Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Alright it came up last tourny, where some people though you can drive through ruins taking a difficult terrain test

i would like some others opinions

not rubble, im mean like driving through 2 or 3 story ruins, or walls big enough to obscure your vehicle or hid it completely

not in cities of death, in normal games, and with normal vehicles, Landraiders, rhino's, chimera's, Trukks

How do you guys play this?

Vehicles can move through ruins, which assuming they are difficult terrain normally are Dangerous terrain for vehicles.

The default for Ruins is that you can move through the walls (see the ruin rules) and this includes vehicles.

Perfectly legal, with a difficult terrain test.

puma713 wrote:Perfectly legal, with a difficult terrain test.

DANGEROUS terrain test.

what happens if a vehicle only makes it part way through, do you cut the tank in half and put one half on either side? What if it gets immobilized but there is absolutely no physical way to fit the model there?

To expand on the first one I have seen twice now at GW where someone tank shocks through a solid ruin to an enemy unit right on the other side only 1-2" from the ruin. The vehicle is immobilized or wrecked from a death or glory, so now where does the vehicle/wreck go? The worst one was when it was found out after that the vehicle doesn't fit on the ground floor of the ruin at all so it ended up having to be placed 8" away from the unit that immobilized it with said death or glory.

I have also seen cases where a vehicle goes through a ruin that is only as wide as itself and there are models on upper floors. So if the vehicle just took out that wall, why is the building still standing?
If a vehicle goes through a solid wall can I now shoot through the hole that is supposed to be there? Generally no since it violates the LoS rules but shouldn't there be a big hole in the wall that LoS can now be checked through?

I find all this very similar to skimmers "hop shocking" where they go up and over a vertical barrier to land on top of the unit they are tank shocking. What if the vehicle can't fit? What if it gets wrecked? Are the models now standing on top of/under the wreck and are in dangerous? What if it gets immobilized and there is absolutely no way to fit the models 1" away in any direction?

(I quoted someone else's response to this)

It gets immobilised as soon as it tries to move through the terrain, so you would not be "within" anything - you would be at the edge of it.

If it cannot get all the way through - you do whatever you normally do when this situation arrives with ANY model.

You should also read up on Area Terrain, and realise it is an abstraction. As in, stop assuming that that solid wall is really solid.

This isnt a rules question any longer, but a how you play it. Agree with your gaming group, however I have found IN GENERAL people play it as the default.

WAAAGH! wrote:what happens if a vehicle only makes it part way through, do you cut the tank in half and put one half on either side? What if it gets immobilized but there is absolutely no physical way to fit the model there?

non-skimmer vehicles take the dangerous terrain test when they first enter terrain, so they would be immobilized touching the wall, not moving through it.

Skimmers can technically end their move 'in' a ruin wall, but in that case you'd just default to the 'wobbly model syndrome' rules (pg 13 of the rulebook) to mark where the model is 'supposed' to be placed.

To expand on the first one I have seen twice now at GW where someone tank shocks through a solid ruin to an enemy unit right on the other side only 1-2" from the ruin. The vehicle is immobilized or wrecked from a death or glory, so now where does the vehicle/wreck go? The worst one was when it was found out after that the vehicle doesn't fit on the ground floor of the ruin at all so it ended up having to be placed 8" away from the unit that immobilized it with said death or glory.

Again, if you're not able to place a model where its supposed to be due to terrain, then per the 'wobbly model syndrome' rules you place markers on the table where its supposed to be and just keep the actual model as close as you can to that position as a reminder.

I have also seen cases where a vehicle goes through a ruin that is only as wide as itself and there are models on upper floors. So if the vehicle just took out that wall, why is the building still standing? If a vehicle goes through a solid wall can I now shoot through the hole that is supposed to be there? Generally no since it violates the LoS rules but shouldn't there be a big hole in the wall that LoS can now be checked through?

Irrelevant question. The ruins rules allow models to move through its walls as a gaming convention to make things easier to play. Therefore, there would have to be a specific rule preventing a vehicle from moving through a wall in order for them not to be able to.

You need to stop thinking of this so literally. Again, it is a gaming convention to allow for a smooth game...there is no 'hole' in the building despite the fact that there perhaps should be in 'real life'.

I find all this very similar to skimmers "hop shocking" where they go up and over a vertical barrier to land on top of the unit they are tank shocking. What if the vehicle can't fit? What if it gets wrecked? Are the models now standing on top of/under the wreck and are in dangerous? What if it gets immobilized and there is absolutely no way to fit the models 1" away in any direction?

