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.

rigeld2 wrote:That depends on if you consider upper floors of ruins to be impassable terrain, or just terrain that certain units can't pass.

Similar to skimmers landing on the top floors.

Ruins are difficult terrain, pages 13 and 82 main rules.

Just because a certain unit type cannot move through a piece of terrain by rule, does not change the classification of the terrain in general.

If the upper levels of a ruin are classified as impassable terrain by mutual player consent, then only units that are allowed, by rule, to move through impassable terrain can move there.

time wizard wrote:Q: Can a unit deploy in impassable terrain? (p92)
A: Not unless it is specifically allowed to move through
impassable terrain.

So a unit that can't move in certain terrain can't be deployed there.

But you say that a unit that can't move on the upper level of a ruin can be deployed there.

time wizard wrote:
Just because a certain unit type cannot move through a piece of terrain by rule, does not change the classification of the terrain in general.

If the upper levels of a ruin are classified as impassable terrain by mutual player consent, then only units that are allowed, by rule, to move through impassable terrain can move there.

So what precedent does that FAQ set? It only addresses impassable terrain. If you are trying to treat "terrain you can't move in" as "impassable terrain" for this FAQ, why are you not okay with skimmers doing literally the exact same thing?

rigeld2 wrote:If you are trying to treat "terrain you can't move in" as "impassable terrain" for this FAQ, why are you not okay with skimmers doing literally the exact same thing?

I am not treating or classifying terrain a unit can't move in as impassable terrain. Never said I was. And I also never said that I was okay with skimmers doing the same thing.

Quite the contrary, I believe that skimmers are not permitted on the upper levels of ruins, unless those levels were declared to be impassable terrain by mutual player consent prior to the game starting.

The FAQ is quite clear and specific and says nothing about how terrain is and can be classified, that is handled on page 13 of the rules.

time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:If you are trying to treat "terrain you can't move in" as "impassable terrain" for this FAQ, why are you not okay with skimmers doing literally the exact same thing?

I am not treating or classifying terrain a unit can't move in as impassable terrain. Never said I was. And I also never said that I was okay with skimmers doing the same thing.

Quite the contrary, I believe that skimmers are not permitted on the upper levels of ruins, unless those levels were declared to be impassable terrain by mutual player consent prior to the game starting.

The FAQ is quite clear and specific and says nothing about how terrain is and can be classified, that is handled on page 13 of the rules.

Right. But you're trying to use the precedent set by that FAQ to show that a unit that can't move in a certain type of terrain can't deploy there.

That exact same precedent would allow skimmers to land on the top floor. That's what I'm getting at.

rigeld2 wrote:
Right. But you're trying to use the precedent set by that FAQ to show that a unit that can't move in a certain type of terrain can't deploy there.

That exact same precedent would allow skimmers to land on the top floor. That's what I'm getting at.

I don't understand how you think that that FAQ would allow skimmers to land on the top floor of ruins?

Ruins are classified as difficult terrain, not impassable (unless so decided by mutual player consent).

Skimmers are not allowed to move on the upper floors of ruins by the rule on page 83. Neither are swarms.

You were saying that even though the swarm is not allowed to move on the upper floor of a ruin, it could be deployed there.

I was presenting a FAQ that said a unit that could not move in impassable terrain could not be deployed in impassable terrain.

This was to demonstrate the precedent that a unit could not be deployed in terrain that it was not permitted to move in.

Swarms are not permitted to move on the upper floors of a ruin, therefore accepting the precedent of the FAQ, they should not be permitted to be deployed there.

I further illustrated a problem that if said swarm, which is not permitted to move on the upper floors of the ruin, were assaulted, they could not make a defender react move, which again by rule they must make, because they are not permitted to move on that upper floor, and around and around and around...

time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Right. But you're trying to use the precedent set by that FAQ to show that a unit that can't move in a certain type of terrain can't deploy there.

That exact same precedent would allow skimmers to land on the top floor. That's what I'm getting at.

I don't understand how you think that that FAQ would allow skimmers to land on the top floor of ruins?

