PDA

View Full Version : TLOS panic unwarranted?



rtunian
24-05-2010, 15:05
why do you guys think that the line of sight will be so dramatically different from 7th? do you forget that in 7th there is a "true line of sight" clause in the line of sight rules?



the easiest way of checking what a model can see is to get down over the table and take a model's eye view, but be reasonable about this, as in reality it would be much more difficult to see enemy troops than over a perfectly flat, mist-free gaming table

i think this line of sight issue may be blown out of proportion.

or there's some wording in the 8th book (book/rumours) that i'm missing?

Magic Karl
24-05-2010, 15:25
I think you've missed a LOT of wording...

In 8th it is rumoured that a uni counts as in cover if being shot at through another unit, for one.

Also skimishers might not be keeping that 360 degree LOS, this is unconfirmed.

I'm sure there was another one too, but yes, LOS will have different rules.

Avian
24-05-2010, 15:32
Until we have the exact wording it's a bit early to say if it is warranted or not, but I've just made a lot of terrain that was intended to be very modular and with elements that can be moved around. For example the ruins have removable walls so it's easier for units to move through them. If now removing a wall has an in-game effect, that might cause some problems.

But anyways, terrain is traditionally one of the weakest points in the game and frequently house ruled anyway, so it's not a biggie to just keep on using them, but it's annoying that they seem to have gone for the easy way out rather than writing proper rules.

Magic Karl
24-05-2010, 15:36
Doesn't everyone put their warmachines on hills anyway? I think i've missed this panic, but if it exists then I agree with you about it.

rtunian
24-05-2010, 15:39
Doesn't everyone put their warmachines on hills anyway? I think i've missed this panic, but if it exists then I agree with you about it.

eh, what i meant before i deleted the post which you just responded to was that people are fretting that hills and other terrain would become meaningless, because enough people will model their war machines, wizards, and shooting units such that they don't need a hill to see anything (they can see by virtue of being modelled to be "tall" enough to see everything) to render it so

Kalandros
24-05-2010, 16:44
... No they cannot, unless Games Workshop fails at making this clear, modelling should not affect True Line of Sight.

No crouching abominations, no war machines on their own hills, etc.

Jind_Singh
24-05-2010, 17:11
yeah, long live that rule! There are enough ****** out there who would model their models to have an unfair advantage! Giants 'crawling' on their hands and knees because 'they are too drunk to walk' is their lame cover!

All fast cav models are now rearing up.

Snotlings standing on each others shoulders - cuz i wanted a pyramid - and on, and on, and on!

Master Jeridian
24-05-2010, 17:29
No they cannot, unless Games Workshop fails at making this clear, modelling should not affect True Line of Sight.



That's an interesting paradox.

If the models do not affect what you can truly see from the model's eye view, then it isn't True Line of Sight.


TLOS has been fretted about in half a dozen threads now, and with good reason.

1- Terrain. Previously, you could have half a dozen trees, scattered about a 8" circular terrain piece. Both players knew they where 2" LOS and Light Cover. Both players could easily move models through the terrain by moving trees about.

Having a clearly LOS blocking chunk of terrain, especially if it isn't hidden in a corner, provides a massive tactical dynamic as players can use it to move up the board without being shot, or attempt to prevent this with fire lanes.

With TLOS, to get the same result you need to model that terrain base packed with trees, base to base, with foliage and undergrowth packed underneath.
Of course, no models can fit into the terrain piece, unless you remove some trees.
Except removing the trees creates gaps in the terrain piece the opponent can see through...

So for the most part, LOS won't be blocked by terrain, it will just induce a Cover modifier.

It becomes less "I can't see them, I need to move into view or force him into a position where he must expose the target, or cover it when he moves out" and more "If I throw enough dice at them, they will die".
What about Magic missiles that auto-hit...


2- Models. 'Normal' models block LOS to models behind them. This was simple and easy, both players could easily tell what they could and could not see.
A whole aspect of the game formed around using less valuable troops to screen more valuable troops- especially in hoarde armies who herd their slaves ahead of them.

With TLOS, your basically always gonna find a LOS between models to target anything behind them.

GW may institute a modifier like cover for shooting through a unit (much like the magic 4+ Cover of 40k) but this dilutes the tactics of screening.
It becomes less "I can't see them, I need to destroy or misdirect the screeners first, or force him into a position where he must expose the target" and more "If I throw enough dice at them, they will die".
What about Magic missiles that auto-hit...

