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.

Forgive me if this is a foolish question, but that's the consensus on terrain and vehicular movement? Even with infantry while we are at it. I was playing a game just this past Sunday. I have a Morkanaught that is sitting in between two pieces of broken buildings. I decide to move it around the terrain, moving 6 inches. Several spectators then give me grief when I didn't move the model through the broken building. I looked over at them, then back at the terrain, then back at them before stating. "Because it's a BUILDING.'' to which they both gave me a look like I'm an idiot.

Maybe I play strangely. Maybe I'm not reading the rules hard enough. Or maybe, I'm actually forging a narrative or something. But I don't ever move models THROUGH terrain, unless it makes SENSE or is agreed otherwise. In the above example, I would move infantry 'through' the building, because it had a door way the size of infantry, and windows and such. But busting my massive walker through it? I don't think so...

This sentiment seems to be widespread, or at least in my area it is. I can't count the times people are driving their tanks through buildings, or through rock outcrops. The hell? is this a norm, or can someone direct me to a page in the rulebook that states ''Nah dude, it's cool. Terrain only matters for shooting and nothing else. Just phase through everything, no one will care."

I know 40k has its issues, but when other games have a clear mindset on what you can and cannot move over, and this game doesn't...it seems really weird. Especially a game that relies so heavily on the 3D plane. when Heroclix...a game played on a 2D map, has better guidelines for 'no, you can't cross this' or 'you may cross this, but this happens if you do'...well...Hm...

So, I'm essentially asking: How do players typically deal with this sort of scenario? Am I the weird one, or is this a common issue?

Granted, it's 'easier' to just ignore things in your way, but it seems too stupid to let slide and rewards lazy deployment/players.

You've found a kindred spirit good sir, I too share your lament. I'm firmly against "melting" through terrain.

At one point it looks silly (like a land raider doing a vertical wall climb)

But as per rules its a thing.

Melevolence wrote:
So, I'm essentially asking: How do players typically deal with this sort of scenario? Am I the weird one, or is this a common issue?

The only real advice I can give is try and find opponents who share your perspective on terrain. From my experience, it's a culture thing, player groups at certain flgs's will just sorta play a certain way.

I will say that the players who enjoy melting aren't doing it wrong, the rules support phasing through terrain. The invariable problem in my experience is the same players also tend to want to play with "hypothetical positions" IE my tank didn't have enough movement so now it's actually half way through that wall, and so on and that's just horsegak.

Best solution, when you're discussing terrain before the game with your opponent, suggest playing more features as impassable. The best way to explain it is almost in first person shooter terms, they want a no clipping hack, you don't. Some people will flat out refuse, others may be more open minded.

Here's a link to our youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuPOz2dQKg9Di8WdS6uY0DQ , we define the terrain rules in detail before every game, might give you a few pointers on how to go about it. We've found it adds a lot of tough decision making in the movement phase, but it;s more rewarding.

It's worth saying too that terrain rules got worse in 7th, especially ruins rules. I'd totally advise using the 6th ed ruin rules, will save you some headaches and reduce the amount of people trying to tank shock up into ruins.


The saddest part of all is that unless you and your opponent make some division between how vehicles and infantry traverse terrain, you'll have vehicles ascending vertical walls because they passed their dangerous, which IMO is just silly.

Desubot wrote:At one point it looks silly (like a land raider doing a vertical wall climb)

But as per rules its a thing.

Yeah, it just irks me is all. As much as I do love 40k, this is really the only rule that makes me want to pick models up. It isn't game breaking, but it's so damn STUPID as a whole. It takes literally so much strategy out of the game since you can just walk right through stuff. I understand people don't want to be penalized for having to use 'logic' in this case...but uhg. I'd honestly rather lose a couple inches and go around than make everyone Kitty Pryde when the move.

Crablezworth wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
So, I'm essentially asking: How do players typically deal with this sort of scenario? Am I the weird one, or is this a common issue?

The only real advice I can give is try and find opponents who share your perspective on terrain. From my experience, it's a culture thing, player groups at certain flgs's will just sorta play a certain way.

I will say that the players who enjoy melting aren't doing it wrong, the rules support phasing through terrain. The invariable problem in my experience is the same players also tend to want to play with "hypothetical positions" IE my tank didn't have enough movement so now it's actually half way through that wall, and so on and that's just horsegak.

Best solution, when you're discussing terrain before the game with your opponent, suggest playing more features as impassable. The best way to explain it is almost in first person shooter terms, they want a no clipping hack, you don't. Some people will flat out refuse, others may be more open minded.

Here's a link to our youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuPOz2dQKg9Di8WdS6uY0DQ , we define the terrain rules in detail before every game, might give you a few pointers on how to go about it. We've found it adds a lot of tough decision making in the movement phase, but it;s more rewarding.

It's worth saying too that terrain rules got worse in 7th, especially ruins rules. I'd totally advise using the 6th ed ruin rules, will save you some headaches and reduce the amount of people trying to tank shock up into ruins.