Ruins are classified as difficult terrain, not impassable (unless so decided by mutual player consent).

Skimmers are not allowed to move on the upper floors of ruins by the rule on page 83. Neither are swarms.

You were saying that even though the swarm is not allowed to move on the upper floor of a ruin, it could be deployed there.

I was presenting a FAQ that said a unit that could not move in impassable terrain could not be deployed in impassable terrain.

This was to demonstrate the precedent that a unit could not be deployed in terrain that it was not permitted to move in.

Swarms are not permitted to move on the upper floors of a ruin, therefore accepting the precedent of the FAQ, they should not be permitted to be deployed there.

I further illustrated a problem that if said swarm, which is not permitted to move on the upper floors of the ruin, were assaulted, they could not make a defender react move, which again by rule they must make, because they are not permitted to move on that upper floor, and around and around and around...

By saying "a unit could not be deployed in terrain that it was not permitted to move in." and using that FAQ, you're equating " terrain that it was not permitted to move in" with "impassable terrain".
Once you do that, skimmers are allowed to land in impassable terrain.

Oh, and as a function of a permissive rules set, can't overrides must.

As above.

You are saying that impassable terrain is equivalent to terrain units may not move in, meaning the top floor of ruins is impassable terrain to those units. This allows skimmers to land on the top - by your own equating of the two terms.

Or, you realise the FAQ specifically mentions impassable terrain, and nothing else.

(personally I'd be fine with equating the two, because I feel they're equated using plain english... but that's been the minority view in YMDC)

Actually i dont mind equating them either, just pointing out that Time was equating, despite remonstrating to the contrary

rigeld2 wrote: By saying "a unit could not be deployed in terrain that it was not permitted to move in." and using that FAQ, you're equating " terrain that it was not permitted to move in" with "impassable terrain".

No, I'm not. I said that the FAQ:

Q: Can a unit deploy in impassable terrain? (p92)
A: Not unless it is specifically allowed to move through
impassable terrain.

sets a precedent that a unit can't be deployed in terrain that it can't, by rule, move in.

rigeld2 wrote: Once you do that, skimmers are allowed to land in impassable terrain.

Skimmers are allowed to land in impassable terrain. Main rules page 71.

rigeld2 wrote: Oh, and as a function of a permissive rules set, can't overrides must.

I still can't find that rule in the main rulebook.

Impassible terrain is a rules-based classification that means the terrain cannot be landed in / moved through. Skimmers have an allowance to land in /move though terrain so classified.

This is not the same as dis-allowing a model from moving through (some of or parts of the) terrain. Skimmers do not have a rule that says they are allowed to land in terrain that does not allow skimmers to land.

Skimmers are disallowed from landing in the difficult terrain that ruins (normally) involve.

time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: By saying "a unit could not be deployed in terrain that it was not permitted to move in." and using that FAQ, you're equating " terrain that it was not permitted to move in" with "impassable terrain".

No, I'm not. I said that the FAQ:

Q: Can a unit deploy in impassable terrain? (p92)
A: Not unless it is specifically allowed to move through
impassable terrain.

sets a precedent that a unit can't be deployed in terrain that it can't, by rule, move in.

Right. And that precedent means you're equating "impassable terrain" and "terrain you can't move into"
You can't try and use that FAQ for precedent in one situation and ignore every other situation that is literally exactly the same.

rigeld2 wrote: Once you do that, skimmers are allowed to land in impassable terrain.

Skimmers are allowed to land in impassable terrain. Main rules page 71.

Right which means that according to what you're equating skimmers can land in terrain they can't move through.

rigeld2 wrote: Oh, and as a function of a permissive rules set, can't overrides must.

I still can't find that rule in the main rulebook.

So you're disagreeing that 40k is a permissive rules set?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Impassible terrain is a rules-based classification that means the terrain cannot be landed in / moved through. Skimmers have an allowance to land in /move though terrain so classified.

This is not the same as dis-allowing a model from moving through terrain. Skimmers do not have a rule that says they are allowed to land in terrain that does not allow skimmers to land.