Lord Dan
24-05-2010, 17:38
My gaming group laughed when I modelled my cannon on a 4-foot high pillar. "It's so unnecessary" they said. "It looks stupid" they said.

It looks like I've had the last laugh, gentlemen.

Kalandros
24-05-2010, 17:40
Doesn't 40K TLoS have been ruled that you use a model's normal non-converted form to determine if you can see it? O; No crouching tyranid monstrosities to be no taller than a space marine, etc.

rtunian
24-05-2010, 18:06
oh lord dan, you hyperbolist!

Orktavius
24-05-2010, 19:25
to be fair fantasy has a more effective system in place then cover saves in my opinion...that being to hit modifiers. If you screen your elite troops with your cannon fodder the enemy will be at the least -1 to hit them if not -2 making it very unlikely they will take much damage.

Lord Inquisitor
24-05-2010, 19:37
Eh, I think cover saves are much better, and I wish Fantasy would adopt them. Hit modifiers are clunky, they require calculation and a cover save actually allows for more differentiation between e.g. high grass (6+), fences (5+), walls (4+) and fortifications (3+) then just "light" and "heavy" cover. The only difference is that for Fantasy at least, cover saves should be an additional save on top of your armour/ward. Not to mention that the hit-modifier system breaks down with anything that hits automatically. Organ guns or magic missiles don't care if you're behind a solid wall or out in the open - and cover saves would fix the problem that these things ignore terrain.

Not that hit-modifiers need go out the window entirely, they're appropriate for long range/large target/single model, etc. But cover saves work better for actual cover. A hybrid system of hit modifiers for range, etc., and cover saves for terrain (a bit like Epic) would be ideal and actually quicker and easier than the current system.


2- Models. 'Normal' models block LOS to models behind them. This was simple and easy, both players could easily tell what they could and could not see.
A whole aspect of the game formed around using less valuable troops to screen more valuable troops- especially in hoarde armies who herd their slaves ahead of them.
Is this going to change? I know we had a 9-page thread on this, but at the end Avian said that the rules for screening are not changing...

Not to mention the fact that under a hypothetical TLOS rule, it is simply more effective to remove the screening unit with shooting than it is to attack the valuable unit behind it, unless the screening unit is tougher/more armoured than the elite. Specific calculations will have to wait on whether this is even possible or what modifiers apply, but I've yet to see a scenario where it isn't easier to clear the screening unit even with TLOS.

Lord Dan
24-05-2010, 20:37
oh lord dan, you hyperbolist!

Guilty as charged. The pillar is more like 3 feet, really.

enyoss
24-05-2010, 20:43
The panic is almost always unwarranted, regardless of the rumour :).

That said, I don't think I'd be too keen on a True Line of Sight rule. My group will probably stick with the more abstract terrain rules and line of sight, although we'll have to see how it turns out first I suppose.

silashand
24-05-2010, 21:11
Eh, I think cover saves are much better, and I wish Fantasy would adopt them.

Suffice to say I hope they *NEVER* go that route.

Cheers, Gary

Skyros
24-05-2010, 22:27
The panic is entirely unwarranted. TLOS works fine.

I don't think TLOS is so much attempting to be immersive as provide a rough LOS system that doesn't take pages and pages of rules.

Arguments about "I can see his whisker!" "No you can't!" happen in *any* LOS system because you will always have that fine edge between 'can see' and 'can't see'.

With TLOS, you can solve any argument in 3s by bringing a laser pointer. Rest it on the model's head/shoulder and point it at target - problem solved.

Cognitave
24-05-2010, 23:40
Suffice to say I hope they *NEVER* go that route.

Cheers, Gary

Agreed. It just doesn't work with the shooting system of fantasy.

Lord Inquisitor
25-05-2010, 00:02
What exactly is wrong with cover saves? I realise I'm off topic but I don't understand what people dislike about them. I'm not talking about turning Fantasy into 40K with dragons, but a sensible implementation of the rule. It would give greater differentiation between different types of cover (never mind that everything is a 4+ in 40K, it doesn't have to be), gets around the problem that many war engines and spells that hit automatically bypass cover making cover far less worthwhile and there's no reason it can't be in addition to a hit-modifier system for moving, large targets, multiple shots, etc. etc. So what's actually wrong with cover saves?

Lord Dan
25-05-2010, 00:21
So what's actually wrong with cover saves?

In 40K cover doesn't provide you with anything unless you're unable to take your armor save. In fantasy's current rules being in cover actually improves your armor.

