Wh40k 10th Edition Terrain in 10th

[killersquid]

Nothing about Ruins blocking Line of Sight anymore, just granting cover. I wonder if that sort of mechanic will be in play somewhere else. 

[Nephaston]

Or a gamey way of conveying that power armoured units won't even bother with cover if they know whoever is firing at them doesn#t have the stopping power.

 

Lasguns? Nah mate, I'll just keep standing I'm so contemptuous of these silly mortals, Bolt Rifles? Ope, better start ducking.

[Khornestar]

3 minutes ago, killersquid said:

Nothing about Ruins blocking Line of Sight anymore, just granting cover. I wonder if that sort of mechanic will be in play somewhere else. 

[MARK0SIAN]

10 minutes ago, Osteoclast said:

it sounds like it’s just a roundabout way of saying cover can’t get you to a 2+ save? 

Yeah I think that’s really what’s behind it. I don’t mind it as a rule, I totally get why it’s there, it just seemed a bit too much of a fudge in terms of reasoning but Jaxom has explained it well so I can get on board with that reasoning. 
 

If it means everyone and their dog doesn’t need to be given -1ap on their guns then I’m all for it.

[Lemondish]

I don't know why, but terrain rules always feel like they're the hardest for me to imagine interacting with in a game. In 9th edition I needed to actually play with the new terrain rules to really see how they worked, I couldn't come to any real conclusions from just reading them. Knowing that's how my experience was in 9th I'm kind of expecting it to be the case here, though I do like everything I see.

 

I like that units can position themselves for a nice offensives boost rather than it just being a common design to throw AP around the room to counter how common cover bonuses were. Feels more interactive on the surface.

 

I like that the benefits of cover is now capped.

 

I like that obscuring appears to just always be active for ruins, no matter their height.

 

Not the most exciting article we've had, but great information anyway. I am saddened to see that we may not get an article tomorrow given how this one wrapped up.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Lemondish

[Dr. Clock]

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

How does the exact same object effect a shot that is better at penetrating more than it effects a shot that is less good at penetrating? 

Agree with the eloquent jaxom above, but also mechanically:

 

In effect, cover for heavy armoured units is only relevant against weapons that are already designed to penetrate some of that armour (AP-1 or better), since as soon as there is AP on the gun you are gaining some benefit in not reducing your roll the full amount. But in-setting it appears that heavy armour is already hardened to 'non-piercing' attacks enough that no Astartes or similar bothers to kneel behind the wall unless big guns are present. Makes plenty of sense IMO.

 

Even without the 3+ caveat, this issue would exist when considering 2+ save units, who can benefit from cover only to the extent that it reduces incoming AP because their save rolls can't actually improve within the bounds of game balance. This became forcefully apparent in the Armour of Contempt period.    

 

It looks like the intent here is to demonstrate that chilling in cover is more relevant to light than heavy units, which is as it should be. With AP going down in general and transitioning all cover benefits to an improvement on saves, there's a very dangerous potential for 'army-wide 2+ saves in cover' that they've avoided with this simple caveat.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

41 minutes ago, Warhead01 said:

 Funsies? Heck, I just don't want inferior products. Not when I can create what I want and am more happy with it. 
I have building ruins that are 10 to 12 inches tall and 10 to 12 inches wide in some cases. This is the way.  I know I made a strong opening statement, these do need a little more umph, I would agree. 
Makes for a better looking table and a better game than squat little bunkers, ruins and buildings.  And I will add that a few game shops I know and have ben to also have or had large buildings from 10 to 12 inches tall. ( Some were larger. ) Not on every table but they were in the terrain pool at those shops. 
I guess that's just a long time player thing but it also reflects poorly on the hobby as a whole that crappy tables are the norm and newer player have to just accept them as the norm. 
It's very sad you don't see better buildings and ruins at your games.  I think it's funny too because one draw for players to play in a shop, I would think, would be cool terrain. I wouldn't go to a theme part to visit a parking lot. 
I do also hope that terrain improvements go hand in hand with , possibly better, terrain rules. 
Not trying to aggravate you. It's just one of those subjects that give me the eye twitch. 

++Edited++ 
Picture was too small. 
 

6+ inch tall terrain isn’t that uncommon but terrain that allows models to stand 6+ inches above the table is a big difference.

 

but I agree,  large buildings that tower over the battlefield look much better than 1 and 2 level bunkers and ruins.

