Hey all. How does LOS work when shooting through a piece of area terrain like woods. Can you see into/through it but it’s light cover? Or are we looking past individual trees on the base or something?

My group will be on the verge of you cannot see through a forest base plate. If anyone is in the base plate they will have light or heavy cover. If they are on the “forward” edge of the base, it’s as if they have cover but without the enemy being obstructed. Same rules as a barricade.

The RR seems to treat forests like anything else in terms of LOS and cover. I.e. Use true LOS and calculate based on amount of mini obscured.

Im pretty sure only holes and trenches have any wording that explicitly calls out it should be treated differently in terms of determining cover.

However/Unfortunately, the demo game Alex Davy was recorded playing at (gencon I think?) suggests that forests might work the same way as holes/trenches in terms of just needing to be in the area terrain.

I think it’s another omission in the RR they’ll want to cover quickly.

There were indications that seemed to suggest that movement in a “forest space” would be best if you could move the trees to allow ease of movement. So, I’m saying that, based on one of the first steps of setup, you would agree on any specific terrain rules during the appropriate section of set up.

My biggest complaint with other wargames is that my opponents would be able to justify seeing through all sorts of terrain while I am shy and would give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and tell them they were concealed.

I prefer games like x wing and armada where obstacles are defined by obvious bases and you can always use a laser to determine los. This is why every terrain piece I use has a base and I will assume that the base counts as terrain for los rules. We will have to define how high the terrain counts as.

For example: everything has a base here to make things simple (the tie striker doesn't have a landing pad yet). This way there won't be any more "I can see you but you can't see me shenanigans that I've experienced with Warhammer.

Yeah I’m still confused. Even if shooting at the unit in woods is determined by measuring past individual trees it seems odd how to determine cover when shooting out. As in if the squad leader is touching one tree but has to measure through another the enemy gets cover? Better to treat the whole base like one big tree I guess but that’s not rules as written so I guess it’s each tree

I’ll put trees on bases on forest templates to be safe.

Quote

The most common type of terrain on the battlefield, area terrain, includes woods, tall grass, rivers, and the ruined shells of blownout buildings.

This type of terrain is sometimes built into the battlefield itself, but is often represented by a large, flat scenic base dotted with decorative three-dimensional terrain elements (such as trees) that can be removed to accommodate the movement and placement of minis.

It is easy to determine the boundaries of terrain if it is mounted on a base of its own, but some battlefields are more complex. If players wish to delineate an area of terrain that does not have a clear boundary, they may choose a number of terrain pieces and draw an imaginary line around the outer geometry of those terrain (from a top-down perspective) to determine where the area of terrain begins and ends. (RRG, page 8; see also the cover example, on page 22.)

No, you don't measure based on individual trees - it's the whole area encapsulating the trees, you can even remove the trees themselves for convenience if necessary.

A unit whose leader is touching or inside the area can shoot out freely*, a unit shooting into or through the area treats it as light or heavy cover (depending on what type of cover it was agreed to provide during setup). In any case, the individual trees don't block line of sight, and the entirety of the area provides cover and possibly difficult terrain.

Quote

*If the attacking unit leader’s base is touching a piece of terrain, that piece of terrain cannot cause a mini in the defender to be obscured. (RRG, page 22.)

(Which might bug people - I can put my unit leader just toeing a forest and thereby completely ignore it - but keep in mind because of coherency, if my unit leader is toeing the terrain, I could put the rest of the squad a full speed 1 move into it. I may or may not actually do that, but in order for the terrain to differentiate, the coherency and movement rules would have to adjust - since movement only cares about the unit leader, the terrain has to as well. Houserule as you see fit - just be mindful of what you're breaking before you decide to break it.)

I asked this a while back, in part because the rules also stated that woods can have movable trees to aid model placement. For this reason I lean towards not letting such movable objects in area terrain affect LoS.

That said, I am in favour of treating the entire area as blocking LoS if its between two units.

37 minutes ago, svelok said:

No, you don't measure based on individual trees - it's the whole area encapsulating the trees, you can even remove the trees themselves for convenience if necessary.

A unit whose leader is touching or inside the area can shoot out freely*, a unit shooting into or through the area treats it as light or heavy cover (depending on what type of cover it was agreed to provide during setup). In any case, the individual trees don't block line of sight, and the entirety of the area provides cover and possibly difficult terrain.

Can you point out where you see that on page 8?

