Hehe. Too true. But the flip side: Hills don't have any automatically assigned rules. However, players can assign traits to them. The category is just a keyword container, basically. :) Perfect for when YOUR hills have cool things that need some clarification.
9th Edition: Hills cannot be targeted. *Meanwhile in the 40k universe* Commissar: Tank Commander! Baneblade Commander: Yes Commissar! Commissar: See that hill.... I Don't want to see it anymore. Baneblade Commander: Yes Commissar right away!
Yes, Matt's take on things and his explanation videos, are often well articulated and presented. The practical examples help to clear the new rules up and make it simple. Really this is just a lot of common sense being brought back in from various part iterations of 40k.
Wow, that is a lot to sort out. I make terrain on commission and getting a handle on all this and what organizers/hobbyist are going to want will be a curve.
This is by far the best terrain explanation video i've seen. I have read the terrain rules in the core book like 10 times and still had tons of questions in mind but this makes it all clear because it is shown with easy understandable examples right on the board. Thanks a lot!
I have been playing 40k since 2nd edition. I like how the terrain rules are broken down a bit more, it is the combination of them that give the overall flavor of the terrain piece. I hope in the end it will reduce the amount of special rule creep prior editions tended to see. This is really nothing new looking back on prior editions like 3rd, but it is a cleaner organization I feel. It always comes down to the various rules in combination that make it good, the choices made are better than prior editions. Really looking forward to this. One of the better rule sets I have seen in decades and you cannot get together with people due to pandemic, I feel like I am being trolled by life right now. Well done and your positivism, organization and enthusiasm is much appreciated Matt!
Hills: Defensible, Light Cover, Exposed Positions I.e.: go to ground behind them (if the hill is beig enough to be worth representing on the table it's got to be big enough for someone to lie down behind right?), holding the high ground against chargers gives you an advantage, Exposed Positions means you don't get that light cover bonus if you're standing on the top.
I love your new series on 9th edition - they really help with understanding all new features and tricks. A few notes on this terrain video, that I found worth mentioning: 1. Dense cover is nothing to do with getting benefits of cover, so all units are affected, and not just infantry / bikes / swarms - I think a lot people could miss this at the start. 2. Dense cover is not working if the piece of terrain is less than 3" high (not sure about your ruin walls). Other traits still active for such terrain though. 3. Heavy cover has contradictory rules in their main section against the ones next to the red squares - it is not clear which models lose benefit: either ones who made the charge move, or the ones who receive attacks from the charging models. I prefer the former variant (the one you mentioned), because it is quite illogical to provide additional bonuses for attacking models, especially in situations when you are using Aegis Defense Lines that you spent your roster points on.
Miniwargaming the real OG of 40K coverage. This was a great video. I had written you guys off as other channels have been so on point but this video was exceptionally good quality thank you so much. I will def share this and keep an eye out for future MWG video uploads. Welcome back.
Great video Matt. Completely agree that some of the rules sound confusing on first read but once you’re actually playing with them in situ they make complete sense and are actually quite intuitive.
Yeah, thats been my experience. Some of it seemed confusing on reading it, but about halfway through my first game I had a moment where I was like 'oh, this isn't actually complicated at all'.
Tbh the most fun thing about terrain is asigning rules to your custom stuff. Especially when you're playing with friends and can even add some custom rules, we for example have some city-like terrain, including some very thing walls made out of sheets of metal with holes all over them. After some back and forth we decided to let heavy weapons shoot through them, since.... if a gun can heavily damage a tank it can bust through that scrap with ease.
Great explanation and I am like these rules. Know a few people that won't like them because they always would argue that they can put dreadnought and tanks on top of ruins / buildings and say they have cover saves even though there is no way a tank should be on top of a building.
Great video Matt terrain has always been an area my gaming group wanted tighter rules on and it looks like we finally have it. Keep up the great content 👍
When I played Dave last year he deployed almost his entire army on top of storage containers and such and claimed cover the entire game. Glad to see that that is going away...
We gave solid building obscuring. if they are 5in high. mostly for things like bloodthirsters which have huge wings but are 16 wounds so can hide behind obscuring. otherwise they would not be able to hide behind buildings mostly due to pose.
