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.

I think that we just need rules for garrisoning and to stop branding every rock as a ruin.

Where does it say infantry can pass through walls? I'm missing something. I see under movement:

"No part of the model’s base
(or hull) can move further than this. It
cannot be moved through other models
or through terrain features such as walls,
but can be moved vertically in order to
climb or traverse any scenery. "

I just want to understand if I have been playing something wrong.

 cvtuttle wrote:
Where does it say infantry can pass through walls? I'm missing something. I see under movement:

"No part of the model’s base
(or hull) can move further than this. It
cannot be moved through other models
or through terrain features such as walls,
but can be moved vertically in order to
climb or traverse any scenery. "

I just want to understand if I have been playing something wrong.

It's in the rules for ruins.

Personally, I’d change how Infantry interact with “walls” anyway. I’d require infantry models to be equipped with Krak grenades, Melta bombs, demo charges etc in order to be able to “blast through” the wall and move through. Frag grenades etc wouldn’t be able to do this. All infantry models without those kind of grenades or without the FLY keyword would have to find a big enough gap in the wall to enter and exit through. I’d also class any modelled “doors” as gaps – but I don’t think most of them are big enough for 32mm bases to fit through.
I’d also change how “enclosed buildings” work. Starting off, no objectives can be placed inside them and a unit cannot hold an objective marker if the only models within 3” of the marker are inside an “enclosed building”. After that, I’d change it so you cannot fire weapons that do not require LoS from inside of them (let’s shoot this mortal through the solid roof, what could go wrong?!?!?!) and I would give any unit shot at by an indirect fire weapon whilst on the ground floor of a multi-story “enclosed building” +2 to their cover save as opposed to the standard +1. This would also result in cover bonuses being capped at +2 regardless of other possible additions (i.e. Prepared positions or unit abilities). In regards to the FLY keyword, they can land on the roof, if they can be placed, but can only enter the “enclosed building” if they “walk instead of fly” and are equipped with the required grenades.

That would screw daemons and others a bit though.

RogueApiary wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
RAW seems clear, but is it a good house rule for ITC otherwise?

Every year ITC is house ruled further and further away from actual 40k, I don't think we're playing the same game anymore.

It's a gamey way to abuse the spirit and intention of the rules for an advantage. Tactical Master! Another reason I can't stand FLG at all.

What? The ITC suggestion does exactly the opposite. Letting the player charge the opponent holed up in the building who would otherwise be unchargeable going by the main rulebook.

Also, where are you getting "every year ITC is being houseruled further and further away" like it's some drastically different statement? Here are the differences:

First floor ruins block LOS
Infantry units may invoke WMS to finish a charge against a unit in ruins if there's a wall in the way (technically not even official as ITC hasn't updated their rules and all we have to go on is the podcast).
Scoring/missions - nobody uses GW missions other than GW.

You are missing the point - the ITC rule keeps the unit from being shot at even through the roof with a flyer - or through a window. The ITC rules mandate - the only way to attack this unit is to charge it - so it's that much easier to game the rules.

What is ITC trying to do? Cover up a bad rule with another bad rule. How about some good rules.

"Buildings/walled ruins block LOS to units shooting through them BUT NOT INTO THEM. If you are inside you get a cover save" Holy crap FLG - it's so easy to be smarter than you. That is not good for the game.

 Xenomancers wrote:


"Buildings/walled ruins block LOS to units shooting through them BUT NOT INTO THEM. If you are inside you get a cover save" Holy crap FLG - it's so easy to be smarter than you. That is not good for the game.

It's easy to be the hero when you have the advantage of hindsight especially when they hasn't been an issue in the previous tournaments.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


"Buildings/walled ruins block LOS to units shooting through them BUT NOT INTO THEM. If you are inside you get a cover save" Holy crap FLG - it's so easy to be smarter than you. That is not good for the game.

It's easy to be the hero when you have the advantage of hindsight especially when they hasn't been an issue in the previous tournaments.

