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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I would like to see someone who disagrees with Idolator dissect his OP.
He covered pretty much everything in the OP; and yet, people keep posting who have obviously not read the OP. If you don't want to read it, don't get involved! He has interesting points...there's no need to spew forth arguments that he addresses in the OP.

1) his OP is a mess

2) there is nothing there that is cited that states that the upper levels of a ruin are area terrain, and in a permissive ruleset that means they are not.

It is obvious to me that you didn't read the OP. it is rather lengthy, I'll give you that. As it contains all of the reasons that ruins are area terrain.

Including two specific citations that include ruins as area terrain. It was specifically lengthy in order for me to reference when questioned. You've even attempted to refute my premise with selective rules quotes that I had made in the OP.!

Claiming that it is a mess is ridiculous. It follows the rules for an outline summary to support a thesis. It begins with a preamble, then states the thesis, following that it enumerates specific rule sets (in order from the book), each enumeration then lists the wording in those rules (also in order), followed by an address of anticipated counter theses.

Granted, I did forget to restate my thesis at the end, and for that I whole heatedly beg your forgiveness for submitting "A-" work.

for 2A and 2C: The ruins rules specifically state that the base is considered area terrain. so the earlier pages, like 91, can only be referencing the base of an area terrain as noted in the rules for area terrain.

He pretty much nails #3:

 Idolator wrote:
3. It doesn't specificaly say in the ruins rules that it is area terrain! This is my favorite. No, the exact words. "Ruins are area terrain" doesn't appear in the rules for ruins...

The rules do not say that ruins are area terrain, they only classify the base as area terrain, therefore only the base is area terrain.\

Bottom line, only the base of a ruin is area terrain.

 Idolator wrote:
Granted, I did forget to restate my thesis at the end, and for that I whole heatedly beg your forgiveness for submitting "A-" work.

I would give it a B, as your premise is not sound, but your presentation of citations were direct quotes, and properly cited. (Even without a proper bibliography, as we are only dealing with one book).

A ruin with a base is a single piece of terrain with different rules for the base and the structure. It is not 2 pieces of terrain, so when describing it in a general sense, yes it is area terrain.

The general statement that includes ruins as area terrain is overuled by the more specific rules that tell you that the base is area terrain with no mention of upper levels also being such. General<specific.>

 DeathReaper wrote:
for 2A and 2C: The ruins rules specifically state that the base is considered area terrain. so the earlier pages, like 91, can only be referencing the base of an area terrain as noted in the rules for area terrain.

He pretty much nails #3:

 Idolator wrote:
3. It doesn't specificaly say in the ruins rules that it is area terrain! This is my favorite. No, the exact words. "Ruins are area terrain" doesn't appear in the rules for ruins...

The rules do not say that ruins are area terrain, they only classify the base as area terrain, therefore only the base is area terrain.\

Bottom line, only the base of a ruin is area terrain.
Granted, I did forget to restate my thesis at the end, and for that I whole heatedly beg your forgiveness for submitting "A-" work.
I would give it a B, as your premise is not sound, but your presentation, and citations were concise.

The rules state, that if it has a base, that the base is area terrain. It doesn't say that only the base is area terrain. You're adding language that doesn't exist. To be perfectly honest, the rules don't even explicitly say that the base is area terrain. The exact words are "In this case, TREAT the base as area terrain."

Does it tell you what types of area that base should be?

Here's a real question that I would love to have answered. Are forests and lakes Area terrain? If so, what rules make them area terrain?

No, being a forest does not make it area terrain. Read page 102 "forests, jungles, and woods"

It states that they are usually also area terrain. It does not say they always are. *hint* A tree without a base probably won't classify as area terrain, but a BASE full of trees probably would be. You would discuss that with your opponent.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lakes are the very next page and there is no mention that lakes are ever area terrain.

 Idolator wrote:

The rules state, that if it has a base, that the base is area terrain. It doesn't say that only the base is area terrain. You're adding language that doesn't exist. To be perfectly honest, the rules don't even explicitly say that the base is area terrain. The exact words are "In this case, TREAT the base as area terrain."

