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.

Right. and in this case both players agreed the terrain piece was Ruins. Ruins, unless agreed otherwise, act like the rulebook defines.

Crablezworth wrote:
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.

Nobody is arguing that you should be discussing how you're going to play the terrain features on the table with your opponent before the game, that's what the rules tell you to do. However, you have to understand that there is a difference between how the rules recommend that you play certain types of terrain as opposed to suggestions they make on how you can play.

The way the rules recommend you play a terrain feature is typically what players default to if no discussion is had on the matter, whereas if you want to use one of the suggestions in the rules, then this is typically something that does need to be brought up before the game.

So sure, you can make a ruins have a 5+ or a 3+ cover save if you and your opponent agree, but if no discussion is made on the matter then 95% of the time players will both understand without saying anything that the ruins have a 4+ save. Similarly, I have played in dozens of 5th edition tournament games and I have never, ever discussed with my opponents whether or not models could move through walls or not and whether models could only move up and down ruin levels only where represented by ladders, yet I have also never run into a situation where my opponent was confused or thought contradictory on the matter.

This is because the recommended default way to play ruins is to allow models to move through the walls and to allow models to ascend/descend even without the presence of ladders or stairs.

So if you want to play that models cannot move through walls and need ladders/stairs to ascend/descend then you need to be bringing this up for discussion before the game because this is not the way the rules recommended, but rather an alternative that players can use if they want to heighten 'realism' over gameplay.

Either assumption is equally valid, that's what the rulebook says. I don't dissagree most people play it as you've described and you probably ran into no problems because the trend in tournaments it towards simplicity for speed's sake (almost everything being played as area terrain).



pg 77

Defining buildings and ruins
"As with any type of tabletop terrain, it is worthwhile discussing with your opponent what effect each structure will have before the battle begins. This need not be a time consuming process; in fact it will probably only take a few minutes, and each structure can be as complicated or as staightforward as you and your opponent wish it to be. THERE IS NO RIGHT AND WRONG WAY to choose how your buildings and ruins work - they can even behave DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT GAMES!"

There is no right and wrong because it's subjective, because it's up to circumstance, because how you play it is predicated on both players, not one. If there was no discussion because the tournament organizer has defined the terrain for you, then sure, either side's assumptions don't matter because the terrain was defined by a third party and that's how it's going to play.

I hear what you guys are saying, you're saying "this is how I've always played it, this is how everyone plays it" and that's fine. If neither myself nor my opponent discussed terrain at all and we collectively realize that fact at some point during the game, it's time to stop and have that talk. If my opponent got all self righteous and black and white with it, I'd try my best to find an amicable solution/roll off. If that doesn't work I'd pack up and move on. Saying the way they usually play terrain is somehow more valid than how I usually play terrain doesn’t mean anything.

Ruins aren't simple things, even when played as area terrain, they're in fact so complicated there's 4 full pages dedicated to every possible contigency and part of that is predicated on how both opponents wish to play.


* (I'm not bolding to be obnoxious, just to emphasize key phrases)

Andilus Greatsword wrote:

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.

Should have specified

Crable - yet, as you keep in repeatedly ignoring: if you simply define them as Ruins, then you CAN pass through walls as those are the default rules for Difficult Terrain

So, if you simply say: this is a Ruin, you are implicitly also stating: and you may pass through walls

If you dont specify otherwise, these ar the actual default rules. Stop ignoring bits of rules you dont find convenient.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Crable - yet, as you keep in repeatedly ignoring: if you simply define them as Ruins, then you CAN pass through walls as those are the default rules for Difficult Terrain

So, if you simply say: this is a Ruin, you are implicitly also stating: and you may pass through walls

If you dont specify otherwise, these ar the actual default rules. Stop ignoring bits of rules you dont find convenient.

And if all that is decided is 'it's ruins' pre-game... that means when i assault you through those walls, you don't get to say "woah.... you shouldn't assault through walls, there is no right answer lets 4+ to see if your assault now fails." If you fail to redefine, then you go with the default... No claiming a 3+ hard cover halfway through a game and no making walls impassible either.

Unless explicitly mentioned and agreed to, there is a default correct set of rules. And if I refuse to accept your custom rules, then yes, there is still a default set of rules.

Yep. You have defined the "can you move through walls?" question even if you dont specifically ask it - by default, YES you can move through walls

Crablezworth wrote:I hear what you guys are saying, you're saying "this is how I've always played it, this is how everyone plays it" and that's fine. If neither myself nor my opponent discussed terrain at all and we collectively realize that fact at some point during the game, it's time to stop and have that talk. If my opponent got all self righteous and black and white with it, I'd try my best to find an amicable solution/roll off. If that doesn't work I'd pack up and move on. Saying the way they usually play terrain is somehow more valid than how I usually play terrain doesn’t mean anything.