It's really not hard to foresee these things if you think them through for just a moment and play through some scenarios. My friends and I play around with making house rules all the time. There is rarely a change we make that doesn't have multiple unintended consequences. You have to play through sometimes to figure it out. They clearly didn't think it through hard enough.

I generally apply the "If it fits, it sits" rule for model placement over WMS. Things work better that way,

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


"Buildings/walled ruins block LOS to units shooting through them BUT NOT INTO THEM. If you are inside you get a cover save" Holy crap FLG - it's so easy to be smarter than you. That is not good for the game.

It's easy to be the hero when you have the advantage of hindsight especially when they hasn't been an issue in the previous tournaments.

It also should be easy for an organization to admit their initial solution had some problems in light of a tournament abuse and come up with a better solution...especially when they have access to the opinions of every 40K armchair quarterback on the internet. Unfortunately, ITC isn’t run by people who can say, even to themselves “We were wrong”.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


"Buildings/walled ruins block LOS to units shooting through them BUT NOT INTO THEM. If you are inside you get a cover save" Holy crap FLG - it's so easy to be smarter than you. That is not good for the game.

It's easy to be the hero when you have the advantage of hindsight especially when they hasn't been an issue in the previous tournaments.

It's really not hard to foresee these things if you think them through for just a moment and play through some scenarios. My friends and I play around with making house rules all the time. There is rarely a change we make that doesn't have multiple unintended consequences. You have to play through sometimes to figure it out. They clearly didn't think it through hard enough.

That's the thing - GW doesn't run buildings like the ITC guys do and even in all my ITC games the problem has never come up.

And here we are - a year and some months later with these same rules and this is the first real discussion we're having about it.

Hindsight.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Personally, I’d change how Infantry interact with “walls” anyway. I’d require infantry models to be equipped with Krak grenades, Melta bombs, demo charges etc in order to be able to “blast through” the wall and move through. Frag grenades etc wouldn’t be able to do this. All infantry models without those kind of grenades or without the FLY keyword would have to find a big enough gap in the wall to enter and exit through. I’d also class any modelled “doors” as gaps – but I don’t think most of them are big enough for 32mm bases to fit through.
I’d also change how “enclosed buildings” work. Starting off, no objectives can be placed inside them and a unit cannot hold an objective marker if the only models within 3” of the marker are inside an “enclosed building”. After that, I’d change it so you cannot fire weapons that do not require LoS from inside of them (let’s shoot this mortal through the solid roof, what could go wrong?!?!?!) and I would give any unit shot at by an indirect fire weapon whilst on the ground floor of a multi-story “enclosed building” +2 to their cover save as opposed to the standard +1. This would also result in cover bonuses being capped at +2 regardless of other possible additions (i.e. Prepared positions or unit abilities). In regards to the FLY keyword, they can land on the roof, if they can be placed, but can only enter the “enclosed building” if they “walk instead of fly” and are equipped with the required grenades.

That would screw daemons and others a bit though.

I accept it'd hurt for a fair few infantry units across a fair amount of codices, but, currently what "tools" do the standard Daemon infantry have to get through "solid" walls? Instead of requiring grenades, maybe we change it to "moving through a solid wall halves the distance of your movement and charge distances". This would then imply that the units have having to spend some of their "movement time" punching a hole in the wall, blasting a hole in the wall etc etc.

Kdash wrote:
I accept it'd hurt for a fair few infantry units across a fair amount of codices, but, currently what "tools" do the standard Daemon infantry have to get through "solid" walls? Instead of requiring grenades, maybe we change it to "moving through a solid wall halves the distance of your movement and charge distances". This would then imply that the units have having to spend some of their "movement time" punching a hole in the wall, blasting a hole in the wall etc etc.

Tools? Howabout the fact they are daemons? Who are breaking reality in various way. Simply being super strong able to punch through wall(marines can do that btw. Marines need no meltas to go through civilian walls. They can simply run through. Easy to imagine khorne bloodletters being similar. Tzeentch can use magic. Nurgle rots the wall through. Slaanesh is bit tricky but them having razor sharp claws so again claw through).