Does it tell you what types of area that base should be?

Here's a real question that I would love to have answered. Are forests and lakes Area terrain? If so, what rules make them area terrain?

It says the base is area terrain.

Got a citation that says the upper levels are area terrain?

Because if you do not then they are not, according to the permissive ruleset.

 BarBoBot wrote:
No, being a forest does not make it area terrain. Read page 102 "forests, jungles, and woods"

It states that they are usually also area terrain. It does not say they always are. *hint* A tree without a base probably won't classify as area terrain, but a BASE full of trees probably would be. You would discuss that with your opponent.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lakes are the very next page and there is no mention that lakes are ever area terrain.

So, in your reading of the rules, there are only two instances of area terrain? That would be craters and wreckage/rubble.
Those are the only two instances in the rules, that I can find, where an item is explicitly named as area terrain in it's rules subset.

Forests state that they are "usually also area terrain", but since not a single option for Any of the types of forest state that they are area terrain, then there is no possible way that they could ever legally be area terrain....unless you read the rules for Area terrain, where woods are included in the rules.

Your hint. A single tree wouldn't classify as a forest, jungle or woods either. Otherwise I would have a forest in my front yard and two jungles in the back.

Nothing changes the fact that ruins are listed as area terrain.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

The rules state, that if it has a base, that the base is area terrain. It doesn't say that only the base is area terrain. You're adding language that doesn't exist. To be perfectly honest, the rules don't even explicitly say that the base is area terrain. The exact words are "In this case, TREAT the base as area terrain."

Does it tell you what types of area that base should be?

Here's a real question that I would love to have answered. Are forests and lakes Area terrain? If so, what rules make them area terrain?

It says the base is area terrain.

Got a citation that says the upper levels are area terrain?

Because if you do not then they are not, according to the permissive ruleset.

Are the upper levels of a ruin part of the ruin? Yes they are! See points 2a and 2c, ruins being area terrain.

Edit. See also point 3a: rules for ruins encompass the height width and depth of the model.

Your understanding of area terrain is flawed.

"Area terrain" is just a way to have terrain on the table that is also suitable for placing/moving models.

"Area terrain" is not a specific thing. It is a base, or outline that represents the border of clear open space with what would be a densely packed forest etc.

If I make a custom table that is forest themed, I can not have trees covering every square inch of the table. To represent a thick grouping of trees, you would make a clear outline or base and place a few trees on it to represent a forest. In that case, even when not actually obscured by a tree, you get the save for being "in" the area terrain because you have decided with your opponent to make the clearly defined outline or base as area terrain.

If I instead just had a few trees scattered with no clearly defined base then there is no way to determine if I'm "in" the area terrain, so it is not area terrain.

The rules for forests tell you that you get a 5+ cover for being 25% obscured in that scenario rather than 5+ for area terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nothing changes the fact that ruins are listed as area terrain

Do you understand that specific rules overrule general ones?

Example; infantry may only fire 1 weapon per shooting phase (general)

Tau infantry with multitrackers can fire an additional weapon. (Specific)

The specific rules ALWAYS trump general rules. The tau can therefore "break" the only 1 weapon rule.

Ruins are referenced in the area terrain rules. They are outlined specifically with their own rules later. Those rules say that the base is area terrain.

That does not conflict at all with ruins being referenced in area terrain rules as the ruin IS area terrain, but ONLY the base.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Your understanding of area terrain is flawed.

"Area terrain" is just a way to have terrain on the table that is also suitable for placing/moving models.

"Area terrain" is not a specific thing. It is a base, or outline that represents the border of clear open space with what would be a densely packed forest etc.
.

That is indeed the crux of my point. It is not a specific thing. It's a general rule that encompasses a piece of terrain that occupies the width and depth of the horizontal plane. Ruins are specifically mentioned twice in the area terrain entry. (They are also again mentioned as area terrain in the "what sort of game?" entry on pg 91 that infers that ruins are a type of area terrain at minimum)

The different levels of a terrain piece do provide a clear outline on the horizontal plane to place models, that if modeled properly would have a jumble of wires, pipes, rubble, rocks, dead bodies, furniture and god knows what. As it would be impossible to model such a thing and still be able to place models, the BRB classifies it as a type of area terrain.

