of these changes. They tried the 2" engagement through cover already and it failed, this is slightly different but I don't think it will be much better.
Yet again; I'm just glad 10th in shaping up to be an edition where you don't need to carry around a dozen or so rulebooks,supplements and charts like in 9th. These terrain rules are an improvement overral but I'm a little dissapointed dense cover seems to be gone as it added flavour to jungle themed terrain
Nothing about these new terrain rules aound simpler than 9th. It's just as convoluted.
GW has to do away with True LOS. Dynamic models get penalized because "oh, a sword or banner, or flowing hair is sticking out of a ruin so therefore your whole unit gets melta in the face". It should be strictly base size or a rule caveat like "tank, monstrous, titanic, etc"
GW is going to start selling laser pointers 😂. Only way to figure out these rules
Whatever you think about Nick, no one can ever say he doesn’t commit to the bit 😅
I really hope they determine a minimum level of terrain required for matched play. The terrain at my local rtts is a complete joke.
New to 40 k , the rules of cover seem really confusing , from what I saw in 10th , having arbitrary limits on cover just to balance the game is just….. seems so awkward .
Cover rules are pretty dumb. If 9 guys in a unit are totally exposed, why would they all benefit from cover because guy#10 is touching a tree.
It's not a big deal, I just can't figure out how the rules team decided that this is the way it should work.
Given a better target, 100% of shooters won't decide to fire on the one they can't see.
Is moving through ruin walls gone now?
Mebbe
FOR THE ALGORITHM!!!
Thanks for the support!
The fact that its based around MODELS and not BASE is a HUGE step in the wrong direction I think
You must play Eldar grav tanks 😂
It should be bases. Measuring to and from, except vehicles for hulls.
If you pay a close attention to the actual word(ing)s they used in the article (and at least have read the Boarding Actions rules), you will notice they are using a very similar "design language". Take the Woods rules snippet for example: "[...] *to be fully visible to an observing model*."
Now, take the Boarding Actions rules, and here's what it says about "Visibility" (aka drawing Line of Sight):
""In Boarding Actions, *a model is visible to an observing model if you can trace a straight line from any part of its base to any part of the observing model’s base, without that line passing through any of the following*:
[...]. *If you can draw a straight line to every part of a model’s base from any part of an observing model’s base, as described above, then that model is said to be fully visible to the observing model. [...]*"
Fancy how it is quite similar, if not identical, isn't it? And it's using a base-to-base method to check for what they call "visiblity".
Tweak and refine this a little further for the scope of 40K, and I'm rather confident you can adapt this kind of ruling for base-to-hull also. Which is what they probably did.
@Mathieu Boé Here's to hoping you're right, that does make sense.
I wonder how they are going to deal with cover saves when half a unit is in cover. Lets say 5 marines can clearly see a unit of 5 orks, but one orc is in cover. Since that MODEL is obsured, that MODEL gets a cover save. Would you have to roll saves until that model is dead and then go on the lower cover save 4 orks that are out of cover? Or are all saves rolled at once with the highest save first. This rule will need clarification I think.
You would roll one die at a time for the ork in cover until it’s removed then roll the rest for the other orks. Same as 9th.
@@peterandjunko Bummer
As an avid Tidewall enthusiast, these terrain rules are showing that I'm going to lose my flying trenches in 10th. Yes, the Tidewall was the only unit in the game that stayed as a wreck from my knowledge, but it was pretty much the only reason I took them. Feels Bad.
Comments for the comment god
Thanks for the support!
I got nothing to comment, I'll do it for the algo
So dumb. How the hell are we supposed to figure out if there’s a tiny part of a model not visible to any one of the the shooting unts models, especially the hill scenario.. the horizontal plane is easier than the vertical, we physically can’t get our eyes low and close enough to work out the vertical. It’s also cognitively dissonant where 1mm of a tank being behind a wall or debris can grant the whole thing cover. this will cause many disputes on the table just like firing arcs did. Instead of simplifying things this rule makes everything more complicated.
that is line of sight in a nutshell, check if you have line of sight, if you have line of sight, you have line of sight. It does need to be better, I agree
Pretty sinple… any tiny thing in the way, you get cover.
These changes are absolutely awful thus far. Hopefully the full rules will add more dynamics and interactivity
Tanks a lot!
Thanks for the view!