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.

Psyker: yes those are all instances of a model not being on the battlefield and therefore destroyed. Vertical movement, when doing all the RAW shenanigans for straight in mid-air with no vertical terrain though; that is not "leaving the battlefield(unlike some video games)", we do not have a vertical boundry.

If you wanted to go further down the RAW rabbit-hole, a unit in a transport, in reserve, is auto-destroyed end of turn 3(matched play, end of battle normally) unless it disembarks prior, whether or not the transport has entered the battlefield.

Back to the response: I wasn't saying there are no rules for destruction of units that leave the battlefield(those are also only applicable to very specific circumstances. I was saying that base off of tabletop does not constitute "leaving the battlefield" to make such a claim has units destroyed upon embarking(then again they really do leave the battlefield there), or otherwise on terrain instead of the tabletop(yes jinx, this includes the object commonly referred to as a "hill" if you are not playing with advanced rules battlefield terrain; core rules has no such thing).

What I meant by a hill not permanently affixed is if someone has a dedicated game table with molded terrain features or the realm of battle game-boards.

Core Rules just have 'Terrain Features,' there is no unique objects known as Hills, Woods, Ruins or the likes within the Core Rules. The closest they come to defining a specific piece of terrain is using a wall as an example. This is not enough to allow the Core Rules to differentiate between different peaces of scenery, all of it is just one object: Terrain. So if someone tells us they are using an object called a Hill and want to know how it is different to a Ruin, they can only be using Advanced Rules in order to differentiate the Hill from the Ruin in the first place. This is a point I have brought up with you many times, for while I even admire giving a complete answer that accounts for Basic and Advanced Rules it is not difficult to give a more specific answer to a more specific situation if you are careful not to abuse terminology.

Thus, if one want to refer to only the Core Rules, they should not use terminology like Ruins or Hills as instructions for those objects are not found within the Core Rules!


As for Battleboards, yeah... I still have a thousand and one questions thanks to the fact the line between Terrain pieces and Models is so blurred in 8th.
Lot of those boards have specific Rules for what happens to Models standing on the Battlements and we know what the Authors think about standing on Battlements....

One of the issues we have on this board is colloquial terms vs game terms between the various levels of play(I had even started a topic about it a little while ago).

While core rules do not have terms for ruins, hills, or woods; we tend to call these "terrain features" by what they look like at all times.

This is one of those things with colloquial "buildings"; a Fortification building might be different from a scratch-built building, and the term might refer to a ruin. All depending on who is asking the question.

All I can think on right now is how much I despise Scratch Built Terrain now....
I loved this Rule in previous editions, but if I had known we would have a keyword of Buildings and the only reference to specific Rules for Buildings would be within Scratch Built Terrain....

"Despise scratch built terrain"

Come on... that's a bit silly. Are you saying you should only be allowed to play if your battlefield consists of £500 worth of styrene? That's a bit ridiculous. Tonnes of us make our own terrain because we prefer it, can't afford GW, or numerous other reasons. Same with 3rd party. It's not hard to agree before the game how you'll play any non-GW terrain. Lots of these discussions risk making things seem more of a big deal than they are. Yes it would have been nice for more guidance from GW, but they want to sell their spendy spendy stuff. There's ample guidance on the book to chat pre-game and agree. The only issue you'll face is if you don't do this... oddness may happen mid-game. But let's not pretend it's an enormous issue. People play on homemade terrain just fine.

Hell, plenty of people play on scratch built terrain for the simple reason that, like so many things in GW, all of the damned terrain they sell is Imperium-centric.

Despise was a little bit too harsh a word, accepted, I am just frustrated over the whole situation...

Previous editions had pages of rules telling us how Buildings work because they do fill such a unique role of a Vehicle and Scenery Piece rolled into one. This Edition resorts it all down to an undefined keyword that is always found along side the Vehicle Keyword. This is not much of an issue when purchased and used purely like a Vehicle, but Buildings have often been used as pieces of terrain in quite a range of battlefields and Game Workshop still appears to be encouraging people to purchase their pathetic Imperial themed stuff for that purpose. So thinking that Building would be just as defined as Woods, we flick to the advanced section where instructions on how to handle such things are found and we locate.... this:
.... Perhaps you will create a river (presumably a
fantastical one filled with lava or acid) with entirely new rules,
agreeing that the only models that can cross it safely are those that
can FLY . Some players prefer to say that certain terrain features,
such as giant rock formations or imposing sealed buildings, are
simply impassable to any models – creating obstacles on the
battlefield for armies to manoeuvre around. ....

Even this 'suggestion' on how to treat Buildings as Terrain is so often ignored because, again, it is found in a Rule informing us that we are on our damn own.

This problem isn't even limited to Buildings being used as Terrain, there are a few Purchasable Buildings we can point to that simply do not function because they where also designed as 'Building First, Model second... if ever' and have suddenly had the Building section become meaningless. The easiest to flag as a problem is the Sky-shield, but it is not alone as there are a few older pieces of Terrain that also have Rules that specifically deal with Models standing on the terrain in question. While many of these are produced by companies affiliated with Game Workshop, which people believes gives Game Workshop an out instead of using it to highlight how pathetic they are at internal communications, they still exist and are still seeing use on the Table-tops with little to no guidance on how to proceed beyond 'discuss it with your opponent... ever... game....'

It is actually the existence of Battle-Tiles that highlighted this entire issue for me:
The 8th Edition Datasheets produced are still running off the old presumptions that Buildings are still... well... Terrain that Models have permission to transverse over as per basic Rules.

Again, all only problems if you don't talk to your opponent ore-game.

"How are we going to play terrain today? Just so we're clear at the start."
"Let's use Ruins rules for these building to edge of their basing, Woods for the forest sections, the river is only crossable at the bridge unless you can fly, and these rocky hills give Infantry cover bonus."
"Sounds ace. Chimeras can cross the river too right?"
"Oh yeah, they're supposed to be amphibious. Good shout. Anything else?"
"Nope... let's roll for mission!"

I don't know what you guys are arguing about. Tanks driving up trees and parking on the top has been a mainstay feature of the 8th edition meta from the start. But they can't climb walls so they need enough distance to actually reach the top of the tree and most of ours are 6-8" tall. The top of the tree has about 0.5" parking space but that's plenty for a tank as long as the surrounding area isn't obstructed too so it can fit.

Remember friend jinxy; those are suggestions on base-line treatment.

I own 3 bastions from back in 5th edition planetfall. Now, I am not going to be fielding all of them(or any most of the time); so I use them as "scratch built tertain" No points to either army, not a part of either army, and the "controlled building" ability added: "any infantry unit may embark in this building, when a unit embarks on this building it then counts as a friendly model to the army so embarked and an enemy model to tje opponent's units. If this building does not have a unit embarked upon it it is a friendly unit to all units."

Other scratch-built building have the same.

Of course my woods(represented as "dense forest" but just a base-area with movables trees) grant cover to any unit "completely within" as "scratch built" datasheets too.

JohnnyHell,
Yeah, but a Rule system that requires such conversations before every single game might have room for improvement.

Kommissar Kel,
Do you give them some sort of Battlements Rule as well?
That is really what I miss most about Buildings, lot of them made for good firing lanes and I want that back...

Not really; just keep the 10 modeld(half possible embarked) as firing from the building.)"fire points " but add in the 4 hb, and roof-gun targeted by ccontrolling player.