Stupid Terrain rules!!

[Cloudscape_online]

Grr, argh. Stupid bloody terrain. The new rules for terrain suck. Previously I have been playing 4th ed 40K with 2nd ed veterans who prefer the old Line of sight rules. "If the model can actually see its' target, it can shoot it".

Last night I was playing with some 4th ed junkies and found that basically EVERYTHING bar troops and the table itself block line of sight.

Example 1; my leman Russ turret could see clear across a hill at a squad of Eldar jetbikes. From the turret there was a clear and unobstructed line of sight. I can't shoot them. WTF? I can SEE the bloody bikers, the turret operator can SEE the bloody Biel Tan bikers. What gives?

Sorry, the hill completely blocks line of sight. Fine...grumble, grumble.

Example 2; My demolisher is drawing a bead through a quite large gap in a line of trees, we're talking a 4" gap that I could drive a chimera through. What a I targeting? Another Biel Tan jetbike squad. No, sorry, I can't shoot them. WTFH!? I can ACTUALLY SEE THEM, What? What is it?

The base upon which the tree is mounted actually *represents* more trees than is actually shown.

You have got to be kidding me. If it was meant to have more trees on the base then why doesn't it? I don't see why I should get screwed over for their crappy modelling. This means I could get a box of GW trees, a pack of CDs glue one tree to the centre of each CD and effectively make a barricade of LOS blocking stupidity.

So my conclusions are these:
1: Everything except troops and the table itself block line of sight.
2: LOS as such does not really exist anymore.
3: WH40K is turning into a tabletop computer game, with icons that represent trees, troops, vehicles and buildings.

blegh, terrain.

Red out.

[Karhedron]

Different people have always played 40K in different ways. Hills in real life are often tens or hundreds of metres high and so would block LOS even to a Titan.

Given that the ground scale of 40K is wonky (to say the least) I have always played under the assumption that terrain features are only representative of features that may in fact be much larger.

Besides, blocking LOS and the balancing effect this has on firewpower vs close combat is one of the key things that balances the points costs of units. If you have a table with very little to block LOS, you would probably need to pay about twice as many points for shooty units like tanks.

[KhornateLord]

The simple thing is:

Your models can't hack down/move trees like real life, thus moving through a fully crowded wood would be bloody murder. Hence the base of the terrain acting as if it was a forrest. Also, model trees are expensive/hard to make.

Secondly as stated, if you had terrain 'realistic' you couldn't set models on your board properly, they'd move around and fall over.

Thirdly it would stop people making showpieces, and make people do stupid things like commando crawling wraithlords to stop them getting shot.

Anyway, the terrain rules are good the way they are, the old 2nd ed ones were good for skirmishes, but large scale battles need something more easy to use with large #s of models.

[Cloudscape_online]

Yes that is true, there does need to be a balance. Although I have noticed that 4th ed does swing very heavily towards HtH.

In fact, even shooty armies like Tau cannot avoid HtH effectively. They'll get maybe one volley of shots, before being assaulted and ripped apart.

The balance should be that if Tau were to come up against Tyranids, The tau would effectively inflict lots of damage on the first 2 turns, and then succumb to the Tyranid onslaught from turns 3-6.

On an open field the Tau should be causing pain from turns 1-3 and on a close terrain field, only getting shots off on turn 2, before being massacred.

[lord_blackfang]

All GW did was introduce a new type of terrain, "area terrain" which actually works exactly like forests already did in 3rd ed. "Solid" terrain pieces remain exactly the same as before.

Had you or your opponents actually read the book, this whole thread wouldn't have happened...

[mattjgilbert]

All GW did was introduce a new type of terrain, "area terrain" which actually works exactly like forests already did in 3rd ed. "Solid" terrain pieces remain exactly the same as before.

Had you or your opponents actually read the book, this whole thread wouldn't have happened...

Exactly. And it is up to you and your opponent what you want to classify as area terrain. In our club, the only thing we classify as area terrain is woods. Everything else is models eye-view (i.e. WYSIWYG). If terrain partially blocks LOS to a model they may be able to claim cover. All this is covered clearly in the rules.

[Cloudscape_online]

Had you or your opponents actually read the book, this whole thread wouldn't have happened...

Umm, my opponent was the manager of GW Middlesbrough and he knows the 4th ed inside out. Area terrain blocks line of sight if you want to see through it, not into it.