 Peregrine wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
What? The ITC suggestion does exactly the opposite. Letting the player charge the opponent holed up in the building who would otherwise be unchargeable going by the main rulebook.

It's not the opposite at all, it's exactly what they said: exploiting the rules to gain an advantage. RAW and clear RAI models can not be declared to be at some arbitrary point inside a terrain feature, even if that place would be really good for them. If a wall obstructs a charge then too bad, you don't get to charge. You don't get to claim some ridiculous exploit of WMS and ignore the existence of the terrain. Go around the long way and charge the unit from the exposed side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
I see nothing wrong with wanting your opponent to follow the rules of the game. Especially not in a tourney setting. And certainly not if you're aiming to gain some kind of rules advantage over me. You want to camp in a building in such a way that you can claim the rules prevent me from assaulting you? Ok, fine, the rules say you can do that. But you'd damn well better do the work of placing your models correctly.

It's unreasonable because it wastes time without adding anything to the game experience for either player. It's not like insisting on perfect measurement is actually going to prevent your opponent from doing it, it just means you get to sit there and wait while they perfectly measure out everything. Saying "they are X distance away from the wall" allows both players to get on with the fun part of the game, and it's to your advantage to accept the offer. It's like moving a horde of orks. Yes, by RAW you can insist on perfect measurement for every model in the horde, but do you honestly care that much when only the position of the front models is critical? Wouldn't you rather let them measure carefully for the front models, the ones that will determine the success or failure of a charge, and then fill in the rest of the horde behind them even if maybe they gain 0.01" of irrelevant distance? The difference in the outcome of the game is incredibly unlikely to be significant, but you can save yourself a lot of waiting.

I'm a patient man. I'll wait for you to play the game correctly if I encounter you in a tourney setting. Unless it becomes obvious that you're stalling. Then we'll discuss that with the judges.
Now if the TO's want to have additional rules to allow this sloppy "intent" placement of models within terrain? Great, put it in print.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kdash wrote:
Personally, I don’t agree with what Reece said about WMS and charging through walls and, I’d wager that given a few minutes of discussion and clarification, his statement would be revised. Also, unless it gets added into the ITC FAQ document, then it still isn’t an “official” ITC ruling.

Charging through walls (most terrain is roughly 3mm thick I think) is only possible if you’re on a 25mm base. 32mm bases can’t fit.

Personally, I’d change how Infantry interact with “walls” anyway. I’d require infantry models to be equipped with Krak grenades, Melta bombs, demo charges etc in order to be able to “blast through” the wall and move through. Frag grenades etc wouldn’t be able to do this. All infantry models without those kind of grenades or without the FLY keyword would have to find a big enough gap in the wall to enter and exit through. I’d also class any modelled “doors” as gaps – but I don’t think most of them are big enough for 32mm bases to fit through.
I’d also change how “enclosed buildings” work. Starting off, no objectives can be placed inside them and a unit cannot hold an objective marker if the only models within 3” of the marker are inside an “enclosed building”. After that, I’d change it so you cannot fire weapons that do not require LoS from inside of them (let’s shoot this mortal through the solid roof, what could go wrong?!?!?!) and I would give any unit shot at by an indirect fire weapon whilst on the ground floor of a multi-story “enclosed building” +2 to their cover save as opposed to the standard +1. This would also result in cover bonuses being capped at +2 regardless of other possible additions (i.e. Prepared positions or unit abilities). In regards to the FLY keyword, they can land on the roof, if they can be placed, but can only enter the “enclosed building” if they “walk instead of fly” and are equipped with the required grenades.

Sure… It’s a bit more complicated than “Infantry can move through walls” but dear Emperor, it is needed.