I’m aware of the section you quoted. All that section actually says that I can see is how you determine what area counts as forest/water/grass etc. It doesn’t provide any rules about how that area provides cover as far as I read it.

The only terrain rules I can see that are different from the base rules of needing to be obscured are holes/trenches. They explicitly call out a difference in how you figure it out.

Since one section explicitly calls a difference out, if another section doesn’t do so, we have to assume it uses the basic rules.

Now, despite what I’m saying above, I agree with you that’s how they are going to work in terms of cover. However, the only supporting point in the RR is the example you pointed out on page 22. The actual rules should explicitly cover it as well though. Don’t leave any ambiguity, especially since one section calls out the difference it has.

It also doesn’t cover LOS, which gets messy when you can move stuff around. It should explicitly cover how they consider LOS to work with area terrain.

9 minutes ago, Thoras said:

The only terrain rules I can see that are different from the base rules of needing to be obscured are holes/trenches. They explicitly call out a difference in how you figure it out.

That difference being:

Quote

Depressions in the battlefield like blast holes, craters, and trenches can provide trooper minis with cover, but are unique in that they only provide cover to minis that are fully within that terrain. (RRG page 9)

As opposed to the normal terrain rules, which apply to pieces of terrain that are between two units, without either unit necessarily being within it.

But to spell it all out step by step:

Quote

The player traces an imaginary line from the center of the base of the attacker’s unit leader to the center of the base of a mini in the defending unit. If the imaginary line crosses either a piece of terrain or another unit’s base, that mini is obscured. (RRG page 22)

In our case, the imaginary line would cross a piece of terrain - the forest area - so the defending minis are obscured.

Quote

If at least half of all of the defender’s minis are obscured, that unit has cover. The type of cover that unit has is determined by the object that is obscuring the minis, as follows:

» If the obscured minis are obscured by custom terrain, that unit has the cover that the custom terrain provides. (RRG page 22)

The defending unit is obscured by custom terrain, so we have the cover the forest provides. We'll have agreed during setup whether that's light or heavy, and play accordingly.

I assume what's throwing you is this bit:

Quote

Whether or not a piece of terrain provides cover varies from miniature to miniature. As a general rule, terrain that blocks line of sight to half or more of a mini provides cover, while terrain that blocks less than half of a mini does not. This means that trooper minis will frequently enjoy the benefits of cover, while vehicles often will not. (RRG page 8)

But this isn't saying what I think you think it's saying.

This section addresses the fact that because different minis are different shapes and sizes, whether or not they have cover is going to vary, even for the same piece of terrain; and it tells that, in general, if 51% of the mini is blocked by the terrain, it has cover. What it doesn't say is "when attacking, check if 51% of the mini is behind terrain - if it's not, it doesn't get cover." That's never stated in the rules, and indeed would be violated by the example on page 22, as well as the fact that it wouldn't line up with the rules on Line of Sight, which detail "blocked" line of sight as a binary state - either blocked, or any part of the miniature is visible.

The rules say that players should agree what cover different pieces of terrain provide during setup; and that cover is granted based on the invisible line from base to base. The section on half or more specifically addresses whether the same piece of terrain provides cover to two different miniatures - does this barricade give heavy cover to AT-STs or AT-RTs or Airspeeders? No, because it doesn't block half the models. It does provide cover to trooper minis, because we agreed that it does during setup and as exampled in the table.

My local gaming group is still arguing this too. I’m used to the idea that a piece of area terrain cannot be shot through but there is nothing to suggest this at all.

The consensus in our area is that

1) a unit leader touching the forest base anywhere means the unit shoots without penalty.

2) shooting anyone inside the forest base or through the forest base counts as the target being in cover.

3) individual models can have their Los blocked by being behind a specific tree. Thus can’t be killed.

Even though it seems a bit wierd we can’t see anything that changes the idea that individual trees/objects in the area terrain block Los. The best I can think of is to put my trees on bases to make that Los blocking effect clearer.

I think this section of rules is really poorly done and the fact that designers are talking about moving trees around suggests they never intended to be played as outlined above but that’s raw, even if it’s wierd.

I think "true line of sight" is dumb, and wish they had used a more game-friendly method like base-to-base measurements. That way a line from a base to base that passes through a terrain base can be easily judged as obstructed/heavy/light cover as appropriate.

Effective game mechanics trump "realism" for me.

I don't think trees block los when in area terrain. The rules state that you can (re)move trees for model placement - that being the case, a player could place their minis in a way to remove los blocking trees, which is totally broken. For this reason I don't think they block los as it opens itself to abuse.