My thing is that everything blocks line of sight, except basic troops and the table itself. Everything is *representative* and common sense has no place in the new 40K. It is like a table-top based computer game.

Also WYSIWYG only applies to models, not terrain which is stupid too. Consistency is lacking.

[Karhedron]

Yes that is true, there does need to be a balance. Although I have noticed that 4th ed does swing very heavily towards HtH.

Actually with the new rules on Rapid Fire and defensive weapons for vehicles, 4th edition is less HtH and mroe shooty than 3rd edition was.

In fact, even shooty armies like Tau cannot avoid HtH effectively. They'll get maybe one volley of shots, before being assaulted and ripped apart.

I guess you have never been up against a competative Tau player. I played my Blood Angels against Tau yesterday and I managed to get one charge in the entire game!

The key to 4th edition is movement. Shooty armies are not meant to be static entities, especially not Tau. Forming a static gunline and trying to hose a CC army before they reach is a pretty much guaranteed way of having a dull game or getting thrashed.

The balance should be that if Tau were to come up against Tyranids, The tau would effectively inflict lots of damage on the first 2 turns, and then succumb to the Tyranid onslaught from turns 3-6.

The 4th edition rules encourage players to keep mooving their armies. Tau only stand and shoot at Nids for the first turn or so. Then they get back in their devilfish and move to a new location while the Crisis suits play hide-and-seek with the remaining Nids and Hammerheads pick off the big critters.

On an open field the Tau should be causing pain from turns 1-3 and on a close terrain field, only getting shots off on turn 2, before being massacred.

That is the whole point though, 40K is not meant to be played on an open field. A lot of players see the range of Tau guns and instantly think of an army that would like to play on a battlefield as flat as a football pitch. In fact a lot of Tau's abilities such as Seeker missiles, Jump Jets, marker lights and Smart missile systems really come into their own when there is terrain for the Tau to hide behind.

Mobility is king in 4th edition, not shooting or HtH.

[Gaebriel]

@Cloudscape_online

For me it sounds like you either play with too much terrain (the 25% guideline is pretty good), or treat any piece of terrain as infinitely high. Like in, as soon as LOS crosses a terrain base, it's blocked.

Try using a simple "shadow" rule. We say that any terrain piece you look over from an elevated position creates a shadow of 50% the length of the overlooked line where it blocks LOS... (actually a bit more elaborate, but you get the idea...)

We use a lot of area terrain, and use WYSIWYG only for special terrain pieces.

Meaning, for most pieces of terrain we declare the height class at the beginning of the game - that's not more difficult than keeping the terrain class (difficult/dangerous/impassable) in mind. Then we invented the "shadow"rule.

It's an additional complicacy, that's true - but as we e.g. use about 7,5" trees and only 2" (GW) hills it's easier. We just don't want to build everything to scale, because that would make some ridiculous hills where you couldn't place a model, and show me a piece of forest you can't catch a glimpse of models behind it...

btw. The line of sight is 6" into area terrain, more when looking from an elevated position

[mkerr]

I like area terrain. It puts an end to arguments that slow down the game.

When I play games outside my gaming group, I make everything on the board area terrain. Give it a shot.

[Cloudscape_online]

with area terrain, using th base to mark up cover is a great idea, but inso far as features like trees and rocks I seriously think that the WYSIWYG rule should apply when it comes to vehicles and monstous creatures attempting to shoot over area terrain. An eldar war walker should be able to shoot across the remains of a house at some advancing troops that are halfway across the battlefeld. It is understandable that if one of the walls were still standing and blocked line of sight, tough luck mr.war walker, no shot today, but otherwise he should be able to take the shots.

[rammo_73]

you know what I hate. I know this rule is probably to speed things up a bit but I hate that cover saves make you unable to use your armor save. Think about it, I'm hiding and the bullet or bomb or whatever hapens to go through the barier...and all of a sudden I'm butt naked.

Does it make sense at all? NO! If you cover save fails then you should be able to use your armor save, and it that fails you should be able to use your invulnerable save. I know that would make some games way way way too long but I mean come on! It only makes sense to have that as an option.

I know cover saves do help a lot of lesser units (such as IG or Orks) but for Space Marines the cover save is useless unless it's a ap 3 or better weapon. I rant and rave a lot don't I?

[mattjgilbert]

Also WYSIWYG only applies to models, not terrain which is stupid too. Consistency is lacking.

Not true. Where does it say that? A wall is area terrain then and you cannot shoot over it?

