PDA

View Full Version : forests block LOS to large targets in 7th ed?



Selsaral
31-10-2006, 16:20
There was some discussion of this in the thread about hills but I wanted to start a new thread on this.

I have the new rulebook and I carefully read the parts about setting up terrain, line of sight, and large targets, but couldn't find any clarification at all about this.

Anyone know the rules on this?

mageith
31-10-2006, 16:27
There was some discussion of this in the thread about hills but I wanted to start a new thread on this.

I have the new rulebook and I carefully read the parts about setting up terrain, line of sight, and large targets, but couldn't find any clarification at all about this.

Anyone know the rules on this?
If terrain effects are not discussed in advance, the answer in the book is to use the model's eye view.

Selsaral
31-10-2006, 16:30
Ah, so there is a bit of actual LOS involved.

How do you personally handle it? Do you randomize each forest terrain feature when you set up the gaming field as to whether it blocks LOS to large targets? Or does the person who places it get to determine it? Do you have to be able to see a certain amount of the model over the trees or will even the tiniest visible speck allow targetting?

mageith
31-10-2006, 16:38
Ah, so there is a bit of actual LOS involved.

How do you personally handle it? Do you randomize each forest terrain feature when you set up the gaming field as to whether it blocks LOS to large targets? Or does the person who places it get to determine it? Do you have to be able to see a certain amount of the model over the trees or will even the tiniest visible speck allow targetting?


The discussion in the rulebook uses actual line of sight based on the highest tree in the woods terrain feature. In addition, it says be careful because even then players sighting down through a models eye will see better than in a real life battle.

If it came down to a tiny speck in our league it would be a roll off at best.

In addition all large targets are not the same size in relation to terrain. So no we don't decide in advance.

However, I was discussing a related question with an associate in the league last night.

Let's say that a dragon IS visible over a forest and a Bolt thrower is shooting at him. Would you give him soft cover, hard cover or no cover? Since he's behind the forest he is not visible and there's lots and lots of (virtual) trees between him and the bolt thrower. In other words is being behind a forest better protection that being IN a forest?

Gorbad Ironclaw
31-10-2006, 19:43
Using models eye view is really a terrible, terrible idea. It only encourages 'creative' modelling(look, a warmaster dragon on a 50mm base...) and suddenly gives you different ingame effects from something thats purely a modelling choice. Why is a dragon thats standing on 4 legs/crawling, better/easier to hide than a dragon model as if it's rearing up or flying?

We just have Woods block LoS to everything and be done with it. So much easier and clearer. And doesn't waste 20 minutes of game time while you find that perfect spot where your dragon is just out of LoS to that cannon. Until someone bumps into the table and suddenly it is...

mageith
31-10-2006, 20:07
Using models eye view is really a terrible, terrible idea.

:) Then don't forget to discuss how YOUR terrain works.

Gorbad Ironclaw
01-11-2006, 06:27
Oh, I don't. I just think that having models eye view as a guideline is a completly stupid idea. They introduced some decent terrain rules for 40k. I had really hoped that GW could produce something decent for WFB as well, sadly, they couldn't.

I'm perfectly happy to play terrain our way instead of how it is described in the rulebook tho, so it's not so much an issue for me. I just think it's a wasted opportunity to actually make terrain work well with the game.

Selsaral
01-11-2006, 12:56
I guess I am a bit dismayed it's so wide open. It's a huge issue too. It's a matter of life or death against skaven.

I also don't like actual LOS. As gorbad points out, the various poses of the models makes this extra flakey. Further, it's immediately broken when it comes to ogres versus man-sized models, as the rules make no distinction between them but LOS obviously does.

I am scared to say all forests automatically block line of sight to large targets...for some reason this seems too good. I am tempted to talk to my gaming group and suggest each piece of forest blocks LOS to large targets on a 4+ (this is how we did it in 6th ed too).

Your situation with a model standing behind a forest is interesting, mageith. I'd be inclined to give soft cover. Maybe I am confusing 6th and 7th ed, but in 6th ed there was a clear rule in the book that if you were standing behind a 'hedge' you'd get soft cover versus missile fire from the front. This seems to be a similar situation.

Thanks for the input guys. I'd welcome any more suggestions or stories about how you do it when you game.

Ender Shadowkin
02-11-2006, 23:19
We play forest block all line of sight. We have a terrain manifesto, that describes things like this, where scouts can hide, the hill los issue etc. It makes things a lot easiier if its written down somewhere. Plus we have a lot of terrain and some things (like ruins) need to all ways be clarified before a battle.

As far as a problem with hills blocking LOS . . . we've never had a problem. There should always be things to hide behind its part of the game, and remember it blocks the LOS from the large target as well so a dragon can not hit behind a forest from charges but then in turn charge anything over it. That would be weird.

Gorbad Ironclaw
03-11-2006, 07:29
I am scared to say all forests automatically block line of sight to large targets...for some reason this seems too good. I am tempted to talk to my gaming group and suggest each piece of forest blocks LOS to large targets on a 4+ (this is how we did it in 6th ed too).




Err, why is it to good? Large targets gets shot to bits already. Anyway, it's not entirely a blessing for them. It also mean you can hide from them behind terrain. And it's really quite nice to be able to hide from that dragon.

And are you rolling 4+ for each, or 4+ for the game. The first option seems potentially confusing, and the second option is just random.

Selsaral
03-11-2006, 16:48
Err, why is it to good? Large targets gets shot to bits already.


Yeah I am not sure. You're right, large targets do get decimated as it is. It's why my armies against skaven are all radically different than what I field against other armies. Jezzails constrain my troop choices more than anything else I have ever faced. I had always sucked-it-up and considered it the cost of doing business when facing skaven. Of course, after facing 10 armies in a row that feature no juicy targets for jezzails (shooting at beast herds with jezzails is quite the waste of points), my enemy stopped buying them all together.



Anyway, it's not entirely a blessing for them. It also mean you can hide from them behind terrain. And it's really quite nice to be able to hide from that dragon.


This is true, and a good point.



And are you rolling 4+ for each, or 4+ for the game. The first option seems potentially confusing, and the second option is just random.

In 6th ed, as each forest was placed, we'd roll to see if it blocked LOS to large targets. Similarly, when a hill or cliff was placed, we'd roll to see if any of the sides were impassible etc.

This was helpful, I am re-pondering my first inclination. Allowing forests to always block LOS to large targets might be a good balancing fact. It allows me to feel slightly more safe fielding large targets, and it allows my opponent to field jezzails without feeling like overkilling things.

Besides, most forests aren't that large, and while you can hide behind them your movement is simultaneously paralyzed.