Ultimately do what works for you and your opponent. But it seems like the easiest option is if you are in area terrain (I’m thinking about mainly forests here) you get cover and can shoot clearly out.

If the area terrain is in the way either block LOS, bump cover up (IE if in forest is cover 1, shooting all the way trough is cover 2), or just grant cover X.

I think your plots of forest/jumble/plants pieces are for light cover that doesn’t block LOS... while you’d mega trees, rocks, and building are your heavy LOS blocking pieces.

So when im playing, it’s gonna be the following:

1. In “plant” terrain get cover 1 & can shoot clear out.

2. If shooting all the way through “plants” give cover 2.

** Ruins - I would treat this as just a bombed out building... so while in you get cover 2 & can shoot out but for shooting completely through it’s a cover 2 with LOS blocking characteristics.

If someone is dead set against it, we’ll just spend a minute to discuss and agree/compromise or roll off, I’m not gonna flip the table over area terrain rules... just need an agreement BEFORE starting.

IMNSHO

**** Smartphone so I don’t know why my text changes size.

23 hours ago, svelok said:

This section addresses the fact that because different minis are different shapes and sizes, whether or not they have cover is going to vary, even for the same piece of terrain; and it tells that, in general, if 51% of the mini is blocked by the terrain, it has cover. What it doesn't say is "when attacking, check if 51% of the mini is behind terrain - if it's not, it doesn't get cover." That's never stated in the rules, and indeed would be violated by the example on page 22, as well as the fact that it wouldn't line up with the rules on Line of Sight, which detail "blocked" line of sight as a binary state - either blocked, or any part of the miniature is visible.

The rules say that players should agree what cover different pieces of terrain provide during setup; and that cover is granted based on the invisible line from base to base. The section on half or more specifically addresses whether the same piece of terrain provides cover to two different miniatures - does this barricade give heavy cover to AT-STs or AT-RTs or Airspeeders? No, because it doesn't block half the models. It does provide cover to trooper minis, because we agreed that it does during setup and as exampled in the table.

I agree that there is nothing preventing a model from having cover just because its not covered by 50% or more of terrain. We know that isn't true for a variety of reasons(suppression, cover keyword, etc).

"...that cover is granted based on the invisible line from base to base."

This point in particular may be our bone of contention. I disagree with this statement. The section of the RR on page 22 is in direct contradiction with the base terrain rules. It says cover is provided if the line from base to base crosses terrain. The base terrain rules say that in general terrain only provides cover if 50% or more of a mini is obscured. I believe the intent of page 22 is to apply the 50% rule, not go off a strict base to base comparison.

Lets continue with barricades as the example. Lets also pretend for a second that barricades don't have a rule specifically calling out the fact that they don't provide vehicles with cover. What rule is causing you to apply the 50% rule to the barricades, to prevent an AT-RT from getting its cover? Barricades don't tell you to apply the 50% rule anywhere in their entry, so why would you use it here but not for forests?

Generally area terrain is meant to be abstract.... here be a forest (represented by say 3 trees) vs actually fully modeling the forest.

The debate isn't about how people will actually manage to play the game in person Indomitable(I wouldn't take half the stances I do in these debates in real life, I'm a reasonable person), its about what the rules as written actually say and how they interact. I love a good rules debate, but I'll err towards the side of enjoying the game when actually playing.

I'd hope everyone can hand wave and find reasonable ways to play when actually in person, this is just about getting the rules as unambiguous as possible, so that you never have to have these conversations in person.

13 hours ago, Indomitable said:

Generally area terrain is meant to be abstract.... here be a forest (represented by say 3 trees) vs actually fully modeling the forest.

Easiest way to do that is to use green/brown felt cut into blobs. That's how my FLGS indicates the area of a forest, then we place a couple of miniatures trees in the blob for appearance's sake.

The thing that bothers me with the base to base line system is for attacking with tall vehicles. Lets say an air speeder is just an inch away from a barricade and is shooting at some stormies out in the open at range three. The base to base line goes through the barricade so the storm troopers get benefit of the cover even though the air speeder is basically looming over the barricade and line of sight is not blocked at all. Doesnt make any sense to me. Am I wrong?