I'd add a min. strength option as well. Models with a 4+ str. can break through a wall when moving, charging, falling back, advancing, consolidating & some forms of deep striking/reserve deployment (I can see say a drop pod crashing through a ceiling. But a landspeeder? Not so much.)
And of course there's always one off special movement options like GK Inceptor squads that can just bypass the wall.

ccs wrote:
I'm a patient man. I'll wait for you to play the game correctly if I encounter you in a tourney setting. Unless it becomes obvious that you're stalling. Then we'll discuss that with the judges.
Now if the TO's want to have additional rules to allow this sloppy "intent" placement of models within terrain? Great, put it in print.

Ok. I mean, you do have the right to insist on RAW, but it seems rather self-destructive to insist on making the game take longer for absolutely no benefit to either player.

I'd add a min. strength option as well. Models with a 4+ str. can break through a wall when moving, charging, falling back, advancing, consolidating & some forms of deep striking/reserve deployment (I can see say a drop pod crashing through a ceiling. But a landspeeder? Not so much.)
And of course there's always one off special movement options like GK Inceptor squads that can just bypass the wall.

IOW, "this rule doesn't apply to space marines". If you're going to grant a special exception to the most common army in the game then what's the point of having terrain at all?

Unfortunately, in game though those things your suggesting aren’t represented. Phasing through walls, I can’t accept. I don’t remember anything fluff wise apart from the moment where they blink into reality so they essentially appear from nowhere. The rest of the time it’s all headlong dashes down corridors/streets and appearing from shadows in the corners of rooms etc. Also, if they can phase through a wall, why can’t they phase through terrain in the game? I accept that punching through a single brick thick wall is easy enough for most of the units in the game (bar things like the humble Guardsman etc) but, most of the buildings and ruins used in 40k aren’t standard houses, but tend to be thick concrete/block built cathedrals, administratum buildings etc. You also get Ork metal buildings – but then you also get situations where you’re playing on tables with ruining battleships on them and other big bulky terrain that is still a “ruin” but realistically impossible for most infantry to just walk through. I think my biggest issue is that by making the whole ruleset so simple it causes other unintended issues.

As for rotting away walls, it’s never shown as a “quick” process. Nurgle is all about the slow decay and rot of disease, and their subsequent change as a result. I can’t recall any instances of crumbling walls to dust instantly being a common benefit of Nurgle Daemons.

Slaanesh Daemons, again they are all about agility and excess. They’d also have to rely on “phasing” through walls, as they aren’t known for their brute strength.

Khorne, I guess they can just smash the wall to pieces, but it’s not exactly a “quick” process.

Tzeetch could blast with magic, but the horrors aren’t known for their control or ability to cast powers (1d6 in game). Pinks could “shoot“ the wall down as they have the shots, but Blues and Brimstones aren’t as lucky.

If anything, I think Beasts and Monsters should be allowed to charge through solid walls, rather than infantry, but, it’s the other way around.

The point is, not all infantry are equal, and so, imo, they shouldn’t be treated as equal across the board when it comes to things like a solid block wall and terrain.

Another potential solution is, if a unit charges through a solid wall, roll a d6 for every model in the unit. Each 1 causes the unit to suffer a mortal wound from “falling debris”.

I’ve decided. I’m going to write a comprehensive set of rules for terrain and submit it for everyone to rip apart and build on. Yes, it’s going to hurt some builds and some units, but, that is unavoidable if we want to submit ideas to improve the game.

Kdash wrote:
The point is, not all infantry are equal, and so, imo, they shouldn’t be treated as equal across the board when it comes to things like a solid block wall and terrain.

Then we come to very much opposite of simple rules. GW doesn't probably want to add datasheet specific rules for every unit how they deal with. You are talking about adding so much complexity that it resolves down to having every unit specity themselves how they deal with all terrain. And then we come into problem that terrain isn't unified...

Also keep in mind terrain shouldn't be too much of a hindrance. Don't make mistake like fantasy battles had where forests were basically impassable terrain for anything but specific units. That will end up reducing amount of terrain you will see on boards.