You're not getting what we're saying. The OP and his opponent discussed and decided they were Ruins. Without any other caveats, that means you can assault and drive through walls, and up floors, etc. Trying to add caveats after the fact won't work because it may alter the way your opponent has been playing for literally the entire game.

If you decide that X terrain is Ruins, you use the rules in the book. If you decide X terrain is Ruins with caveats, you apply those caveats to the rules in the book. If you don't decide at all, then discussing as soon as it comes up is fine, but I'd call the game if I had been moving and playing like it was the Ruins in the book, and you are adamant about them not being that. That's why you should always have the discussion about every terrain piece - terrain can change the game.

rigeld2 wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:I hear what you guys are saying, you're saying "this is how I've always played it, this is how everyone plays it" and that's fine. If neither myself nor my opponent discussed terrain at all and we collectively realize that fact at some point during the game, it's time to stop and have that talk. If my opponent got all self righteous and black and white with it, I'd try my best to find an amicable solution/roll off. If that doesn't work I'd pack up and move on. Saying the way they usually play terrain is somehow more valid than how I usually play terrain doesn’t mean anything.

You're not getting what we're saying. The OP and his opponent discussed and decided they were Ruins. Without any other caveats, that means you can assault and drive through walls, and up floors, etc. Trying to add caveats after the fact won't work because it may alter the way your opponent has been playing for literally the entire game.

If you decide that X terrain is Ruins, you use the rules in the book. If you decide X terrain is Ruins with caveats, you apply those caveats to the rules in the book. If you don't decide at all, then discussing as soon as it comes up is fine, but I'd call the game if I had been moving and playing like it was the Ruins in the book, and you are adamant about them not being that. That's why you should always have the discussion about every terrain piece - terrain can change the game.

I think he is getting what you're saying, but is continuing to keep the debate up for a couple reasons. For one, he really doesn't like the idea of driving through ruins, especially if the model can't physically be placed where it's supposed to be. I've played with Crablezworth before (he's a cool player ) and he was pretty adamant about defining terrain before the game and making sure everyone was on the same page. I agree with him, if you're going to define the terrain then driving through solid objects is rather silly but the rules do say that if you and your opponent agree then you can drive through. I think what's making him continue though is that you can't assume that both players play it the same way, and therefore it is a good idea to define the terrain beforehand, and that there is no "moral high ground" here since the rules basically say "play it your way".

The real point is, that if you pick up a random person at your store/at a tournament, plonk down armies and start playing without defining terrain, you may drive through ruins.
If you pick up a random person at your store/at a tournament and he wants to drive through ruins, you have no right to 4+ it, as he is using the default rules and you are using made up ones.

The passage crablezworth keeps quoting is no different than the "feel free to make house rules" speech GW does all over the BRB. So forcing your rule of solid walls onto your opponent if he doesn't want to, is nothing different from me telling you before the game that all my boyz have melta bombs.

The BRB gives pretty clear rules about ruins and vehicles.
1) Ruins are area terrain
2) Vehicles may drive through area terrain if they pass a dangerous terrain check, otherwise they are immobilized at the edge of that piece of terrain.
3) Non-walker Vehicles may not climb ruins, ever.

Anything beyond that is the same as orks with melta bombs, just with a little more sense to it.

I play orks. I will never agree to any change in the 'ruins' rules outside the default. Why? Because my army and tactics rely on the default set of rules.

If you want to make it so I cannot assault through walls or drive in RUINS, then I will not agree since I see that prone to abuse by shooty armies who want to become unassaultable. Shooty armies do not need MORE buffs and there is a default set of rules which makes them more correct and more fair than other sets of rules.

Telling me ruins can't be driven through or assaulted without going through a door is like asking me to allow orks with melta bombs. There is a moral highground because there is a default set of rules and then a way to expand the rules.

Ruins have default rules. If you wish to treat them as buildings, then discuss with your opponent. I will drive through your ruins or pack my gak up and leave because those are how the game is played.

Andilus Greatsword wrote:I agree with him, if you're going to define the terrain then driving through solid objects is rather silly but the rules do say that if you and your opponent agree then you can drive through. I think what's making him continue though is that you can't assume that both players play it the same way, and therefore it is a good idea to define the terrain beforehand, and that there is no "moral high ground" here since the rules basically say "play it your way".

Terrain was discussed. It was agreed to be Ruins. You can drive through Ruins.

That's all we're saying. Yes I think it's stupid. Yes I agree - discuss terrain beforehand. But agreeing on "That's ruins." and then trying to argue when your opponent drives through it is being TFG. I don't care how you normally play it, you agreed on it being Ruins with no caveats, so he can drive through it as much as he wants. No 4+ to see, no discussions... it's what you agreed to by saying "It's Ruins" without adding anything. That's the moral high ground.