Going back to the OP, I noted that the rules for area terrain state the rules are applied to the height and AREA of the terrain. There is no designation that a model has to be in cover behind a ruin, merely in the ruin to receive the 4+ cover save. Just like any other bit of area terrain, just with a slightly better save.

Again, the SPECIFIC rules that outline what part of a ruin is area terrain trump the GENERAL rule that references ruins as area terrain.

Nothing changes that. It's the same principal that governs the entire game. You have general rules that everyone must follow, and then you have specific rules that override the restrictions of the general rule.

Ruins are not area terrain because the specific rules for ruins tell you only the base is.

 BarBoBot wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nothing changes the fact that ruins are listed as area terrain

Do you understand that specific rules overrule general ones?

Example; infantry may only fire 1 weapon per shooting phase (general)

Tau infantry with multitrackers can fire an additional weapon. (Specific)

The specific rules ALWAYS trump general rules. The tau can therefore "break" the only 1 weapon rule.

Ruins are referenced in the area terrain rules. They are outlined specifically with their own rules later. Those rules say that the base is area terrain.

That does not conflict at all with ruins being referenced in area terrain rules as the ruin IS area terrain, but ONLY the base.

This is also a great point. Tau don't stop being infantry because they have additional rules, fast skimmers don't stop being vehicles because they have additional rules, ruins don't stop being area terrain because they have additional rules.

I really don't understand about the base argument. Ruins with or without a base are area terrain. If outfitted with a base, the base is treated as area terrain. What type of area terrain that base may be, is up to you.
Edit:
I already addressed this point in the first counter thesis point in the original post.
Edit:
It's also addressed in the second counter thesis point as well.

 Idolator wrote:
Are the upper levels of a ruin part of the ruin? Yes they are! See points 2a and 2c, ruins being area terrain.

Irrelevant as the Ruins rules denote what part of the ruin is area terrain. (Hint: the base). and there are no rules saying that the upper floors are area terrain so they are not. The rules for ruins are more specific than the general rules about area terrain on 91, so the ruins rules clarify the rules on P. 91

Edit. See also point 3a: rules for ruins encompass the height width and depth of the model.

again this does not matter as the specific ruins rules denote that the base is area terrain, and are more specific than the general area terrain rules.

Permissive ruleset tells us that when dealing with ruins only the base is area terrain as nothing states that the upper floors are area terrain.

Area terrain is not defined by what is in/on it.

Area terrains ONLY use is to let players have terrain on the table that allows movement with models while still representing a rough battlefield or densely packed brush/trees.

It is not a label to be stuck on anything you want to get +2 save for going to ground on. Especially when the specific rules tell you exactly what your allowed to treat as area terrain.

If you want to house rule that upper floors on ruins are area terrain, then your still going to have to discuss it with them before the game. (Which you should already be doing) You don't get to force them to accept your house rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Are the upper levels of a ruin part of the ruin? Yes they are! See points 2a and 2c, ruins being area terrain.

Irrelevant as the Ruins rules denote what part of the ruin is area terrain. (Hint: the base). and there are no rules saying that the upper floors are area terrain so they are not. The rules for ruins are more specific than the general rules about area terrain on 91, so the ruins rules clarify the rules on P. 91

Edit. See also point 3a: rules for ruins encompass the height width and depth of the model.

again this does not matter as the specific ruins rules denote that the base is area terrain, and are more specific than the general area terrain rules.

Permissive ruleset tells us that when dealing with ruins only the base is area terrain as nothing states that the upper floors are area terrain.

Once again, the rules for area terrain specifically name ruins as area terrain, twice. I've provided page references and quotes.

You have also, again, added the word "only" which I cannot find in the rules. Ruins are area terrain with or without a base. How do I come to this conclusion??? It's listed in the area terrain rules twice!