I choose the latter.

silashand
25-05-2010, 00:51
In 40K cover doesn't provide you with anything unless you're unable to take your armor save.

This. In most instances (due to the majority of armies out there being MEQ), cover is largely irrelevant unless you are hit by specific weapons. Suffice to say I think that's a pretty idiotic mechanism overall.

Cheers, Gary

Lord Inquisitor
25-05-2010, 00:57
In 40K cover doesn't provide you with anything unless you're unable to take your armor save. In fantasy's current rules being in cover actually improves your armor.
So what if it was a cover save in addition to your armour?

Master Jeridian
25-05-2010, 01:11
Ah, the old 40k Cover Save.

Predictably we are on opposite sides of this argument.

The To Hit Modifier benefits all soldiers equally regardless of their clothing, being in cover makes you obscured, and so harder to hit. Also, for hard cover, some of the shots will be absorbed by walls and sandbags rather than hit you.

The result is that an opponent must concentrate more firepower on a unit in cover to achieve the same level of damage, regardless of if that soldier is wearing a vest or an armoured battlesuit (because the cover is the same in both situations).

It creates the intuitive concept that using cover well, will always better protect your soldiers than running into an open killing field.

Cover Saves have the paradoxical effect that when it comes to small arms fire like basic rifles a lot of soldiers might as well walk around outside it, but when battle cannons and anti-tank guns fire at them the cover becomes a forcefield.

The opposite is true, cover is best against small arms- since things like walls and sandbags can absorb the impacts, whilst near-misses won't compress your internal organs. Large calibre tank cannons on the other hand will smash through your cover most of the time.

I.e. the Cover Save mechanism is counter-intuitive, and favours troops who wear T-Shirts over troops who wear heavier body armour. If I'm hiding in a building, I get the same level of protection from cover whether I'm naked or wearing full kevlar plate- then additional protection for wearing kevlar.

Not true in 40k, wearing the best armour in the galaxy shouldn't reduce the ability of cover to protect you from all kinds of firepower- especially small arms. Protective armour is always an additional benefit to any cover your using- otherwise, why would you wear it.

Next you'll be saying the AP system isn't ridiculous.

Lord Inquisitor
25-05-2010, 01:37
I refer you to my previous post (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I ninja'd you ;)).

What if the cover save was in addition to (a) to-hit modifiers (long range, large target, etc) and (b) armour/ward/regeneration?

Yes, of course just porting the 40K rules over wouldn't work. But that doesn't mean the concept of cover saves if well implemented isn't better than to-hit modifiers for cover.

[And for what it's worth, in principle I'm happy with the AP system. I think the execution could be improved upon, but for a streamlined skirmish game it works fine. It's a shame that they can't keep the rest of the game streamlined.]

SamVimes
25-05-2010, 02:36
Hmmm, thought I was in the Fantasy boards...

My two issues with TLOS are 1) Terrain losing it's abstract rules makes how you model it matter to gameplay instead of being able to model anything that I feel like and then using some abstracted rules to represent it. It's weird and annoying.
2) Differently modeled units that are supposed to be the same exact thing won't play the same. This isn't about advantage, just that I don't think that the way something is modeled should have any effect on gameplay, especially as anything that mechanically has an impact on play is supposedly represented by points values, and yet if two of the exact same unit are modeled differently, then they don't have the same play anymore, which is an odd decision for me.

Most everything else for this edition looks great though!

ChaosVC
25-05-2010, 02:47
I always questions people ability to differentiate between an "uncomfirmed rule" discussion and a panicky response. Are we going to brand all the post that does not support TLOS as panicky post here too?

Now lets talk about models and "TLOS", has anyone seen the High elf plastic wizard that comes with a 2.5" tall floating stone? So is that going to be a standard height for all mages or just that mage?

Nicha11
25-05-2010, 02:57
Hmmm I hope "true" TLOS is not Introduced in 8th edition.

It weakens screens (a nice tactical elements)
It strengthens gunlines (they can see everywhere)

I did not like the introduction of TLOS to 40k in 5th. Arguing about who can see what and not having clear limits and distinctions of terrain.
Also with TLOS there are all the modeling for advantage problems.

Lord Dan
25-05-2010, 03:02
So what if it was a cover save in addition to your armour?