[Skywrath]

Most of this seems sensible. So far GW are keeping to their word that this edition will be less killier, with the notable exception being the twin linked aggressor gauntlets. Keen to see the other rules, although I note that in this article they didn't include dense cover, does that mean hit modifiers are removed now?

[Marshal Mittens]

Lots of words, but I think so many people try and game their intention that GW writes more so RAW is more clear, since people will try very hard to find loopholes through very creative interpretation of simple and clear, but short, rules.

[Zoatibix]

Dr Clock has put it more eloquently than I would have, but while the Benefit of Cover may not be too logical, it does make sense from a balance point of view. 
 

 

[The Unseen]

Forests not blocking LoS, only ruins- Bad

 

Cover having no distinctions it's always +1 save- Bad. A shrub and a reinforced defense wall do the same thing mechanically

 

Plunging fire- OK? 6" up is pretty high, and does make putting stuff up there worth doing, cool call back to Cities of Death

 

Just putting a blanket "3+ saves can't ever get to a 2+ in cover" is logically both stupid and screams that maybe cover shouldn't add to saves if you can't balance it

[DemonGSides]

7 minutes ago, The Unseen said:

Forests not blocking LoS, only ruins- Bad

 

Cover having no distinctions it's always +1 save- Bad. A shrub and a reinforced defense wall do the same thing mechanically

 

Plunging fire- OK? 6" up is pretty high, and does make putting stuff up there worth doing, cool call back to Cities of Death

 

Just putting a blanket "3+ saves can't ever get to a 2+ in cover" is logically both stupid and screams that maybe cover shouldn't add to saves if you can't balance it

 

Nowhere in the Woods does it say it doesn't block LoS, it says that any unit within AUTOMATICALLY has Cover.

If you can't see a unit, you can't see a unit.  Ruins were weird because you were playing whackamole with swiss cheese.  Forests will give cover, and if your forest is so dense you can't see a unit through the trees, that unit is fully blocked LOS; woods don't AUTOMATICALLY break LoS, which makes sense.

You're wrong about the balance stuff but you're already mad so no reason to discuss.

[Stupidity]

Pretty standard stuff except Plunging Fire and no 2+ saves from cover. 

Plunging Fire Is alright I guess. Seems like improved accuracy would be better than armor penetration but maybe they want to avoid that for some good reason. 

No 2+ saves from cover makes sense logically and balance wise. As others have said, if this helps GW make AP rarer than its worth the price.  Kind of a mild Nerf to the Stealth trait. Hopefully if it still exists it goes back to be being 12".

Edited April 20, 2023 by Stupidity

[Sea Creature]

Looks like more than just infantry will benefit since some of the rules refer to the model, not infantry model.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Sea Creature

[Lemondish]

20 minutes ago, Stupidity said:

Plunging Fire Is alright I guess. Seems like improved accuracy would be better than armor penetration but maybe they want to avoid that for some good reason. 

 

I like that it basically just counters being in cover, and requires better positioning and the opportunity cost of staying put.

 

It also ensures that the bonus can be applied to most units rather than encountering issues with stacking since a bonus to accuracy can already come from the new heavy weapon ability. In your suggestion for an accuracy boost you would encounter some not so fun situations where getting in a tower wouldn't matter compared to staying on the ground.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Lemondish

[Emperor Ming]

Glad the terrain rules got tidied up

 

Wont miss dense terrain

[The Unseen]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Nowhere in the Woods does it say it doesn't block LoS, it says that any unit within AUTOMATICALLY has Cover.

If you can't see a unit, you can't see a unit.  Ruins were weird because you were playing whackamole with swiss cheese.  Forests will give cover, and if your forest is so dense you can't see a unit through the trees, that unit is fully blocked LOS; woods don't AUTOMATICALLY break LoS, which makes sense.

You're wrong about the balance stuff but you're already mad so no reason to discuss.

No forest you'll actually put down on a tabletop is going to actually completely block LoS, it'd be nearly impossible to actually use on the table, because we all know how a couple scattered trees on a base could actually be used to represent a dense overgrown forest that people can still walk through and tanks could still force a path through. I'm just tired of "put down a couple ruins or large L-block walls in the center of your board or else its a complete shooting gallery" being how terrain works. It will again relegate forests to being basically never used over ruins. Which leads to samey terrain being heavily pushed and wilderness battles being shooting galleries without weird hills.