You are by far the best at explaining and demonstrating rules. As someone who's difficulty is retaining and applying these (I really liked the more tactical focussed tutorials you did for 8th), I'd like it very much if you did explanation focussed battle reports, using exclusively commentary instead of player chit chat. Maybe you could do this as a 'version B' of some or all battle reports. I hear so much about the brilliant use of positioning or whatever when certain tournament games are played, but I can never 'see it'. An after the event commentary could both focus on the application of certain rules and the neat, or even brilliant, way that movement, strategy or whatever things are applied....... Dave moves his chaos cultists here, now you might think that moving them there would be the better move, threatening both unit A and B, but the move he actually makes does xxxxxx
Well you could give your special hill-obstacle the "scalable" trait, so that infantry/swarms/beasts could go up there from every side. However it is perfectly logical to not do that. It just depends on your vision what type of rock this is. I realy like these new rules. They make terrain more complex and important part of the battle.
Great job. I am very excited on the new terrain rules despite I play a shooting army. The changes make missions less repeatable if you only reset the terrain. The best part was the last one - I deeply appreciate the summary of your discussion on every unobvious case.
You could even give hills "Difficult Ground", since it may be hard to traverse if they steep enough. Or just make up "Rocky Ground" wich could give a move penalty of 1 instead of the 2 of "Difficult Ground". Thats the fun part, you can be creative.
I personally love the defensible rule and i like to give it to buildings and even hills. I think it makes sense that if you are on a hill and somebody tries to charge you up the hill that you would have a hight advantage and could use big rocks and boulders to your advantage.
I absolutely LOVE the assault Intercessors and the eradicatiors. They looks awesome, and the assault intercessors are PERFECT for a close quarters army. I believe they could suit killteam very well. I wanted a assault marine variant but Primaris. Now we just need a Primaris heavy weapons squad. I probably would want options for Heavy Bolters, Multi Meltas and Missile Launchers. Possibly plasma cannons as well!
For a custom board my local group is going to build, its gonna be snow, a semi=destroyed/ramshackle base on one side, caves on the other. Half of the mid area is going to be an ice lake, flyers and aircraft ignore it, other infantry crossing it have half movement, but +1 to their saves (their slipping make it unpredictable how they'll move), and vehicles/monsters can't traverse it. (have thoughts on maybe giving it its own wounds stat?, and if destroyed, until the next command phase it becomes freezing water (the ice breaking), becoming untraversable, and possibly killing or MW'ing models on it?
Thanks Matt for this series. I'm a AoS player and I don't want to learn the rules for 40k especially with how little I can play nowadays. But I do want to learn what they are. I can't wait to get a version of these rules in AoS.
Thanks for doing this video. I've played a few games of 9th and terrain is definitely the source of much disagreement and consternation. We need community leaders like you to help create established norms for terrain that everyone can agree on.
This is how Malifaux does terrain and it is SO EASY. Just a list of keywords and at the beginning of every game you run through every piece of terrain on the battlefield and agree on the keywords with your opponent.
Am I correct that heavy cover does not work against charging units, but for them? "When an attack made with a melee weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack **unless the model making the attack** made a charge move this turn." Which kinda contradicts the bulit point: "+1 to saving throws against melee weapons unless model has mad a charge move this turn". According to this, a charging unit would get +1sv but the unit "defending" the cover would not?
Correction for obstacles. At 3:30, the necron warriors can draw a line to every part of that space marine's base, hence the space marine squad receives NO benefit for terrain (ie cover) for that attack. Of course, when resolving shooting, the space marine squad can allocate wounds to that model out of cover, hence removing the model and subsequently the remaining 4 models are hence affected by the terrain and get the benefits of it again. Further shots into the squad would benefit from cover.
@@suijinnoname6412 There's a unit right in the middle of the wording but you may be right. I interpreted it as: if there's any model that is not receiving the benefits of cover for an obstacle, all of the models don't receive the benefit. May need an faq :/
I imagine they are trying to go back to old 1st 2nd edition levels of terrain complexity. 1st ed had a dungeon master and was closer to d&d after all. If you were to look at 8th edition and hear people begging you to bring back some complexity to the game the part where you could easily do so is terrain. It doesn't effect the core mechanics and if you want to disregard it you can. So its the best place to make this sort of leap. Imo that is what happened. Whether its too much is another thing. We could just need to learn it is all. Or just pick and choose what to use . Terrain has universal special rules now and the battlefield can be its own army in a sense now if you want
Love love love the new terrain rules. Had three games so far, and the terrain has added soooooo much, in terms of the competitive, make you think, perspective and to the narrative. Obviously obscuring is the biggest, forcing the battle to break into several little pockets of fights, but also defensible is bloody good for defenders. One question, does dense provide help for vehicles, or just infantry beasts and swarms. We think it does, and the rules for instance for woods - area terrain, dense, etc, are terrain says only infantry beasts and swarm receive benefits of cover when within, we believe applies to if it also had light cover. That would only apply to infantry beasts and swarms, but the dense part applies to everything
Best video on terrain I watched so far. I'll still have to play a bit to figure out what features my custom pieces should have, didn't completely click for me yet.