7 hours ago, dukncuver said:

The thing that bothers me with the base to base line system is for attacking with tall vehicles. Lets say an air speeder is just an inch away from a barricade and is shooting at some stormies out in the open at range three. The base to base line goes through the barricade so the storm troopers get benefit of the cover even though the air speeder is basically looming over the barricade and line of sight is not blocked at all. Doesnt make any sense to me. Am I wrong?

No, that's a reasonable concern. And the reasonable answer is to allow speeders or tall units to ignore cover than is shorter than them (and in return, they can't take cover behind low cover). So for example, you might define a unit that has "Height: 1" or "Altitude: 1"; that means that the unit ignores cover that height or less and can shoot over cover that height or less. That way the exact height of the model and exact height of the terrain doesn't really matter; it's a fixed definition -- most terrain might have Height 0 but a wall might be Height 1, a tall stand of trees might be Height 2 and a tall building might be Height 3.

@dukncuver You're not wrong, but trying to accurately represent such situations in a wargame can lead to complicated tables and significantly slower gameplay. An Airspeeder an inch away from a barricade would almost have to be either in a steep dive or flying really low in order to be firing at a unit that close with its main guns, as a 1:48 scale means 1 inch is 4 feet. So to facilitate quicker gameplay and keep players from having to consult tables every few minutes miniatures games tend to abstract cover and other complicated issues. That's part of the reason FFG uses their custom dice rather than normal d8s and d6s, even though they could represent chances to hit as a 3+ for Red dice with no surge conversion, or 2+ for with surge conversion, with an 8 being a crit. Looking at dice and going "Hit symbol, Blank, Blank, Crit, Surge" is much quicker once players learn the symbols and doesn't require charts.

This isn't supposed to be an exact simulation, it's just a game so there's going to be oddities. I've been playing Bolt Action for a few years, where the oddities are more noticeable, but I've found that I tend to enjoy the game more when I just accept it.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@dukncuver You're not wrong, but trying to accurately represent such situations in a wargame can lead to complicated tables and significantly slower gameplay. An Airspeeder an inch away from a barricade would almost have to be either in a steep dive or flying really low in order to be firing at a unit that close with its main guns, as a 1:48 scale means 1 inch is 4 feet. So to facilitate quicker gameplay and keep players from having to consult tables every few minutes miniatures games tend to abstract cover and other complicated issues. That's part of the reason FFG uses their custom dice rather than normal d8s and d6s, even though they could represent chances to hit as a 3+ for Red dice with no surge conversion, or 2+ for with surge conversion, with an 8 being a crit. Looking at dice and going "Hit symbol, Blank, Blank, Crit, Surge" is much quicker once players learn the symbols and doesn't require charts.

This isn't supposed to be an exact simulation, it's just a game so there's going to be oddities. I've been playing Bolt Action for a few years, where the oddities are more noticeable, but I've found that I tend to enjoy the game more when I just accept it.

I can understand barricades and other low cover coming into play between an air speeder and trooper very close together on either side, but my scenario has the troopers far away. The cover should not come into play at all. Large units like the at-st and air speeder should have some advantageous trade-off to being so exposed.

@dukncuver ah fair enough, I misunderstood.

Mymain point still stands, this is not meant to be a simulation, it's a game. There are going to be weird situations that don't make sense. With forests the type of trees would change the height, time of season would change if there are leaves to block line of sight, etc etc. Some situation is going to be missed and good enough for 90% of the situations is good enough for a game.

22 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@dukncuver ah fair enough, I misunderstood.

Mymain point still stands, this is not meant to be a simulation, it's a game. There are going to be weird situations that don't make sense. With forests the type of trees would change the height, time of season would change if there are leaves to block line of sight, etc etc. Some situation is going to be missed and good enough for 90% of the situations is good enough for a game.

I agree that having rules for every little contingency would bog the game down. It's just that I like this game because many of the rules are streamlined while remaining intuitive. The fact that a crate 20 feet away(in scale) from a ground troop could provide cover from an obviously elevated attack is not intuitive at all. I know I am beating this concept into the ground but I am happy with every other rule except the base-base cover mechanic so I complain about it constantly. The way I would change it is so that if LOS is 100% unblocked by anything, than the defender gets no cover.

@dukncuver Fair, but I contend that having to assign heights in addition to "Hard or Soft" to all terrain (which is probably the easiest solution) such as forrests of various types of trees could take much longer to determine at the start of the game with random terrain than just determining "Hard or Soft". The next thing would be to have to declare altitude for Speeders each turn, because couldn't they drop down to height 1 to duck behind that building?