Is it your standing that if an item has additional rules, that none of the basic rules are valid for that item? If so then this entire rule book would be an unworkable jumble of ramblings.

You don't seem to understand the specific vs general ruleset.

Yes ruins are "specifically" mentioned in the area terrain rules.... Just like models firing 1 weapon is "specifically" mentioned...

We are talking about "specific" information vs "general" information.

You see ruins REFERENCED in the area terrain rules, but its just that, a reference to ruins. They are SPECIFICALLY outlined in the rules for ruins.

The SPECIFIC rules that the base is area terrain take precedent over the GENERAL rule that lists ruins.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Area terrain is not defined by what is in/on it.

Area terrains ONLY use is to let players have terrain on the table that allows movement with models while still representing a rough battlefield or densely packed brush/trees.

It is not a label to be stuck on anything you want to get +2 save for going to ground on. Especially when the specific rules tell you exactly what your allowed to treat as area terrain.

Yes, there are indeed specific rules for what to treat as area terrain. That would be woods, marshes, ruins and other types of rough ground with the later edition of craters and wreckage/ rubble.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BarBoBot wrote:
You don't seem to understand the specific vs general ruleset.

Yes ruins are "specifically" mentioned in the area terrain rules.... Just like models firing 1 weapon is "specifically" mentioned...

We are talking about "specific" information vs "general" information.

You see ruins REFERENCED in the area terrain rules, but its just that, a reference to ruins. They are SPECIFICALLY outlined in the rules for ruins.

The SPECIFIC rules that the base is area terrain take precedent over the GENERAL rule that lists ruins.

The rule to treat the base, that ruins happens to be placed on, as area terrain places no change to the ruins themselves.

Placing a ruin on a base doesn't stop a ruin from being a ruin. It is a ruin whether it has a base or not. A ruin is area terrain according to the rules entry for area terrain.

Are you really claiming that, even though ruins are referenced as area terrain, they didn't really mean it!?!

The rules of specific over general don't function unless they cancel the general information.

The tau reference I keep referring to is a perfect example.

General: infantry can not fire more than 1 weapon per shooting phase.

Specific: infantry with a multitracker may fire an additional weapon per shooting phase.

If the specific rule does not cancel the general rule, then you have the good old "unstoppable force vs a unmovable object"

A model would have permission to fire an extra weapon, but would still be restricted to firing 1.

We know that is not the case. The model with the multitracker ignores the general rules when they conflict.

Yes, there are indeed specific rules for what to treat as area terrain. That would be woods, marshes, ruins and other types of rough ground with the later edition of craters and wreckage/ rubble.

Wrong. Those are not SPECIFIC rules. You have a general list.

The SPECIFIC rules are listed separately.

I would hope I wouldn't have to define specific and general.

 BarBoBot wrote:
The rules of specific over general don't function unless they cancel the general information.

The tau reference I keep referring to is a perfect example.

General: infantry can not fire more than 1 weapon per shooting phase.

Specific: infantry with a multitracker may fire an additional weapon per shooting phase.

If the specific rule does not cancel the general rule, then you have the good old "unstoppable force vs a unmovable object"

A model would have permission to fire an extra weapon, but would still be restricted to firing 1.

We know that is not the case. The model with the multitracker ignores the general rules when they conflict.

Awesome! You are right again. The specific does indeed alter the general. The tau rules alter shooting, if certain specific conditions are met. They do not stop being infantry, they still have to abide by all other rules of infantry. Just because they change the shooting aspect doesn't grant them the ability to move more than 6 inches.

Ruins rules alter many other rules from earlier in the book. It is very specific how each rule is altered. No where, that I can find, do the ruins rules change the fact that they are area terrain. In fact it is also quite clear that the only rule for area terrain that it changes is the cover save.

Even the rules for movement (ruins) straight out declare that there can be ground level ruins. "Only certain troops are capable of clambering to the upper levels of ruins". It then lists the types followed by this jewel. "Other units may only move on the ground level of a ruin"

So, the rules for ruins state that there are "ground level" ruins that you move "on".