Yeah, I guess I'll have to be a bit more assertive with it, and discuss better. At least the guy I was playing against didn't drive tanks over his Aiegis line. Again, I know its legal, but is still just...so dumb :I

The 'melting through terrain' can cause even larger problems... that hill or giant statue is terrain, so why not place a unit in the middle of it?
It is weird, but legal.

JinxDragon wrote:
The 'melting through terrain' can cause even larger problems... that hill or giant statue is terrain, so why not place a unit in the middle of it?
It is weird, but legal.

It's not legal anymore actually, you're required by the difficult terrain rules to position the model where it can be stood, you can't physically stand the model inside a foam hill or wreck, and as such you can't end your move there.

We allow all models to go through a building / wall / ruin as long as it can be legally placed afterwards. It's legal as per th rules and makes sense as well - a Walker can easily tear down a wall with a single strike and a massive Land Raider will just plow straight through it. Necrons have Gauss, Space Marines have grenades, etc. We always place a smoke marker near a building that's been traversed in order to show that there's a gaping hole in it now.

In two weeks, we should finally have our wall "stickers" ready: the vague shape of several vehicle / infantry types that can be put on any surface and be removed again without any hassle in order to give a better picture of a crash-through.

Crablezworth,
Are Hills not open terrain?

JinxDragon wrote:
Crablezworth,
Are Hills not open terrain?

I can't find any rules for hills in the book so I guess it all comes down to how you and your opponent decide to play them.


"MOVING THROUGH TERRAIN
As part of their move, models can move through, up or over any terrain they encounter,
unless the terrain is noted as being impassable.
Models can also use their move to ‘climb up’ terrain, as long as the model is able to finish
the move on a location where it can be stood."

So sure, melt through a hill, go nuts, nothing supports your models remaining in a hypothetical position inside said hill. Why you ask? Because they can't be stood there. Full stop.

hehehehe, unless you've built one of those working flamethrower tanks and use it to melt a path to the middle of the hill!! Mwahahahahahaha. OK, I'll go take my meds now

I would recommend reading the Open Terrain section, I am going off memory but I believe it mentions Hills there. Even without splitting hairs over how that Rule you quoted singles out how models 'climb up' terrain and how the scenario involves moving through and not onto, there is something interesting within the Open Terrain Rules. There is a Clause which makes anything labelled as Open Terrain completely immune to the Rules themselves, unless specifically noted as effecting Open Terrain. Therefore, even if the Rule couldn't be twisted in a way so it didn't apply, it out right doesn't apply....

I have trouble myself rectifying GW's love of TLOS with their absolute abstractions on terrain and movement.

That model there is ALWAY standing exactly like that. He never kneels, or puts his arms down. The kneeling guy never stands up, so he can't see over that wall.

On the other hand, that dreadnought can totally walk right through that wall, without any need to do anything unusual. Unless the entire building is impassable, then the walls are just tissue paper (but they totally block line of sight, and thus, lascannon shots).

On the same level of absurdity is the prohibition against putting objectives IN buildings. "Hey, we have this valuable thing (we don't know what, since it's so mysterious). Should we put it in the bunker? Nah, just leave it by the door. Good enough."

My advice is to talk to people beforehand, and if you can't get a consensus on plausible terrain, then try to put down terrain that is plausible with these rules. If people want to insist on driving through walls, then see if you can get some terrain that is mostly ruins and low, crumbling walls. At least then it won't be so jarring when a Rhino plows through them.

JinxDragon wrote:
I would recommend reading the Open Terrain section, I am going off memory but I believe it mentions Hills there. Even without splitting hairs over how that Rule you quoted singles out how models 'climb up' terrain and how the scenario involves moving through and not onto, there is something interesting within the Open Terrain Rules. There is a Clause which makes anything labelled as Open Terrain completely immune to the Rules themselves, unless specifically noted as effecting Open Terrain. Therefore, even if the Rule couldn't be twisted in a way so it didn't apply, it out right doesn't apply....

you're close,
just to nitpick, it's open ground
no additional rules are needed for open ground
special rules and abilities that affect terrain do not affect open ground.

Fair enough, if going by memory simply has the name incorrect then it is a very good day.
By the way, have I complained that I hate Rules which have some sort of 'immune to the Rules' type clause this month...?

The thing I think is strange is an AV 15 Fort is less durable than an old broken down hut (a Ruin).

I can blow this up:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/08/40k-hobby-death-guard-fortress.html

But I can not blow up :

http://bbandm.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/front-of-gray-shack.jpg

JinxDragon wrote:
Crablezworth,
Are Hills not open terrain?

Hills are open terrain only if passing over it.

They are Impassable if trying to go through them.

Note this is not in the rulebook. Its just common sense.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Its just common sense.

Note that there is no such thing as "common sense" as sense is not all that common...

Where in the Book does it describe Common Sense?
Sorry, couldn't help it seeing how little Common Sense is found in this Rulebook.