You mean like a ward or regeneration save? If rumors are true, fantasy will be getting the one-save-only treatment, which will leave us in the same spot. Personally I think the system is fine as it is, with terrain giving bonuses to armor or making units harder to hit with missile fire.

rtunian
25-05-2010, 03:25
My two issues with TLOS are 1) Terrain losing it's abstract rules makes how you model it matter to gameplay instead of being able to model anything that I feel like and then using some abstracted rules to represent it. It's weird and annoying.

i have looked and re-looked through grimstonefire's rumour roundup (or whatever... the sticky at the top of the rumours section) and i do not see anything that says the rules for terrain and line of sight are changing.

i only see something that says screening units may change (ie, interposint models), but nothing for interposing terrain.

Kalandros
25-05-2010, 03:28
Not sure why you believe Grimstonefire's post has all the information given here.
ULF's thread on this forum and the May 22nd thread in rumor forum both contain a lot of information that was not updated in Grim's post.

SamVimes
25-05-2010, 03:32
Then it isn't TLOS and I'm cool with it. However, there has been a great deal of discussion both in the 8th edition round up and in ULF's play test thread that point to it being TLOS where how an area of terrain is modeled matters; ie: an area of woodland does not block LOS if you can physically see models on the other side, as opposed to the impossibility of seeing through a hill or forest as in the current and previous editions.

Edit: Ninja'd

rtunian
25-05-2010, 05:49
Not sure why you believe Grimstonefire's post has all the information given here.
ULF's thread on this forum and the May 22nd thread in rumor forum both contain a lot of information that was not updated in Grim's post.

do you have something useful to say about line of sight?

like, maybe a quote to ulf's post wherin he states that forests will no longer block line of sight after 2", or that other scenery that normally blocks line of sight will no longer do so? because i sure don't see anything to that effect in ulf's demo game thread, and that would actually be relevant to this conversation. otherwise it seems like you are just being a contrarian, rather needlessly too

shelfunit.
25-05-2010, 06:59
What I want to know is... At the game shop I play in we have forrests built as a number of individually based trees on what is basically a tree "movement tray" , probably like many others here. When we move a unit into the forrest we remove the required amount of trees (usually all of them) in order to fit the movement tray of the troops into the forrest. How is TLOS supposed to work in this situation? Do we now have to carefully replace the trees back on-top of the unit, and when the unit moves out of the forrest is it really likely that all the trees will be in the same place, or ent-like move a bit? Unless of course we all fork out for the amazing GW woods with their 3 tree system....

Lord Solar Plexus
25-05-2010, 07:49
My understanding is that you just put the trees back into any convenient position. The unit will benefit from being harder to hit whether it is behind or inside the forest.

Spiney Norman
25-05-2010, 10:47
... No they cannot, unless Games Workshop fails at making this clear, modelling should not affect True Line of Sight.

No crouching abominations, no war machines on their own hills, etc.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the snotling perched on top of my Rock Lobba must count as having LoS for the catapult...

TLoS will have the same effect as 40K, the only terrain that will actually do anything LoS wise will be buildings. I guess every game of WFB 8th edition is going to have to take place in a town or village...


So what if it was a cover save in addition to your armour?

Then shooting would be almost completely pointless. Do you really want a unit to have 3, possibly 4 chances to avoid taking a wound (armour, ward, cover, regen), even if a unit had a 6+/6++ and the lightest possible cover (6+), thats still a 50% chance of avoiding a wound?

Shooting modifiers for cover make sense and work extremely well, except in the case of cannons/stone throwers.

Master Jeridian
25-05-2010, 14:51
So what if it was a cover save in addition to your armour?

I can see a Cover Save being added to To Hit Modifiers only for extremely protective cover like a Bunker, Trenchworks or Castle Firing Slots.

In most cases, To Hit Modifiers do a more than adequate jobs of reducing the damage a unit in cover will recieve from shooting. In an elegant manner that benefits all troops in cover fairly, regardless of armour.

rtunian
25-05-2010, 14:59
for those shooters that don't roll to hit, but instead use the artillery dice, i would imagine there being some additional penalty for shooting at something that you don't have clear line of sight to. perhaps you have to roll an additional dice, or some random number is added to your scatter?

who knows... all i know is that it seems really unlikely that they would remove guessing from guess-range weapons, AND allow you to shoot them at things in cover (aka, screened units) with no penalty whatsoever.

after all, isn't there a "blind fire" mechanism for 40k artillery? something to make template weapons less effective when they can't draw a clear line of sight?