What exactly is the premise of your argument? What rules apply to the upper levels of a ruin, in your opinion? Do you even consider the upper levels of a ruin as part of the ruin? What cover save is imparted to models on the horizontal plane of a ruin?

After all, the specific rules for ruins state that it applies to both the horizontal and vertical.

. It also never states that you must be obscured by the ruins to receive the cover. Which, if I understand your line of reasoning, must be explicitly stated, otherwise the general rule is replaced by the specific ruins rules.
After all, the wreckage/rubble rule does explicitly state that it is area terrain but only provides a 4+ cover if the model is obscured. No such restriction exists for ruins.

Just as the rules of forests tell you they are not always area terrain, the rules for ruins tell you to treat the base as area terrain if it has one.

In both cases the terrain is listed in the general list of area terrain, but is outlined more specifically in their own rules section.

According to your logic, a forest is always area terrain because its listed in the general list, yet in the rules for forests it tells you it is not always area terrain.

A cluster of trees with no base or defined outline is not area terrain and only provides cover if you are 25% obscured by the trees. That same cluster with a defined border or base would be able to be used as area terrain because you can see exactly where it starts. You can have a forest with no borders and it would not be area terrain even if it was significant in number of trees because there is no way to tell exactly when a model is entering the forest.

The fact that forests specifically state that they are not always area terrain totally debunks your assertion that things listed under the area terrain list are always area terrain even without a base or defined border.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Just as the rules of forests tell you they are not always area terrain, the rules for ruins tell you to treat the base as area terrain if it has one.

In both cases the terrain is listed in the general list of area terrain, but is outlined more specifically in their own rules section.

According to your logic, a forest is always area terrain because its listed in the general list, yet in the rules for forests it tells you it is not always area terrain.

A cluster of trees with no base or defined outline is not area terrain and only provides cover if you are 25% obscured by the trees. That same cluster with a defined border or base would be able to be used as area terrain because you can see exactly where it starts. You can have a forest with no borders and it would not be area terrain even if it was significant in number of trees because there is no way to tell exactly when a model is entering the forest.

The fact that forests specifically state that they are not always area terrain totally debunks your assertion that things listed under the area terrain list are always area terrain even without a base or defined border.

That is an excellent point and one that I did not address in my OP.
Due to the verticality it is possible to have a terrain structure that has no usable horizontal plane. Walls,, forests and several other things can fall into this style of terrain. Having no "area" would prevent something from being area terrain.

However, if any of these do encompass a horizontal area that would be possible to place a model, they would have to fall under a category of area terrain. That terrain could be Forest, "water", ruins, other types of rough ground (which could mean anything really), craters and wreckage/rubble.

There is a specific rule set for walls and barricades, separate from ruins. Those rules are for vertical structures without a base or upper levels. They are not listed in the area terrain section of the area terrain rules. As walls only have the vertical they are different from ruins as ruins have both a horizontal and vertical aspect. Without the horizontal aspect a wall is just a wall and not a ruin. It is the very fact that there is no area that prevents it from being a ruin.

The fact that forest rules state that they are "usually area terrain" actually strengthens my point. It means that forests are indeed area terrain, even though there is no wording in their rules specifically stating that they are so and that there are some times when it possible that they are not. By noting that there may be exceptions, it proves that they are indeed area terrain even though the forest rules never expressly say so.


"Usually" is a term that means that is commonplace for forests to be area terrain with the alternative being the exception. There is no caveat for ruins. Walls without levels are just that, walls, not area terrain, which is what ruins are.

Sorry, but "usually" mean its not always the case. You claim that by being listed in the general list, that it is always area terrain. You are wrong and I have listed the rule why. Forest usually being area terrain strengthens my case, not yours.

It sets a precedent that area terrain needs a defined border (base) or else it's not area terrain. That is the ONLY case which forests would not be area terrain.(lack of defined border) By definition, area terrain needs a base to represent it's borders or it's impossible to tell when you have entered it.