I get it, but the suggestion is that an obstacle does not block line of sight to a monster irrespective of its size or whether the obstacle actually blocks true line of sight. I gots to re-read the rules but this does not bode well for my Wraithlords.
A little off topic, but I am sure I will be able to get an answer here. I have not played since 5th edition. Things seem to be a bit different now as far as the starter sets. Are the rules in the hardcover book, the same as the rules in the command starter set (cept being softcover, less fluff)? Do you get a rule book with the lower starter sets? If not a rule book, what do you get with the lower 2 sets? Have blast markers gone away? How do flamers work?
GW dropped the ball in 8th when they pretty much made these same rules optional (see pages 248 - 251 8th ed rule book). I suspect with further updates we will see terrain causing mortal wounds (see fuelpipes / battlescape) or even high ground giving bonuses to hit.
This video is very informative, but it's also a great example of why these rules are a mess. Full of specific corner cases "oh this trait it's by model this trait it's by unit" "If its this kind of unit it applies differently"...going to be a huge pain to remember it all mid-game. Expect a lot of "Wait I should have got +1 last round!" type shenanigans.
You know, I’m gonna be honest, I don’t think I like the new terrain rules. I almost feel like I should roll off for terrain features like in AOS. And none of them really solve the big problem of terrain that everyone complained about in eighth: being able to see one model and wipe a whole unit. It is technically better now that a lot of it goes base to base instead of any part of the unit, but it still doesn’t feel right. I’d much rather have wound allocation based on visibility than needing to worry about which of the twelve buffs the LEGO castle I put on the board gives. I think the most aggregeous is obscuring: just ignore any of the windows or actual features of the terrain; it’s a solid wall now. Except if you are standing on it, then it’s perfectly visible. I’m not saying all the new features are bad per say, (although heavy cover really made it sound like the charging unit gets cover and the one that got charged didn’t) but they don’t address the issue. I’d have much rather had say “sounds can only be allocated to visible models within range” than any change to how terrain worked.
Wound alocation based on line of sight and direction where the attack came from was actually a thing in the 6th edition. Problem is, this created uneccessary discussion which GW wanted to get rid of. This is also why they removed armor values for general toughness of vehicles because the defending player always said "yeah, you hit me in the front with the highest armor" and the opponent of course said ""nah I hit the side with lower armor" etc. etc. Basically, I agree it's more stupid and less realistic. Though there is less discussion. And that's the point of everything since 8th Ed.
We had a system like that in 7th and even though it was more realistic and cinematic, it also created a number of arguments and discussions over whether you can see the model or not which slowed the game down.
It used to work like that back in the day. Which was ok when you had to guess range. The issue was that really good players could range perfectly to put only say your sargent in range at the front and be out of range of other models, so they had to kill the sergeant. Warpspiders were awesome at this. Now that you can 'pre-measure' range it would be easy to snipe models like this.
So to everyone's replies, I will say I did play some 7th edition, so I know a bit about what it was like, and yeah there was a lot of arguments about this that and the other. But the point really is that there will always be arguments at the table about whether or what part is visible. If you are using anything more dynamic than a rectangle, you are going to have situations where its going to be super difficult to tell whether it is visible or not, or for older editions, whether its half visible or whatever. Things like vehicle facing really slowed things down (and for werider vehicles like eldar tanks really didn't make any sense having different front and side armor). But given the new impetus on "draw a line base to base" I think it could have worked with true line of sight, with a bit more tinkering (like ignoring terrain less than an inch for LOS just like movement). Maybe you'd have to implement a "height" stat like King of War to cover windows and titans looming over buildings. Just some of my thoughts. But yes, I'm glad vehicle facing and half cover are gone.
one thing with the difficult ground rule is what happens if that -2" prevents you from getting into the terrain, i.e. im going to move exactly my max to just get onto the terrain, well now i need to be 2" further back, now im off the terrain and can have the full movement, now i can get onto the terrain.......
I thought Heavy Cover benefits the charger? This video is great, I want to share it, but it looks like it unfortunately has a pretty key error and will only add to the confusion.
I thought that, too, but it might have been due to a typo in the Warhammer Community article. Frankly it makes a lot more sense for the unit that's already there to get the bonus because they're the ones who would have had time to brace for the charge.
@@pickle_38 dont read the bullet point, read the full rule. Add 1 to the saving throws unless the model making the attack made a charge move this turn.