Kdash wrote:
Unfortunately, in game though those things your suggesting aren’t represented. Phasing through walls, I can’t accept. I don’t remember anything fluff wise apart from the moment where they blink into reality so they essentially appear from nowhere. The rest of the time it’s all headlong dashes down corridors/streets and appearing from shadows in the corners of rooms etc. Also, if they can phase through a wall, why can’t they phase through terrain in the game? I accept that punching through a single brick thick wall is easy enough for most of the units in the game (bar things like the humble Guardsman etc) but, most of the buildings and ruins used in 40k aren’t standard houses, but tend to be thick concrete/block built cathedrals, administratum buildings etc. You also get Ork metal buildings – but then you also get situations where you’re playing on tables with ruining battleships on them and other big bulky terrain that is still a “ruin” but realistically impossible for most infantry to just walk through. I think my biggest issue is that by making the whole ruleset so simple it causes other unintended issues.

As for rotting away walls, it’s never shown as a “quick” process. Nurgle is all about the slow decay and rot of disease, and their subsequent change as a result. I can’t recall any instances of crumbling walls to dust instantly being a common benefit of Nurgle Daemons.

Slaanesh Daemons, again they are all about agility and excess. They’d also have to rely on “phasing” through walls, as they aren’t known for their brute strength.

Khorne, I guess they can just smash the wall to pieces, but it’s not exactly a “quick” process.

Tzeetch could blast with magic, but the horrors aren’t known for their control or ability to cast powers (1d6 in game). Pinks could “shoot“ the wall down as they have the shots, but Blues and Brimstones aren’t as lucky.

If anything, I think Beasts and Monsters should be allowed to charge through solid walls, rather than infantry, but, it’s the other way around.

The point is, not all infantry are equal, and so, imo, they shouldn’t be treated as equal across the board when it comes to things like a solid block wall and terrain.

Another potential solution is, if a unit charges through a solid wall, roll a d6 for every model in the unit. Each 1 causes the unit to suffer a mortal wound from “falling debris”.

I’ve decided. I’m going to write a comprehensive set of rules for terrain and submit it for everyone to rip apart and build on. Yes, it’s going to hurt some builds and some units, but, that is unavoidable if we want to submit ideas to improve the game.

Rather than go to the auto mortal wounds crutch that GW has implimented far too widely in 8th why not just make it take an armour save. Terminators, mega nobs and tanks shouldn't give much of a care while lightly armoured units are more likely to be injured by debris.

8th edition needs less mortal wound nonsence not more

tneva82 wrote:

Kdash wrote:
The point is, not all infantry are equal, and so, imo, they shouldn’t be treated as equal across the board when it comes to things like a solid block wall and terrain.

Then we come to very much opposite of simple rules. GW doesn't probably want to add datasheet specific rules for every unit how they deal with. You are talking about adding so much complexity that it resolves down to having every unit specity themselves how they deal with all terrain. And then we come into problem that terrain isn't unified...

Also keep in mind terrain shouldn't be too much of a hindrance. Don't make mistake like fantasy battles had where forests were basically impassable terrain for anything but specific units. That will end up reducing amount of terrain you will see on boards.

Some quick thoughts on terrain. Aimed at getting around a lot of the issues currently being faced with ruins/buildings, whilst being simple enough to remember. For me, this is all about reducing the benefits of just hiding inside of a building and getting away with everything, and also reducing the incentive of staying within 1” of inside section of wall, to prevent most charges.