Skimmers are disallowed from landing in the difficult terrain that ruins (normally) involve.

Which means that they're allowed to deploy in it - right?

rigeld2 wrote:Which means that they're allowed to deploy in it - right?

1: I thought INAT said not, but I do not see it atm.
2: Not unless you think it ok to deploy on top of other model too.

editing to add:
Did not mean to post that yet. . .I was still reading!
AAaaand now busy. ><

Feel free to ignore this.

kirsanth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Which means that they're allowed to deploy in it - right?

1: I thought INAT said not, but I do not see it atm.
2: Not unless you think it ok to deploy on top of other model too.

So you're equating "not being able to move there" with "impassable terrain" right?

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're equating "not being able to move there" with "impassable terrain" right?

No, not at all.

Impassable terrain is a classification of terrain that cannot be moved through.

Certain units can move through and end their move in impassable terrain.

The fact that a particular unit does not have permission to move in a perticular piece of terrain does not re-classify the terrain as "impassable".

time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're equating "not being able to move there" with "impassable terrain" right?

No, not at all.

Impassable terrain is a classification of terrain that cannot be moved through.

Certain units can move through and end their move in impassable terrain.

The fact that a particular unit does not have permission to move in a perticular piece of terrain does not re-classify the terrain as "impassable".

Right, so they can deploy in it.

I don't see how you can have one but not the other.

The problem from my perspective when it comes to "impassable" terrain is it may really just be a certain feature of said terrain which is "impassable". Although it's easy to point at a terrain piece and give it a blanket definition "this will be played as impassable", often times it's too simplistic, especially with large and detailed terrain pieces.




At the center is a refinery that myself and sallieman built. It's pretty big as you can see. We can't simply point at that during our pre-game discussion and say "impassable", full stop. It wouldn't work. We obviously don't want vehicles or infantry scaling 12 inch high 90 angled walls or walking/driving right through silos as if they weren't there so at some point some feature will have to be said to be impassable, and mostly that's common sense. At the same time, we've made part of the structure accsessable to infantry in the form of a catwalk that leads to a ladder which leads to the roof and on the roof there is yet another catwalk leading to the silos.

It's more about the path different unit types must take than being super strict. A detailed pre-game discussion is prefferable to a lengthy argument riddled game.

The terrain rules are so bad that in/on is never really fleshed out. The consequence is that if we called that piece of terrain impassable you wouldn't be able to set foot on it unless you were a skimmer and that would just kinda suck.

I'm not a fan of melting though solid terrain or walls in the case of ruins for the simple fact that it makes maneuvering and the movement phase in general a lot less important. Just as big los blockers are important, so is being on the same page as to what path you and your opponent can and cannot take. Melting though walls or soilid terrain also removes any possibility of choke points or blocking... the movie 300 would have really sucked if the persian's melted through rock..

The rulebook actively encourages players, over and over and over again, to talk about the terrain beforehand. The problem is sadly not many do. 5th ed shook things up by introducing real los. Many people justs seem content to play everything as area terrain and call ita day and that's just kinda sad IMO.




I will close by posting some rules for an upcoming tournament that sallieman and myself are hosting:

"Terrain: Before each round you will be given 5 minutes on top of game length to discuss and define each terrain piece with your opponent. This is very important as it will affect where objectives can or cannot be placed, how models interact with the board etc. Some of our custom terrain pieces are very large and detailed and would be difficult to define as solely one type of terrain. It’s worth noting that ruins have 4 pages of rules and both parties should be on the same page as to how they will be played (climbing, melting through walls etc).

Objectives in 3D environments: Objectives are considered held if a troop choice is within 3 inches of the objective marker. This may be measured spherically. What this means is an objective may be held or contested by models higher or lower than it. The measurement can be made from the base or head of a model and for vehicles any part of the hull.

Note: Your pre game discussion about terrain should also include where objectives can or cannot be placed. The only restriction on placement in the BBB is impassable terrain, however some of our terrain features are very large and that may prove too restrictive so we leave that decision up to you and your opponent. "