The Galaxy is Just Packed!
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In the 5th ed rules, shooting section, where cover saves are explained, there is a list of exceptions and a pictured example (page 22 in the mini book).

In that example, it shows one model gaining cover from within area cover (I get that) and one model gaining cover from behind the area cover between two trees (I get that).

But the third model, who is also mostly behind the area cover, but not between the two trees, is not gaining any cover. I don't get that at all.

Is it because the LOS does not go through 2" of the area terrain? Or is it simply because the model is not between the two trees? The rules seem to imply this is the case. But then, why not just move those trees to the edges of the area terrain?

My thought is that "vertical" area terrain like a woods is essentially "cylindrical" in shape, and the trees you "don't see" extend throughout the piece of terrain and to the same height as the features that are there.

Yeah, I realize there is WYSIWYG LOS, and I can understand that for walls and ruins and such, but in this example it just doesn't make sense. especially since the guy between the two trees benefits from "invisible" trees but the guy on the edge does not.

Heck, a piece of green felt can certainly be an imaginary woods that extends upwards for 3-4 inches.

Anyway, I think that's the way I'm going to choose to play (at home, anyway).

Also, I'm assuming that a model that just happens to be placed behind one of the two "visible" trees still has an LOS to it, since it's all abstract, right? Argh - this is frustrating.

I'm curious if my thought is off here, and how others deal with this situation.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Johnson
United States
Bothell
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Duck!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bryanwinter wrote:
But the third model, who is also mostly behind the area cover, but not between the two trees, is not gaining any cover. I don't get that at all.


Uh because the rules say so? It's all abstracted anyway.

bryanwinter wrote:

Is it because the LOS does not go through 2" of the area terrain? Or is it simply because the model is not between the two trees? The rules seem to imply this is the case. But then, why not just move those trees to the edges of the area terrain?


As far as I can tell you can't rearrange items in area terrain on whim, only when moving into it to ease movement. It then says you have to place them back where they were originally or as close to as possible.

bryanwinter wrote:

Anyway, I think that's the way I'm going to choose to play (at home, anyway).


That's the beauty of games like this is that you can tweak them as you see fit (for home play).

bryanwinter wrote:

Also, I'm assuming that a model that just happens to be placed behind one of the two "visible" trees still has an LOS to it, since it's all abstract, right? Argh - this is frustrating.


Line of Sight is line of sight. So I believe no. On the other hand you don't target individual models, but units. So if all three of the space marines pictured in your example were in the same unit, they would all get a cover save.

I am very new to this game so I might be wrong.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Galaxy is Just Packed!
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cuzzle wrote:
As far as I can tell you can't rearrange items in area terrain on whim, only when moving into it to ease movement. It then says you have to place them back where they were originally or as close to as possible.


Sorry, what I mean was why not just design terrain in which the "stuff" is all the way to the edges?

Quote:
Line of Sight is line of sight. So I believe no. On the other hand you don't target individual models, but units. So if all three of the space marines pictured in your example were in the same unit, they would all get a cover save.


Good point!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mars
United States
Suisun City
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't have the book infront of me, but if I understand correctly what you are saying, then it is that area cover is determined by the -elements- of the cover... so if you have a base with trees on it, then LOS drawn between or through the trees is considered covered, not just over the base but outside the trees.

This prevents such things as a ruined building on a base that extends out an inch from the walls, such as though it was lined with a sidewalk. It would make sense that you would have cover behind the walls... not so much that you would from standing beyond a sidewalk.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Galaxy is Just Packed!
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FCSchmidt wrote:
I don't have the book infront of me, but if I understand correctly what you are saying, then it is that area cover is determined by the -elements- of the cover... so if you have a base with trees on it, then LOS drawn between or through the trees is considered covered, not just over the base but outside the trees.

This prevents such things as a ruined building on a base that extends out an inch from the walls, such as though it was lined with a sidewalk. It would make sense that you would have cover behind the walls... not so much that you would from standing beyond a sidewalk.


I see your point in terms of ruins and buildings. For those types of terrain, I have no trouble with 1-to-1 WYSIWYG.

but for very abstract terrain such as the trees example, they show a big base which is supposed to represent a woods, but only 2 trees in it define it as woods. For this type of terrain, my need for verisimilitude tells me that the whole area is covered in woods. This is compounded by the rules stating that, Essentially, the whole base is considered woods if you are in or touching the base, but otherwise it is only considered woods if you happen to be among the two defining elements.

the problem is they are trying to use the WYSIWYG LOS rules to also apply to cover, and that does not work in this case. I have absolutely no trouble with the concept that if you can see the model through the woods, you can see him. But, since that LOS goes through "abstract" terrain, then the cover also extends throughout that "abstract" terrain.

For "non-abstract" terrain, such as a half-wall or a ruined building or a crashed transport, then difference between cover and LOS is a bit more muddy. in your example, the sidewalk should not block LOS, but it probably should provide cover.

I guess this just emphasizes the importance of making sure you and your opponent agree on all LOS and cover aspects of your terrain beforehand.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Challis
United Kingdom
Hungerford
West Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The 5th Ed True LOS rules basicly don't work with area terrain, in particular trees. It was the big casualty in cover LOS rules from 4th. Luckily forests/jungle aren't used that much in 40k compared to Fantasy.

The upside from GW's perspective was that you can't just place down a circle of card and call it a hill or wood, or undergrowth, the 3d modelling of terrain matters, and you need to have proper terrain. It also really needs to be 30mm sized not 25mm.

All a good thing in terms of playing nice battles (I always had loads of scenery anyway - something of a collecting compulsion!). It just so happens that GW wanted to go into the terrain making business just as 5th came out...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.