Spiney Norman
25-05-2010, 15:10
for those shooters that don't roll to hit, but instead use the artillery dice, i would imagine there being some additional penalty for shooting at something that you don't have clear line of sight to. perhaps you have to roll an additional dice, or some random number is added to your scatter?

who knows... all i know is that it seems really unlikely that they would remove guessing from guess-range weapons, AND allow you to shoot them at things in cover (aka, screened units) with no penalty whatsoever.

after all, isn't there a "blind fire" mechanism for 40k artillery? something to make template weapons less effective when they can't draw a clear line of sight?

I seem to remember in 40K when you fire a template normally you subtract your BS from the scatter distance, but when you blind fire you scatter the full distance. That could be entirely wrong however, my Battle sisters don't play with templates other than flamers much.

Lord Inquisitor
25-05-2010, 15:44
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the snotling perched on top of my Rock Lobba must count as having LoS for the catapult...
That's what he's there for, right? Although I feel there should be some kind of penalty to a snotling-directed rock lobba in case you end up shooting at a shiny rock or something ;)


TLoS will have the same effect as 40K, the only terrain that will actually do anything LoS wise will be buildings. I guess every game of WFB 8th edition is going to have to take place in a town or village...
Or hills, rock formations, monoliths, ruins, etc...


Then shooting would be almost completely pointless. Do you really want a unit to have 3, possibly 4 chances to avoid taking a wound (armour, ward, cover, regen), even if a unit had a 6+/6++ and the lightest possible cover (6+), thats still a 50% chance of avoiding a wound?
What difference does it make, it's still the same probability?

Consider a greatsword unit behind a hedge being shot at by bowfire. Lets say the hedge provides -1 to hit or a 5+ cover save.
Probability of killing a greatsword with a single bow shot (no other modifiers):
-1: 1/3*1/2*1/2 = 1/12 (to hit x to wound x chance of failing armour save)
5+: 1/2*1/2*1/2*2/3 = 1/12 (to hit x to wound x chance of failing armour save x chance of failing cover save)

Oh look at that the probability is exactly the same. Throw a ward save on top and that affects both systems equally. Yes, a cover save makes it harder to wound a unit, but so does hit modifiers isn't that the point?


Shooting modifiers for cover make sense and work extremely well, except in the case of cannons/stone throwers.
And magic missiles and many other spells and organ guns and many special abilities and other war machines... anything that hits automatically, basically, breaks the system and denies cover.

So I agree, the hit modifier system works well except when it doesn't. A cover save system, however, works all the time with a static discrete probability of the cover saving you.

Keeping hit-modifiers for things like large targets or long range prevents the system being quite as bland as 40K, but replacing cover to hit modifiers with cover saves in addition to the usual modifiers is the best of both worlds and superior to either system.


In most cases, To Hit Modifiers do a more than adequate jobs of reducing the damage a unit in cover will recieve from shooting. In an elegant manner that benefits all troops in cover fairly, regardless of armour.
But it doesn't benefit all troops fairly. Firstly, the vagaries of the system mean that cover is disproportionately useful against low BS armies (light cover is far better at long range against BS2 troops compared with BS3 troops) and disproportionately useless against high BS troops, particularly when you get to BS6 or higher. Secondly, there are perhaps four main sources of ranged attacks - conventional firepower (e.g. bows), war machines (e.g. organ gun), magic (e.g. magic missiles) and special effects (e.g. Engine of the Gods). Of these, some conventional fire ignores terrain (e.g. Tomb Kings), many war machines, virtually all magic and most direct damage special rules as well. Of these, I would say magic is the most commonly encountered - many armies have little to no conventional firepower but virtually all have access to magic.

So no, the hit-modifier system does not do an adequate job in anything approaching the majority of cases where cover should protect. A major issue with 7th ed (and previous editions for that matter) was that terrain was so crippling to movement that to take advantage of that it was nigh-impossible and the advantage it provided only worked against a certain proportion of enemy armies! Units in buildings were virtually impossible to shoot but a magic missile would clear them out nicely and against an army with little conventional shooting there's very little advantage in taking up defensive positions.


for those shooters that don't roll to hit, but instead use the artillery dice, i would imagine there being some additional penalty for shooting at something that you don't have clear line of sight to. perhaps you have to roll an additional dice, or some random number is added to your scatter?
Possible, but this is making up more rules to try and get the hit-modifier system to work. It's simply a bad system as a cover save system would work on all situations. Obviously weapons that should ignore cover would specify otherwise (dragon's breath would ignore cover as would many spells).