You define what elements of your scenery are considered area terrain. The rule book makes suggestions as to what these might be and what their size might be. Making things like forgeworld buildings area terrain means wasting £50 per building on something which you might just have well put a piece of card on the table for.

[Cloudscape_online]

I guess that's true. But to a certain degree GW want to speed up the game, and by making units choose a better save, it represents the combined effect of the cover, the units armour and any defensive training the troopers may have. Guardsmen getting a 4+ invulnerable save shows that they are using skills, stealth and a little bit of armour to help keep them alive.

Marines against an AP3 weapon only have the cover and their training to help them out. The armour would be completely screwed if it took a direct hit.

On the flip side, I think AP1 weapons should ignore invulnerable saves.

and yes matt, I agree with you. In future I will get some MDF and paint it green with the word Forest on it, it will save me time effort money and confusion, as both myself and my oponent will know exactly what the area terrain is. Hell, I'd even be able to transport it without any trouble too, lol.

[lord_blackfang]

with area terrain, using th base to mark up cover is a great idea, but inso far as features like trees and rocks I seriously think that the WYSIWYG rule should apply when it comes to vehicles and monstous creatures attempting to shoot over area terrain. An eldar war walker should be able to shoot across the remains of a house at some advancing troops that are halfway across the battlefeld. It is understandable that if one of the walls were still standing and blocked line of sight, tough luck mr.war walker, no shot today, but otherwise he should be able to take the shots.

And if the ruins are classed as Size 2 terrain it can, since a warwalker is a large model. I hate to be rude, but really, read the damn book.

[Cloudscape_online]

And if the ruins are classed as Size 2 terrain it can, since a warwalker is a large model. I hate to be rude, but really, read the damn book.

Page 21 right hand column, 2nd paragraph, "Note that although it is possible to see into Area Terrain, you cannot see through it even if it is less than 6" deep, hence if a unit is behind Area Terrain as tall as itself, and the spotter, they cannot be seen."

That is exactly what is said, and you are right.

The problem arises when it comes to representation of scenery. A tree on a base represents multiple trees of exactly the same height. How big can the base be? As big as you want. A destroyed building with one wall 4" high, and the rest at 1/2" high, counts the whole thing as 4" high.

I have read the book. Many times to make sure. the thing is that Area terrain completely blocks LOS equal to the height of the highest object on the base.
or is it just that the people at the GW where I play are just a bunch of ******?

[Adept]

Confusions and factor are what makes some aspects of terrain much more appealing in WHFB. A cover save is nice, but a 'to hit' penalty to shooting would make more sense. If the weapon hits, it hits, regardless of how well you are hiding. Cowering behind a rock makes it harder to get hit in the first place is all.

Unfortnately, this doesn't mesh too well with all the template weapons in 40K.

[lord_blackfang]

the thing is that Area terrain completely blocks LOS equal to the height of the highest object on the base.

I could be wrong, but that's not how I read it. It's not the actual height that matters but the size class.

In the book, under area terrain, it says "models classed as taller than..."

So it's the size class of the models and terrain that matters, not the actual height.

So a size 2 piece of area terrain will completely block LOS to all "normal-sized" models on the other side (or 6" inside) while only providing cover saves / obscurement to large models. A size 3 piece will block LOS to everything. A size 1 piece will only block LOS to small targets, grant cover to normal targets and won't have any effect on large targets at all.

[Wolflord Bloodangel]

Kids, this is why, before every game, you go over the table with your opponent and define everything.:
"This is a wall, 4+ cover save, dosnt block line of sight. This forest piece represents jungle, counts as size 3 area terrain, 5+ cover save. This is a size 2 hill..."

I love the current terrain rules as they just make the game so fun to play, as long as theres some communication between players

[gLOBS]

Where we play the only thing we ever consider area terrain is woods and building rubble. Everything else is LOS clear to target. Rubble generally dosnt make it taller than most infantry and tree bases are a must to have spaces for models and in wood assaults.

The hills we use are never area terrain. If it is a big hill/plateau it will generally be 4-8" tall. Hell one table at our store has a 1' Canyon running through the middle.

We also have alot of city terrain. Some of our buildings hit the 3-4' mark due to our love for weekly necromunda fighting.

The last battle I fought in on sunday was a 3k on a 4'X12' board with 24" deployment zones on the short board ends. A mad rush to the middle with infiltrators and deepstrikers fighting til the main force gets there.