Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Fortifications are defined as purpose-built cover, which usually includes such things as trenches, crenelations, bunkers, that sort of thing. But what if we're talking about obscurement because the models are partially behind a cliff face, sturdy building, or some other impenetrable structure. Wouldn't that offer the same level of protection?
I would think that you would have to agree with your opponent about these sorts of things before the game.
In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.
Ruins are identified as being 4+ cover as are most other items like Hills and Forests. Thats what you suggestions seem to fit into. the 3+ is really you standing behind a wall that is designed to protect you from incoming fire. But wickywacky is right, it can be whatever you and your opponenet decide you want it to be.
<a href="http://www.liquidgeneration.com" target="_blank"><img
I guess my real beef here is that GW is trying to do away with 3+ cover almost entirely. They named a few things that don't make very good cover (6+, 5+), and then *everything* else seems to be 4+. The finish it off by throwing fortifications in as a courtesy and leave it entirely up to interpretation, but if everything but a fortress is said to be 4+, we can't really use it at all.
This seems to me to be doing away with a big part of the game, which is careful positioning of units behind cover. It simply doesn't matter anymore when any model that can see 1% of your hull or a single body part of your squad members, and then shoot at the unit as if it were almost anywhere else on the field.
This change may have made the game faster and easier to evaluate than the old 25% rule, but it also makes games not as interesting from my perspective.
Sounds fair, except that true line of sight prevents them from actually poking their heads up to fire.
And that is a decidedly weak & fluffy excuse for the loss of one of the most important strategies for a shooting unit.
/shrug. No excuses are needed. The rule is written, it is abstract, it means what it says. The original complaint is equally invalid on the same grounds. 'Making sense' is in no way a requirement of the abstract rules set =). If we're going to start picking rules apart for making sense, there are much more nonsensical things in the game to go after than the fact that military bunkers and entrenchments offer better cover than civilian buildings or natural formations!
The fluff based assessment is merely an example of how it can make sense for some points of view, that all pieces of cover impenetrable to small arms fire do not neccessarily offer the same level of protection to a combatant.
I'm not at odds with the rule because it doesn't make sense. I'm saying this because they dumbed down the game, and I want to know if anyone cares.
That statement is an appeal to common sense. It manipulates the reader to the conclusion; "My real world sensibilities say they're comparable, therefore the rule that says they're not is a bad rule."Wouldn't that offer the same level of protection?
Backing one's own assertion with an appeal to common sense and then dismissing alternative viewpoints as 'weak' without substantiation and 'fluffy' in a derogatory context is fundamentally inconsistent.
The argument I'm seeing is that 'hiding in cover' is now gone from the game as a strategy for shooting units, because some pieces of cover that perhaps used to be called 3+ are now 4+? The upgrading of the vast majority of common terrain pieces from 5+ to 4+ seems to be nothing but a boon for shooting armies that need or use cover. Condensing more pieces of terrain into a common category reduces the dependence of certain armies, e.g., guard, on getting favorable terrain to have a competitive game. In 4th ed, a ruins board was vastly superior to guard than a forest board. A guard gunline in a 3+ trench was nearly unbeatable. In my opinion, eliminating an element that allowed terrain to heavily rebalance the game in favor certain armies, is not a negative 'dumbing down' of the rules, but a positive normalization of the tournament playing field.