 

I'm fine with ruins blocking LoS, because GW terrain especially is really bad at it, and trying to shoot through a window, an open door, and then out a hole the other side of a building is dumb even if it would theoretically be possible. But if your forest isn't a single strip of trees, you aren't seeing through it very far. Other wargames handle it just fine, if you're in the trees, you can be seen but are in cover, and can see out without penalty if your within X inches of the edge, but if your behind the trees (or sometimes X inches inside) LoS is blocked. You aren't shooting a guy through 100 yards of thick woods, no matter how badass you or your scope is, because there is literally a solid wall of wood from every angle at that point. 

 

[Aarik]

I like these rules a lot, they seem much simpler and more intuitive for the most part.  I would have liked woods to not be able to be shot through (as opposed to in and out of) the same way as ruins though.  Having dense enough woods to actually block LOS would make it very impractical to put models in them.  I would have rather being able to abstract it a bit more.

[Dark Legionnare]

As someone who often has urban-center fights. (Sample pic from a 30K game) These seem like fun & "enough-features without being overbearing" rules so far. Final execution upon release is the acid test of course...

 

Hopefully GW can contain themselves and everything outside this previewed "box" isn't a mess

Edited April 20, 2023 by Dark Legionnare

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, The Unseen said:

Forests not blocking LoS, only ruins- Bad

 

Cover having no distinctions it's always +1 save- Bad. A shrub and a reinforced defense wall do the same thing mechanically

 

Plunging fire- OK? 6" up is pretty high, and does make putting stuff up there worth doing, cool call back to Cities of Death

 

Just putting a blanket "3+ saves can't ever get to a 2+ in cover" is logically both stupid and screams that maybe cover shouldn't add to saves if you can't balance it

a shrub isn't cover.

if everything blocked LoS several entire factions would be thoroughly screwed.

[Montford]

5 hours ago, Khornestar said:

 

I am VERY happy they addressed the windows / doors issue specifically.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

on the subject of 'woods' one person mentioned how a few trees on a base is an abstraction of thicker woods, to enable play, i feel like calling them woods really is inaccurate.

unless your 'woods' are taking up most of a table quarter they're not really woods. they're a stand of trees, a copse or a stand, or even a grove, but not remotely 'woods' i think spreading a handful of trees on bases around a table is a good way to represent a battle taking place in a woodland or jungle environment.

lets take the 10th reveal trailer. lots of trees, they are fighting in a woodland/jungle, but 2-3 trees does not block anyone's LOS realistically, especially if they're not coniferous trees that are extremely close packed.

TLDR- a small grove of fairly spaced out trees doesn't block LoS and maybe GW needs to rename 'woods' to 'groves' or 'copse' to eliminate confusion.

[Interrogator Stobz]

These rules look super intuitive. As an immersion player they rock.

After a couple of Editions hurting my brain this will be like fresh air.

[Stupidity]

7 hours ago, Lemondish said:

I like that it basically just counters being in cover, and requires better positioning and the opportunity cost of staying put.

It also ensures that the bonus can be applied to most units rather than encountering issues with stacking since a bonus to accuracy can already come from the new heavy weapon ability. In your suggestion for an accuracy boost you would encounter some not so fun situations where getting in a tower wouldn't matter compared to staying on the ground.

Good point with the counter cover, i would probably like it more if it was just units above 6' ignore cover. But I'm not aware of any tenth bonus to hit (Besides oath of moment). They seem to be avoiding bonuses to hit from what little they've revealed.  Accuracy bonuses come in many shapes. Such as reroll 1's to hit. Which would probably be enough for plunging fire. 

[Lemondish]

32 minutes ago, Stupidity said:

Good point with the counter cover, i would probably like it more if it was just units above 6' ignore cover. But I'm not aware of any tenth bonus to hit (Besides oath of moment). They seem to be avoiding bonuses to hit from what little they've revealed.  Accuracy bonuses come in many shapes. Such as reroll 1's to hit. Which would probably be enough for plunging fire. 

 

That's a great point - I took 'accuracy bonus' to mean strictly +1 to hit, but you're right - anything that affects the to hit roll in a beneficial way is an accuracy bonus, so they wouldn't have had to go with that.

However, I do like this a lot. It's simple and effective, and requires committing to it via positioning to have an impact, which carries its own opportunity costs.