Feel free to house rule, but don't be surprised when your opponent disagrees.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Sorry, but "usually" mean its not always the case. You claim that by being listed in the general list, that it is always area terrain. You are wrong and I have listed the rule why. Forest usually being area terrain strengthens my case, not yours.

It sets a precedent that area terrain needs a defined border (base) or else it's not area terrain. That is the ONLY case which forests would not be area terrain.(lack of defined border) By definition, area terrain needs a base to represent it's borders or it's impossible to tell when you have entered it.

Feel free to house rule, but don't be surprised when your opponent disagrees.

Exactly this, there is no wiggle room RAW.

There is wiggle room if you and your opponent want to house rule, but that is a game by game basis.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Sorry, but "usually" mean its not always the case. You claim that by being listed in the general list, that it is always area terrain. You are wrong and I have listed the rule why. Forest usually being area terrain strengthens my case, not yours.

It sets a precedent that area terrain needs a defined border (base) or else it's not area terrain. That is the ONLY case which forests would not be area terrain.(lack of defined border) By definition, area terrain needs a base to represent it's borders or it's impossible to tell when you have entered it.

Feel free to house rule, but don't be surprised when your opponent disagrees.

Yes I know the "usually" does not mean "always", hence the different spellings. I even addressed that in my response. Usually means more often than not.
How is it possible for forests to be area terrain at all, when there are no rules in the forest listing to consider them as area terrain?Being listed in as area terrain, does indeed make it area terrain.
Forests have a more specific rule permitting them to be classified as something other than area terrain. There's the permissive part that you were referring to.

Please, tell me why would forests have a rule providing an exception to being area terrain, when there is no rule in the forest section making them area terrain? You'll have to look elsewhere. Honestly, where is the rule that allows Forrest's to be area terrain? I can't find one in the forest rules.

Stating that a terrain piece with no area can't be area terrain in no way negates ruins from being area terrain. As a wall with no horizontal area in not a ruin, according to the definitions of both ruins and walls.

Are you seriously saying that the different levels (floors) of a ruin do not provide a distinct boundary? Why do you think your models don't just hang in the air when you move them beyond those edges.

Furthermore, just as with any area terrain, the book tells you to discuss where the boundaries of the ruins are. Why would this be needed if they didn't have an area that needed boundaries?

No one's answered this question. Are the different levels of a ruin, also ruins?

Nor this one. Can a ground level price of terrain be ruins?

You obviously have no grasp on what area terrain is and what it represents.

A forest doesn't need rules to be area terrain. The game needs area terrain so that you can have terrain that represents something you would be able to hide behind, but that allows you to actually place and move models. A scale forest would be terrible for moving and placing models. Thus you represent a forest with a base of area terrain and a few trees.

That is the only reason the concept of area terrain exists in 40k...

Since you don't want to accept the rules as they are written, there is nothing for me to offer you. Adios.

Simple counter argument: Someone goes out to the model railroad terrain store, buys a dozen trees, puts them down on the table, and says, "That's not a forest, those are just individual trees on open terrain." The fact that those tree models may be glued to a large, flat bottomed piece of foam or plaster for easy transport isn't going to change the facts. The issue isn't whether it would make more sense to play with those tree models as a forest. The issue is whether you agreed to play those trees as individual trees or as representative forests.

Likewise, if the person across the table exclaims, "Upon my honor, you will have defiled the memories of my deceased mother if we consider the upper level of this ruin area terrain," no conclusion in a rules forum is likely to alter the situation.

Because someone could also, with even more rational thought, place a piece of terrain with a bombed out ground floor and immaculate second floor, and say "The bottom floor is an area terrain ruin, the second floor interior is not because it is perfectly well preserved."

 solkan wrote:
Simple counter argument: Someone goes out to the model railroad terrain store, buys a dozen trees, puts them down on the table, and says, "That's not a forest, those are just individual trees on open terrain." The fact that those tree models may be glued to a large, flat bottomed piece of foam or plaster for easy transport isn't going to change the facts. The issue isn't whether it would make more sense to play with those tree models as a forest. The issue is whether you agreed to play those trees as individual trees or as representative forests.