I am not saying anyone ever plays the way we are describing, but when you encounter a broken Rule it should be acknowledged and mocked for what it is. There is no denying that the Rulebook is very poor at describing third dimensional concepts, it was always a problem and is still only just starting to be addressed. This means we shouldn't be surprised that, when it is legal to phase right through solid matter, that all sorts of trickery starts to form about the literal application of that permission. Even more so when every basic rule is written with little to no thought on how they interact with other Rules, as if being applied to models standing still in an empty white field.

People who play melt through terrain are shenanigansing now days. Teleporting past terrain is possible on an unhealthy interpretation of the rules too. If it is on the ground, and wants to move "through" a building, it is not happening. If the obstacle is low enough, it could possibly scale it though. Skimmers just don't give a gak about it on the other hand, as they can move over intervening terrain and models. I've often found my hammerheads using that to their advantage in urban terrain to get a good shot or to avoid getting power fisted. (pun intended)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if you treat a shack like that as a ruin, then you need to re-evaluate your terrain. Ruins should be things that where once larger buildings and have the supports to remain. This is actually realistic since the average building in urban warfare can be blown to hell and the basic layout stands. A shack should be a good place to get a obscured cover save, or if a enclosed building an abysmal armor value building.

JinxDragon wrote:
Where in the Book does it describe Common Sense?
Sorry, couldn't help it seeing how little Common Sense is found in this Rulebook.

I am not saying anyone ever plays the way we are describing, but when you encounter a broken Rule it should be acknowledged and mocked for what it is. There is no denying that the Rulebook is very poor at describing third dimensional concepts, it was always a problem and is still only just starting to be addressed. This means we shouldn't be surprised that, when it is legal to phase right through solid matter, that all sorts of trickery starts to form about the literal application of that permission. Even more so when every basic rule is written with little to no thought on how they interact with other Rules, as if being applied to models standing still in an empty white field.

the common sense rules are, "the most important rule" and "the spirit of the game rule"

 Sigvatr wrote:
We allow all models to go through a building / wall / ruin as long as it can be legally placed afterwards. It's legal as per th rules and makes sense as well - a Walker can easily tear down a wall with a single strike and a massive Land Raider will just plow straight through it. Necrons have Gauss, Space Marines have grenades, etc. We always place a smoke marker near a building that's been traversed in order to show that there's a gaping hole in it now.

In two weeks, we should finally have our wall "stickers" ready: the vague shape of several vehicle / infantry types that can be put on any surface and be removed again without any hassle in order to give a better picture of a crash-through.

If using that logic, you might as well remove the wall/ruin/building all together. They are already broken, so that should be enough to cause it to collapse.

What would be the point of dozer blades if not to allow a tank to crash thru a wall like the Kool-Aid man? I see no problem allowing a tank to crash thru a ruin, even from a 'realistic' or 'common sense' point of view.

Sometimes, if the wall/tree whatever is small enough I will remove the piece of terrain after crashing thru it, but doing so is not supported by the rules. My opponent has to agree to it.

It is always a good idea to discuss with your opponent what terrain piece counts as what. I have never in real life actually encountered anyone who wanted to treat solid walls anything else than impassable.

Well yes of course. I'm talking very thin walls, not 2 inch thick walls.

I once saw a player crawl a Devastator (I think that's what the big tank walker from Daemons is called) onto a rui ed terrain piece (Manufactorum iirc). Both me and the store owner were scratching our heads. The players in the game had agreed it was possible though. After reading trough the rules we were forced to conclude the same as in this thread. There are officially no rules against it. If it fits, it can be placed there legally.

Outside of that one instance though I've never seen anyone use their tanks in that fashion, not even walkers. It's one of those things a gaming group seems to develop a culture around either allowing or disallowing it... just make sure you agree on which side of the debate you're going with before you start playing.

 Crimson wrote:
It is always a good idea to discuss with your opponent what terrain piece counts as what. I have never in real life actually encountered anyone who wanted to treat solid walls anything else than impassable.

My group uses this piece of terrain occasionally:





We just call it all difficult terrain and call it a day.

We never even thought to say that the solid wall parts of this piece are impassible. We simply call it a ruin.

I think in 6E rulebook had both ways to play the terrain explained, but 7E does seem to lack that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

We never even thought to say that the solid wall parts of this piece are impassible. We simply call it a ruin.

So you just let guys walk through a solid wall? I really couldn't play like that...

 Crimson wrote:
I think in 6E rulebook had both ways to play the terrain explained, but 7E does seem to lack that.

 DeathReaper wrote:

We never even thought to say that the solid wall parts of this piece are impassible. We simply call it a ruin.

So you just let guys walk through a solid wall? I really couldn't play like that...

To inject a narrative, a Space Marine with a powerfist can crush a Landraider given enough time, why would a ruined wall give him much trouble?

Bolter rounds would also break or go through sections of that wall.

Mephiston or a Hive Tyrant would tear that wall to shreds in a split second.

Why would you not allow guys to walk through that ruined wall?

Well if the guy walked through the wall there would be a hole that would no longer BLOS (if it was a solid wall)

I suppose the wall behind him collapses to block LOS again but what happens when another guy punches through .