I seem to remember in 40K when you fire a template normally you subtract your BS from the scatter distance, but when you blind fire you scatter the full distance.
This is exactly correct. However, note that this is different from cover - in 40K, the unit gets a cover save if it is physically in cover, including against such barrage weapons. The increased scatter is to do with if the firer can see the target - it's perfectly possible to be wide out in the open, but invisible to the firer (an intervening hill, for example).

Spiney Norman
25-05-2010, 16:01
That's what he's there for, right? Although I feel there should be some kind of penalty to a snotling-directed rock lobba in case you end up shooting at a shiny rock or something ;)


Or hills, rock formations, monoliths, ruins, etc...
honestly, if you have a hill thats large enough to block LoS, its going to look more like a steep-sided pyramid than a hill, unless you do genuinely want it to occupy the entire table.




And magic missiles and many other spells and organ guns and many special abilities and other war machines... anything that hits automatically, basically, breaks the system and denies cover.

So I agree, the hit modifier system works well except when it doesn't. A cover save system, however, works all the time with a static discrete probability of the cover saving you.

Keeping hit-modifiers for things like large targets or long range prevents the system being quite as bland as 40K, but replacing cover to hit modifiers with cover saves in addition to the usual modifiers is the best of both worlds and superior to either system.

You would give a cover save against spells as well? I don't believe units get cover saves against psychic attacks in 40K do they? I don't think theres any possible justification for allowing cover against magic spells, its not like a wizard particularly has to "aim" a spell, he just unleashes it and watches the fun.

I agree they possibly should do something about cannons, but stone thrower/flamer templates not so much. The area effect zone represented by a stone throwers template is not going to be less effective just because there is a unit between the firer and the target. The effect should be a greater scatter distance, perhaps +1D6 scatter representing decreased accuracy. If a huge rock falls on your head, the bush you're hiding behind likely wont be much use.



This is exactly correct. However, not that this is different from cover - in 40K, the unit gets a cover save if it is physically in cover, including against such barrage weapons. The increased scatter is to do with if the firer can see the target - it's perfectly possible to be wide out in the open, but invisible to the firer (an intervening hill, for example).

I think all this talk of cover-saves is rather misleading. There is a REASON why TK archers ignore to hit penalties, I don't think it would be particularly suitable to introduce a different cover system to neuter their advantage.

In any case I think if a change as major as cover-saves were being introduced to fantasy we'd have heard at least a sniff of a rumour about it by now. I don't think its at all a good idea and I think its highly unlikely that it will happen.

Lord Inquisitor
25-05-2010, 16:58
honestly, if you have a hill thats large enough to block LoS, its going to look more like a steep-sided pyramid than a hill, unless you do genuinely want it to occupy the entire table.
I don't know about you, by my infantry are about an inch tall. That's not very big for a hill. Of course, if I want a hill that'll block LOS to my giant, it'll have to be very big indeed ... but he's a giant :eyebrows: Not being able to hide easily is rather part of the job description.


You would give a cover save against spells as well? I don't believe units get cover saves against psychic attacks in 40K do they? I don't think theres any possible justification for allowing cover against magic spells, its not like a wizard particularly has to "aim" a spell, he just unleashes it and watches the fun.
Yes! Certainly spells like magic missiles, a good solid wall should help. And yes, in 40K you get cover against any psychic attacks that cause wounds unless they specify otherwise. This may be a case of ducking out of sight and breaking the mental link rather than necessarily actually blocking a psychic bolt, but for the WFB comparison, certainly any psychic shooting attack (i.e. magic missile) allows cover saves unless specified.

In Fantasy, I'd be inclined to say cover against magic missiles but not other spells as a general rule - things like curse of years would obviously not allow cover saves.


The effect should be a greater scatter distance, perhaps +1D6 scatter representing decreased accuracy. If a huge rock falls on your head, the bush you're hiding behind likely wont be much use.
Agreed, again, 40K is the template for this. For a stone thrower, for example, one would calculate cover from the centre of the blast marker - so if it lands behind the wall you're hiding behind, no cover!


I don't think its at all a good idea and I think its highly unlikely that it will happen.
I think it's clear that it's not happening this edition but given the influence of 40K and War of the Ring I'm sure it was considered. The catch is that I don't think it could be easily implemented with the current army books without horrific levels of errata. Although it must be said that this is the biggest shakeup of rules in any edition I can think of since maybe 4th, so there's bound to be some serious edition rules clashes...