(I quoted someone else's response to this)

Its very unlikely that tank shocked models that pass their morale test can't move out of the way of the tank shocking vehicle as they are allowed to move 'through' the tank shocking vehicle itself. However, if the models are completely surrounded on all sides and THEN tank shocked by an enemy skimmer, they would be unable to move out of the way and therefore (IMHO) the skimmer would not be able to tank shock them because a vehicle is not able to end its movement over impassable terrain (which enemy models count as).

But ruins *are not* impassable terrain and therefore a skimmer is technically allowed to end its move counting as being 'through' a ruin wall.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

puma713 wrote:Perfectly legal, with a difficult terrain test.

DANGEROUS terrain test.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

You seem to have missed this in your response

someone tank shocks through a solid ruin to an enemy unit right on the other side only 1-2" from the ruin.

The vehicle is immobilized or wrecked from a death or glory,

so now where does the vehicle/wreck go?

the vehicle doesn't fit on the ground floor of the ruin at all

if the ruin is 8" squared

does the tank get placed 8" away from the unit that immobilized it with said death or glory.

You would place the vehicle wherever you can, and assume it is sitting in the bottom of the ruin.

Waagh - and, again, read WMS. Youve been given the page reference for it. It covers this situation and any other specific one you can think of.

Well I'd just like to point out that all of this is predicated on the pre-game discussion about terrain you're supposed to have with your opponent. Until you define what each terrain piece or feature will be played as, it really doesn't have a ruleset.

When it comes to ruins you really should be specific with your opponent about how you want to play them.

I'd suggest reading pg 83 "walls, doors, ladders and lateral thinking"

It basically tells you to decide along with your opponent if walls will be solid or not, how doors will or won't be utilized and how you wish to go about climing to other levels, like if ladder will be required or not.


As far as wobbly model syndrome, here's what the rulebook says on that

pg 13
"Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature chipped or even broken. In cases like this we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, AS LONG AS BOTH PLAYERS HAVE AGREED and know its "actual" location. If later on your enemy is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place so he can check line of sight. Of course if you prefer things to be completely clear and exact, then stick to simple, flat terrain!"

The really important part I put in bold, because wobbly model syndrome isn't something you're entitled to, both players are agreeing to it to avoid damaging models. I've seen people try and claim wobbly model syndrome for some pretty incredible bullcrap and it never ends well.


I'm definitely in the camp of less abstraction rather than more. Especially with 5th ed and total line of sight. My preference is to play ruins exactly as they are as to avoid a lot of the problems you've mentioned. No melthing through walls and you can only go where your model physically fit.

pg 83 "moving within ruins"
Only certain troops are capable of clambering to the upper levels of ruins. Accordingly, only infantry, jump infantry, jetbikes, monstrous creatures and walkers may move on the upper levels of a ruin - and only if the model can PHYSICALLY BE PLACED THERE. Other units may only move on the ground level of a ruin."

Now obviously there's no mention of vehicles there other than they probably fall in the "other units" catagory, but the precedent of the model's size dictating where it can be placed is set at least in the context of ruins. If someone I'm playing is trying to fit a trygon on the 2nd floor of 3 level ruin I'm going to tell them hell no.

In any case, the right and wrong of how to play terrain will always be dictated by the inital discussion of how you want to play it. We all have our prefferences. And in all honesty, not all terrain is created equal. Some of the nicest looking terrain is a nightmare to play on where as some of the simplest (flat surfaces, solid los blockers) require no ambiguity.

Crablezworth wrote:Well I'd just like to point out that all of this is predicated on the pre-game discussion about terrain you're supposed to have with your opponent.

And if for some reason a piece of terrain is not fully discussed for every possible instance in which something cam encounter it, you fall back on the Default Terrain Rules.

Which in this case allows you to use WMS and place the model as close as possible to its actual position and call it good enough.

Just curious where it says that?

If we (myself and opponent) have not collectively agreed upon how to play a piece of terrain prior to the game it has no rules because we haven't defined it as either difficult/dangerous/impassable/clear/area terrain. If we can't agree and are both trying to operate under an assumption the rulebook tells us to figure out an amicable solution and if that's not possible simply roll off and move on. Where is this default stuff coming from? I can site probably half a dozen times where the rulebook again and again stresses the importance of discussing and defining what the terrain is and how it will be played.


Some people prefer playing everything as area terrain. If both players are fine with, how can someone else come aliong and tell them they're doing it wrong if they've both agreed to define all terrain as such? This whole defauly concept seems at odds with what the rulebook tells you to do, over and over and over again.

The default that, if its a ruin (which they had agreed, see the OP) then you can drive through the walls. As soon as you define terrain as "ruin" you have defined a whole lot of default rules for it.

Crablezworth wrote:Just curious where it says that?

It says that in the rules, thus being default rules.

you default to them if they have not been discussed, that's just the way default rules work.

Crablezworth wrote:If we (myself and opponent) have not collectively agreed upon how to play a piece of terrain prior to the game it has no rules because we haven't defined it as either difficult/dangerous/impassable/clear/area terrain.

It has rules, these would be the rules laid out in the book, anything different would have had to have been discussed pre-game.

Crablezworth wrote:If we can't agree and are both trying to operate under an assumption the rulebook tells us to figure out an amicable solution and if that's not possible simply roll off and move on. Where is this default stuff coming from? I can site probably half a dozen times where the rulebook again and again stresses the importance of discussing and defining what the terrain is and how it will be played.

The rules lay out terrain and how to play each piece. these rules are listed on P.13/14 and 57.

Crablezworth wrote:Some people prefer playing everything as area terrain. If both players are fine with, how can someone else come aliong and tell them they're doing it wrong if they've both agreed to define all terrain as such? This whole defauly concept seems at odds with what the rulebook tells you to do, over and over and over again.

for terrain that you discuss before game that is fine, but if you miss a specific situation with a piece of terrain, tehn you fall back on the rules laid out in the BRB, thus you Default to those rules when a situation like that comes up.

How is one assumption more valid than another?


You're basically saying "this is the way I've always chosen to play it, so my assumption is more correct than yours"

Crablezworth wrote:If we (myself and opponent) have not collectively agreed upon how to play a piece of terrain prior to the game it has no rules because we haven't defined it as either difficult/dangerous/impassable/clear/area terrain.

Except it was defined prior to the game as a ruin. Ruins (unless agreed otherwise) have specific rules. If all you agree on is that the terrain piece is a ruin, the rules from the book under Ruins apply.

Crablezworth wrote:How is one assumption more valid than another?


You're basically saying "this is the way I've always chosen to play it, so my assumption is more correct than yours"

Because one is stated in the rules, and yours isnt?

The ruins were defined as such. The rules then state that UNLESS you decide otherwise, you have certain DEFAULT rules that you follow.

You appear to not understand what "defaut" means.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because one is stated in the rules, and yours isnt?

The ruins were defined as such. The rules then state that UNLESS you decide otherwise, you have certain DEFAULT rules that you follow.

You appear to not understand what "defaut" means.

This is correct.

Default terrain rules are just that. Rules that you use for terrain as base rules when you have not decided otherwise.

I'm sorry but I must dissagree

The rulebook plainly states on page 83 that either assumption is deemed equal. Neither is considered more valid than the other. Regardless of what YOU normally do or how YOU normally play terrain, your opponent may play the opposite way. To say "we forgot to discuss it so my way is by default the right way, too bad" is not supported. Are you really telling me that rather than find an amicable solution or roll off you'd stand your ground and say my assumption is more valid than yours?

Apparently you didnt read ALL of page 83

"Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this"

Normal, aka default. So, if you dont decide otherwise, you follow the normal rules for Difficult Terrain, which Area Terrain is and Ruins are area terrain, and this allows you to move through walls.

So yes, we are right, and you're wrong on this, because our way is in the rules.

And selectively quoting is a great tactic but

pg 83 Walls, doords, ladders and lateral thinking

"Should troops be able to move though walls if there is no door? That's really down to WHAT YOU AND YOUR OPPONENT DECIDE. It's perfectly acceptable to assume combatants on both sides have brought plenty of cutting tools, acidic disintegrators or naked ferocity to muscle their way through any wall so foolish as to block their path. Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this. EQUALLY you could decide that models can only pass from one side of a wall to the other if they walk around, or if there si a door, window or grate similar handy opening.

The same is true for ascending and descending levels within a ruin. It's JUST AS VALID TO ASSUME that the combatants should be able to climb the few feet from one floor to the other as it is to disallow models from climbing higher in a ruin that has no ladders. Just remember that the more involved the YOUR rules for ruins are, the long the game will take."

