I had an enquiry in my recent game against Richard at Bristol.
It had no effect on the game, and I learnt from rRchard the finer points of the rule; so happy that his explanation of the rule is the correct one (also appreciate that every time he palys me hes sober and I'm usually on my seventh pint, so do appreciate his patience..)- but it does anger my small logical part of the game (the bit that forgets about the fact that forgets about the fact taht it was a battle between spoace Egyptions and aliens...)

This was that most joyous thing, terrain and skimmers.
So the rule is that skimmers must be closer to the terrain than their target, or they can't see the target.
It also works in with the 'can't see 10cm into the terrain.
In this case I had a unit that was sitting 'arse out' so to speak. They were half into teh terrain, thus ensuring they couldn't be seen by a unit on the other side of the terrain (10cm in).
I had always envisaged that this would also mean they were closer to the terrain than the skimmer, and so could'nt be seen by any pop up - after all they are not just close to the terrain, they are in it.

In retrospect, the rule needs to draw a line thats non scientific and works to ease game play.
It just bugs me that they can be 3/4 into the terrain and be seen by the skimmer, but if they had been just ourtside the terrain they would be safe.

Anyway, i thought I would share my terrain fury and invite other points of hatred at terrain rules (no practical reason, I'm not looking for a rule change, just to explain the annoying bits to newer player, - and mainly vent )

over time you will get to talking about all these thing in the 5 minute warm up. The 5 minute warm helps both parties have the same understanding of how things work. It doesn't really matter one way or the other as long as each one has the same idea of how shit works. This way you will not end up in the situation you found yourself.

_________________
mattie
http://maashes.blogspot.com/

Wait...skimmer pop-ups ignore the 10cm into terrain rule?

And yeah, in general the Epic terrain rules are horribly inconsistent and illogical. You can see through 10cm of forest if the target is in the woods, but 2cm of the SAME forest blocks LoS if the target is on the other side; WHYYYYYYY?! Hills/high ground not doing anything for those standing on top is another one that bugs me, but hey, that's just the way it works I guess.
/rant

Effectively as i understand it as the skimmer is up against the terrain you're equidistant at that point, and therefore if you're hanging out the back, the back of the vehicle can be seen by the skimmer. If you're fully in though there's nothing to see, and as a skimmer (like everything else) can't see more than 10cm into terrain it would then be hidden.

However, had the vehicle been on overwatch (and had a gun) it would have been able to overwatch the skimmer once it popped up.

Terrain handling in epic could i think be described as 'abstract' more than anything else. There's little in the sense of realism there, although i would argue this is the case to one degree or another for any system.

Ya, they're treated just like everything else when shooting at stuff in terrain. The 07 change just gave them ability to shoot at stuff that's further away from terrain then they are.

The rules are abtract, but consider what the alternatives are. If you wanted a height system you'd be measuring along LoFs to multiple targets in the formation to see if a shot can be fired, or fired without a -1 penalty. That's not quick, and arguements would be common place. I've played con games with less abstract terrain rules and they turn crappy quick when people start arguing over terrain or measuring to fractions of a millimeter. I'd rather a quick check and keep the game moving.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I sympathise Dan. As others have said, this is a compromise between playability and common sense / realism. Another instance would be where the unit is physically placed half on the rear slope of a hill, well behind the top. But under the usual uk interpretation of ‘infinite height’ hills, that means that it is effectively on the top of the hill and can therefore be seen from the other side of the hill . . .

Perhaps the answer is to ask the opponent the question, “can formation ‘X’ see or attack this formation in this position?”, although that possibly gives away your plans which is less than ideal.

This is the relevant rule, right?



I've always interpreted that as picking a point in the terrain, the same point for both shooter and target, and measure to that. That would mean that units 1 cm away from a 20cm wide forest can't be seen by skimmer that is 0.5 cm from the opposite side - the skimmer is 21 cm from "intervening terrain", while the target is 0.5 cm away.

Is the general consensus that both shooter and target measure to the closest point on the terrain along the line of fire? It is marginally simpler, but it's even more counterintuitive than the non-see-through 1cm wide hedgerow.

I believe this was thrashed out a long time ago and sadly was another case of ‘logic’ winning over reason. You measure to the nearest point of the terrain in each case (often in a kind of stretched “s” shape), not along the straight line of sight.

For the record I would have played it that the units were equidistant in the case of the OP, i.e. both units are at a distance of 0cm from the terrain

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

For what it's worth, this seems to be an artefact of the EpicUK way of playing area terrain, rather than the LoF rules.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion