Why I think 7th is the best yet; and what it gives (a positive view of 7th ed 40k)

[Gleipnir]

Can someone give me a page ref?

I want to have a read of it, see if people are claiming the rule is badly written, or just don't like how it is written.

pg 37-38 and 108-109

Honestly I don't find the cover rules as written all that big a deal particularly since true line of sight is still a factor, complaining that a unit in the open behind the hard cover of ruins but not actually within the ruins themselves gets one less on their cover save for lack of something else to hide behind seems silly, I personally find the 6+(4+ if you go to ground) cover save of craters to be more objectionable when most other forms of cover gives at least a 5+ including intervening models

Maybe its just me but I find it hard to stomach Gretchin giving you better cover than earth and rock.

[Charon]

Except then you are 'behind' a wall so get a 4+ as normal. unless there's no wall between you in which case the 5+ is fine.

Nope.
You get the 5+ for being partial obscured.

complaining that a unit in the open behind the hard cover of ruins but not actually within the ruins themselves gets one less on their cover save for lack of something else to hide behind seems silly

As you have not to be obscured in a ruin that point is moot as you can stand completely in the open and still receive the 4+ as long as you are in the ruins (happens for example when the ruin is a building front that is completely open at the back and you outmaneuver the models inside attacking from behind. They still get 4+ for being IN ruins despite being 100% visible and not obsured at all.)

I personally find the 6+(4+ if you go to ground) cover save of craters to be more objectionable when most other forms of cover gives at least a 5+ including intervening models

Even better example of how bad these rules are. You get a 6+ for standing IN the crater but a 5+ for standing behind that terrain as the standard GW crater obscures 50% of most models.

[John Bower]

Nope.
You get the 5+ for being partial obscured.

I'd suggest you check page 37; diagram on that page shows models 'behind' a ruin (not in it) and getting a 4+ cover save.

[Charon]

E-book.

I guess you are refering to the diagram with the orks?
If you look closely at the bases you see that the orks who receive a 4+ cover stand indeed on the base of the wall terrain and thus qualify as IN the terrain. If you shove them back 1" or 2" they would only get a 5+ for beeing partial obscured.

[John Bower]

E-book.

I guess you are refering to the diagram with the orks?
If you look closely at the bases you see that the orks who receive a 4+ cover stand indeed on the base of the wall terrain and thus qualify as IN the terrain. If you shove them back 1" or 2" they would only get a 5+ for beeing partial obscured.

The boxout also says they are 'behind' it. and not all of them are 'in' it.

[Charon]

Whatever? The clearly stand IN the terrain. They would still receive a 4+ cover if the marines would stand on the other side as they are IN the terrain.
No, not all of them are IN it. They do not need to be. Just the closest are enough to give a 4+ on the first few models.
It does not matter how you twist and turn it, Terrain/cover rules are an extremely lazy copy&paste job refering to rules that do no longer exist or have changed significantly.

Everything is 5+... if you are standing IN a crater you are at 6+. If you are 2" behind that crater you get 5+. Well done design team.

[John Bower]

Whatever? The clearly stand IN the terrain. They would still receive a 4+ cover if the marines would stand on the other side as they are IN the terrain.
No, not all of them are IN it. They do not need to be. Just the closest are enough to give a 4+ on the first few models.
It does not matter how you twist and turn it, Terrain/cover rules are an extremely lazy copy&paste job refering to rules that do no longer exist or have changed significantly.

Everything is 5+... if you are standing IN a crater you are at 6+. If you are 2" behind that crater you get 5+. Well done design team.

No you're the one twisting it; if the first model was the only one 'in' the terrain then by your reckoning he would have to take saves till he died. The rest would only get a 5+. By the Gods man you're not reading the rules are you? I didn't say they aren't broken but find a game that isn't in some way broken.

[Popsical]

I detested 6th edition for a great many reasons, they didnt seem to bother rectifying any of them in 7th so i wont be playing it .
40k has become a re-active game rather than a pro-active game.
It punishes failure rather than rewards success.
Everything now results in some form of save throw which must be passed by the defending player to survive.
In the past player A would position his tank to gain cover or pop smoke etc, then player B would shoot and roll dice to see what damage he could inflicton it. Thus the shooting players dice rolls pro-actively decided what occurred.
In 6th ed player A then gets a choice of various saves to keep his tank alive, if he fails then it is destroyed or damaged, thus the re-active player decides the result.
Almost everything now hinges on the re-active players rolls, which means its more about player A LOSING the game by FAILING rolls than it is player B winning by succeeding. Yes you can say player B is winning by forcing player A to make more saves, but it still is decided by the re-action not the action.
I prefer my games to be decided by the actions and rolls of the winner not the loser.

[Charon]

No you're the one twisting it; if the first model was the only one 'in' the terrain then by your reckoning he would have to take saves till he died. The rest would only get a 5+. By the Gods man you're not reading the rules are you? I didn't say they aren't broken but find a game that isn't in some way broken.

Who is twisting the ruoles here? I go for RAW. The Diagram even supports this as the orks bases are clearly IN the ruins terrain base, thus receiving a 4+
ALL THREE red orks are IN the ruins (supported by diagram and text). Dont know what you are trying to twist here?

I mock the fact that if your model is standing ON the wall (without any intervening cover) would still get a 4+ as it is IN the traain while a model behind the wall and 25% obsured but not on the terrain base will only get a 5+

The same is for craters where you can stand in the crater and be 25% obscured and still only get a 6+ while standing way behind the crater (with the crater as intervening terrain obscuring 25%) gets a 5+

Belive me im not the one not reading rules here...

The diagram is actually a perfect example for a disastrous copy and paste job refering to rules that do not exist anymore.

3 Orks (circled in red) have a 4+ cover save as at least one firing model has his line of sight partially obscured by the ruin.

Ruins:

Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

The diagram refers to 6th edition rules which no longer exist in 7th.

[John Bower]

Who is twisting the ruoles here? I go for RAW. The Diagram even supports this as the orks bases are clearly IN the ruins terrain base, thus receiving a 4+
ALL THREE red orks are IN the ruins (supported by diagram and text). Dont know what you are trying to twist here?

I mock the fact that if your model is standing ON the wall (without any intervening cover) would still get a 4+ as it is IN the traain while a model behind the wall and 25% obsured but not on the terrain base will only get a 5+

The same is for craters where you can stand in the crater and be 25% obscured and still only get a 6+ while standing way behind the crater (with the crater as intervening terrain obscuring 25%) gets a 5+

Belive me im not the one not reading rules here...

The diagram is actually a perfect example for a disastrous copy and paste job refering to rules that do not exist anymore.



Ruins:


The diagram refers to 6th edition rules which no longer exist in 7th.

You are also not reading all the terrain rules; first off the 5+ rule applies only to 'difficult' terrain; okay that is clearly stated what that is; it also clearly on that same page that tells you about difficult terrain says 'unless otherwise noted'; otherwise noted would include this example as line of sight is blocked by a wall (ruins in this case) which grants 4+. A crater (which has its own dataslate) does not grant you 'any' cover save if you're behind it; it's not 'difficult' terrain; it does give you a 6+ for being 'in' it, and a 4+ if you go to ground, which makes sense; you're lying down; it would have to be a bloody deep crater to hide you otherwise. Why does nobody seem to sit down and read the rules thoroughly before criticizing them? If they wrote a 40k page rule book that covered every single nuance of possibility people like you still wouldn't be happy and we'd still have these arguments because you wouldn't have read the rules properly; word for word. I give up, it's like trying teach a baby not to cry. This conversation is over. Go back and READ the Rules; and while there do it again a couple more times.