Notice how neither assumption is more valid than the other because it's effectively YOUR (you and your opponents) rules for ruins, not THE rules for ruins.

For simplicity's sake you and your opponent could agree to define all terrain simply as difficult and be done with it, melt away, you could also go into far greater detail and have certain terrain features be impassable or dangerous or clear and so on. The only thing I get from those paragraphs is a caution that the more complex you and your opponent make the terrain the longer the game might take.


What you're essentially saying is if both players collectively forgot to discuss terrain before a game there's some sort of moral highground where the rulebook will save you. I couldn't dissagree more, terrain is nothing until both players agree and define it.

Crablezworth wrote:And selectively quoting is a great tactic but

pg 83 Walls, doords, ladders and lateral thinking

"Should troops be able to move though walls if there is no door? That's really down to WHAT YOU AND YOUR OPPONENT DECIDE. It's perfectly acceptable to assume combatants on both sides have brought plenty of cutting tools, acidic disintegrators or naked ferocity to muscle their way through any wall so foolish as to block their path. Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this. EQUALLY you could decide that models can only pass from one side of a wall to the other if they walk around, or if there si a door, window or grate similar handy opening.

The same is true for ascending and descending levels within a ruin. It's JUST AS VALID TO ASSUME that the combatants should be able to climb the few feet from one floor to the other as it is to disallow models from climbing higher in a ruin that has no ladders. Just remember that the more involved the YOUR rules for ruins are, the long the game will take."

Notice how neither assumption is more valid than the other because it's effectively YOUR (you and your opponents) rules for ruins, not THE rules for ruins.

For simplicity's sake you and your opponent could agree to define all terrain simply as difficult and be done with it, melt away, you could also go into far greater detail and have certain terrain features be impassable or dangerous or clear and so on. The only thing I get from those paragraphs is a caution that the more complex you and your opponent make the terrain the longer the game might take.


What you're essentially saying is if both players collectively forgot to discuss terrain before a game there's some sort of moral highground where the rulebook will save you. I couldn't dissagree more, terrain is nothing until both players agree and define it.

You highlighted some stuff about troops?

Thought this was about "tanks"?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:And selectively quoting is a great tactic but

pg 83 Walls, doords, ladders and lateral thinking

"Should troops be able to move though walls if there is no door? That's really down to WHAT YOU AND YOUR OPPONENT DECIDE. It's perfectly acceptable to assume combatants on both sides have brought plenty of cutting tools, acidic disintegrators or naked ferocity to muscle their way through any wall so foolish as to block their path. Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this. EQUALLY you could decide that models can only pass from one side of a wall to the other if they walk around, or if there si a door, window or grate similar handy opening.

You highlighted some stuff about troops?

Thought this was about "tanks"?

Tanks are models.

ANd your problem is you keep insisting they did not discuss terrain: they DID.

They decided they were ruins

This makes them Area Terrain

Making it difficult ground

Making it possible to pass through the walls. If you do not discuss whether you can pass through walls *specifically* then the NORMAL RULES FOR DIFFICULT TERRAIN allow you to pass through the walls

So, if you decide something is ruins, the DEFAULT rules are you can pass through terrain.

I hope this gets cleared up in 6th Ed. :/

Andilus Greatsword wrote:I hope this gets cleared up in 6th Ed. :/

What's to clear up? This is only ever an issue among people who think the rules work differently than they actually do.

Buildings and ruins have different rules.

Buildings have doors, and walls, and windows and ladders and other things that need agreement in order to add rules on how to handle them to the game. You can enter them, go inside them, open them, shoot flamers into them, make them impassible and all sorts of other mutually agreed to crap.

Ruins do not... They have door-shaped holes, and window-shaped holes and wall-shaped structures, but ruins are basically difficult terrain with multiple levels. You use true LOS for shooting and difficult terrain for movement... which means everyone and everything can pretty much wreck up the joint and move where they want.

Ruins are easy to play with, buildings are a pain in the ass.

Corrode wrote:

Andilus Greatsword wrote:I hope this gets cleared up in 6th Ed. :/

What's to clear up? This is only ever an issue among people who think the rules work differently than they actually do.

The rules for terrain differ all the time, game to game, because it's up to you and your opponent to define what the terrain will be. Some people play all cover as 4+ simplicity and speed of play, others go into more detail. Neither is wrong so long as both players are on the same page prior to the game.