I think the most complicated addition to the new edition is terrain, but I do think its going to be a positive change. If I could change one thing though it would be to drop the "defensible" mechanic. Sounds cool to have to choose between an extra attack when charged or overwatch. But since overwatch is (except Tau) Largely not part of the game anymore, it just adds to the complexity in a way that doesn't add much depth. Sure its easy to skip, but its harder to teach and this edition seems to ramp up on the accessibility concept. Not upset or anything crazy, just sharing whats on my mind.
I can see how it happens but many explanation videos, yours included Matt, get heavy cover wrong. The rule says "Add 1 to the saving throws unless the model making the attack made a charge move this turn." So you DON'T get the benefit of +1 to the saving throw when you were charged. The chargers do get that bonus in the first round of comat, though.
I like your rules for solid buildings. Pretty much were my thinking was going, and I would expect most to agree. Annoying GW didn't acknowledge their existence, given surely the Imperium of Man has SOME buildings that are intact, even if only at the start of a conflict!
My problem is that the obscuring rule is not worded the similar than the dense cover, therefore the problem of "hey i see your weapon poking to the left, therefore i can shoot the whole unit" still happens. Hope they FAQ ASAP
Hey Matt! What I don't understand is... what IS the benefit of cover? They mention it for things like Exposed and Obstacles, that models gain "the benefit of cover" but don't mention anywhere what that benefit is..
Hi mini war gaming team, I really like your videos and appreciate what you are doing. Especially the videos wich explain rules and stuff like this. I have a question regarding obscuring terrain. When a tank pulls up to a ruin with this trait and is now touching the wall of the ruin (it has no base) can the tank then see through all the windows etc (so he has LOS) and shoot at a unit wich is (far) behind on the other side of the ruin? So he would be considered to be on or within that terrain feature? Best regards, Sören
If the terrain has no base, you need to decide on the boundaries before the game starts. You could decide that only the inner walls count as terrain and not the outer walls.
Great video, I really like the new terrain rules. I had a question, maybe I missed it somewhere in the video: If a unit shoots at another unit with only 1 out of 10 models visible to the attacker, with the other 9 out of line of sight, do the wounds dealt carry over to ones they can't see? Or does the defender just need to remove models until the unit is totally out of line of sight?
The former. You check range and line of sight at the 'Choose Targets' step, which is done for the entire unit all at once. So you go through and check range and Line of Sight for every model in the firing unit. Any models that can see at least one model in the target unit and are within range at this step can shoot. You then go through and resolve the shots for each model one at a time (in the strictest context of the rules I mean. Obviously in practice most of the time you also resolve all of the units shots at the same time). This situation is actually specifically called out in the last paragraph under the 'Select Targets' heading on p15/16 of the core rules.
Very good explanation. I'm just sad that my Tau basically never get cover for our battle suits. At least in 8th my stealth suits and crisis suits had a reason to hide in buildings.
So the abuseable thing we can take from this is stay 2 inches from a object to gain cover, and then if a unit charges and can only touch the object your still not in range because your 2 inches away.
The rules are almost where I want them to be but I hate hate hate that vehicles and the like can't get the benefit of light cover and that seems to be the most common trait. It makes no sense to me that I can have a walker or tank 90% behind a building or armored containers and get no benefit. It makes me want to give almost everything the dense cover trait as a solution. I feel it would be so much cleaner if you could grant light cover to models via the "1 mm line check" like you do for dense cover.
Xerath Gaming. I agree, the detailed description does say the charging unit gets the benefit but the unit being charged doesn’t. The summary bullet points are a bit vague and sounds the opposite.
I think Matt is right and the rule is just written wrong. Why? Because (a) the bullet point is very clear on the charging model not getting the +1 and (b) it doesn’t make sense that a defensive position would be beneficial to the attacker instead of the defender.
@@davidgantenbein9362 I think it could be the case that GW intended it that way. However in response to your points, (a) the bullet points are not the rules, but references or "cheat sheets". This is evidenced by the fact that they are not inclusive nor complete, therefore the written rule should always take precedence. (b) What "makes sense" to one player will not "make sense" to another especially in a competitive setting where both players are trying to leverage all the rules in their favor, hence the need for rules at all. For example, the argument could be made that a unit entrenched in heavy cover does not have the time to disentrench to react to a charging unit, thus giving the chargers the ability to use the cover more effectively. My point is, you can't always rely on "makes sense" and when you can't you have the written rules to fall back on, which in this case are written to give charging units +1 to their save, not the other way around.