Likewise, if the person across the table exclaims, "Upon my honor, you will have defiled the memories of my deceased mother if we consider the upper level of this ruin area terrain," no conclusion in a rules forum is likely to alter the situation.

Because someone could also, with even more rational thought, place a piece of terrain with a bombed out ground floor and immaculate second floor, and say "The bottom floor is an area terrain ruin, the second floor interior is not because it is perfectly well preserved."

Your argument is valid and well accepted.
Terrain by it's very nature is always a house rule.
I was just hammering out the basics of what is written in the book. It can be played anyway that you want.

The rules on p98 for ruins clearly tell you how to treat ruins,

the basics: "All ruins are difficult terrain and porvide a 4+ cover save".

In the next paragraph, covering ruins with bases, "A ruin may be mounted on a base ....... In this case treat the base as area terrain"

Ruins without bases "The ground floor is not counted as either difficult terrain or area terrain", unless you feel that this means that higher floors should be counted as area terrain when the ground floor is not?

These rules, being more specificaly pertaining to Ruins than the mention in the area terrain section override said mention, and I don't see anything there telling me that ruins are area terrain in and of themselves, quite the opposite in fact.

 grrrfranky wrote:
The rules on p98 for ruins clearly tell you how to treat ruins,

the basics: "All ruins are difficult terrain and porvide a 4+ cover save".

In the next paragraph, covering ruins with bases, "A ruin may be mounted on a base ....... In this case treat the base as area terrain"

Ruins without bases "The ground floor is not counted as either difficult terrain or area terrain", unless you feel that this means that higher floors should be counted as area terrain when the ground floor is not?

These rules, being more specificaly pertaining to Ruins than the mention in the area terrain section override said mention, and I don't see anything there telling me that ruins are area terrain in and of themselves, quite the opposite in fact.

This was covered in the OP, and multiple times in the thread.

Why do the rules for movement in ruins state that certain units can only move on the ground floor of a ruin?

That was one of the many ways that this has been addressed.

 Idolator wrote:

I really don't understand about the base argument. Ruins with or without a base are area terrain.

Here you go. This is the flaw to which all of your other points are wrongfully stemming.

Ruins are not area terrain. Ruins are ruins. If you have a freestanding brick wall, without a base, it is 4+ cover only if it obscures the model. If the shooter moves around the wall and the target is no longer obscured, then there is no cover save. It doesn't matter if the ruin is 1, 2, or 50 levels high. The ruin is a ruin and grants cover saves based on true line of sight and actual obscurement.

Now, if the same brick wall is on a well defined base, then the ruin's base is now area terrain. So, if obscured by the wall, the target receives 4+. If the shooter moves around again and the target is no longer obscured, then the target receives a 5+ for standing on the base and being in area terrain.

All other levels of the ruin are not area terrain, even if they have a floor. They are ruins and only grant cover saves based on true line of sight.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

I really don't understand about the base argument. Ruins with or without a base are area terrain.

Here you go. This is the flaw to which all of your other points are wrongfully stemming.

Ruins are not area terrain. Ruins are ruins. If you have a freestanding brick wall, without a base, it is 4+ cover only if it obscures the model. If the shooter moves around the wall and the target is no longer obscured, then there is no cover save. It doesn't matter if the ruin is 1, 2, or 50 levels high. The ruin is a ruin and grants cover saves based on true line of sight and actual obscurement.

Now, if the same brick wall is on a well defined base, then the ruin's base is now area terrain. So, if obscured by the wall, the target receives 4+. If the shooter moves around again and the target is no longer obscured, then the target receives a 5+ for standing on the base and being in area terrain.

All other levels of the ruin are not area terrain, even if they have a floor. They are ruins and only grant cover saves based on true line of sight.

That's what people keep telling him, but he doesn't seem to be listening, even with the rules spelling out exactly how to treat a ruin.