Ruins
Definition – A Ruin is a piece of terrain representing the remains of a building or structure. This piece of terrain can have multiple levels, but must not have a solid roof and must be missing at least 1 external wall.
i) Only models with the INFANTRY, SWARM or FLY keyword can finish their movement (any type of) on the upper levels of a Ruin.
ii) Only models with the INFANTRY, SWARM or FLY keyword can be deployed on the upper levels of a Ruin.
iii) INFANTRY and SWARM models gain the benefit of cover if the entire unit is wholly within the boundaries of the Ruin.
iv) Models without the INFANTY or SWARM keywords only gain the benefit of cover if they are within the Ruin and at least 50% obscured from the firing enemy unit.
v) The thickness of the walls of the Ruin is determined by the actual thickness of each section of wall.
vi) If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit inside of a Ruin they must subtract 1” from charge distance. If at least 1 model from the unit is charging through a solid wall section of the Ruin, instead subtract D3”.
a. If the charge distance is sufficient, but no models can be placed then the charge fails.
b. If a charge is successfully made through a solid wall section of the Ruin, roll a D6 for each model in the target unit that is within 1” of the wall(s) being charged through. On each roll of a 6 the target unit suffers 1 mortal wound. Potentially change this to 2".


Enclosed Buildings
Definition – an Enclosed Building is a piece of terrain that has solid line of site blocking walls on all sides and has a roof.
i) Units with the INFANTRY or SWARM keywords can enter or leave an Enclosed Building through any part of the terrain piece, but they cannot advance, and their movement distance is reduced to 2D3”.
a. Units with the INFANTRY or SWARM keywords entering an Enclosed Building through a modelled doorway wide enough for the base of the model does not suffer this penalty and can move its full distance and advance.
ii) Units with the FLY keyword entering or leaving an Enclosed Building through any part of the terrain piece half their movement and cannot advance. These units can only use the ground floor of the Enclosed Building unless they have the INFANTY or SWARM keyword.
iii) Units inside an Enclosed Building cannot shoot out of an enclosed building unless they are within 1” of a modelled door or window. Models with weapons that do not require line of sight to be fired, cannot be fired at all whilst within an Enclosed Building.
iv) Units inside an Enclosed Building cannot be targeted by a unit in the psychic or shooting phase unless the power/weapon does not require line of sight.
a. Units targeted by a shooting attack whilst on the ground floor of an Enclosed Building add 2 to their save for the purpose of cover, but, each wound roll of a 6 causes 1 mortal wound to the target unit in addition to the normal damage.
v) The thickness of the walls of the Enclosed Building is determined by the actual thickness of each section of wall.
vi) If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit inside of an Enclosed Building, the charging unit must subtract D3” from their charge distance.
a. If the charge distance is sufficient, but no models can be placed then the charge fails.
b. If the charge is successful, roll a D6 for each model in the target unit that is within 1” of the wall(s) being charged through. On each roll of a 6 the target unit suffers 1 mortal wound. Potentially change this to 2".

Woods
Definition – A Wood is a piece of terrain consisting of 2 or more trees, each placed within 2” of at least 1 other tree.
i) INFANTRY and SWARM models gain the benefit of cover if the entire unit is wholly within the boundaries of the Wood.
ii) Models without the INFANTY or SWARM keywords only gain the benefit of cover if they are within the Wood and at least 50% obscured from the firing enemy unit.
iii) If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit inside of a Wood they must subtract 1” from charge distance.
iv) Units without the FLY keyword that advance through a Wood, roll a D3 for their advance distance instead of a D6. Units with a fixed advance distance instead half the fixed value.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Unfortunately, in game though those things your suggesting aren’t represented. Phasing through walls, I can’t accept. I don’t remember anything fluff wise apart from the moment where they blink into reality so they essentially appear from nowhere. The rest of the time it’s all headlong dashes down corridors/streets and appearing from shadows in the corners of rooms etc. Also, if they can phase through a wall, why can’t they phase through terrain in the game? I accept that punching through a single brick thick wall is easy enough for most of the units in the game (bar things like the humble Guardsman etc) but, most of the buildings and ruins used in 40k aren’t standard houses, but tend to be thick concrete/block built cathedrals, administratum buildings etc. You also get Ork metal buildings – but then you also get situations where you’re playing on tables with ruining battleships on them and other big bulky terrain that is still a “ruin” but realistically impossible for most infantry to just walk through. I think my biggest issue is that by making the whole ruleset so simple it causes other unintended issues.

As for rotting away walls, it’s never shown as a “quick” process. Nurgle is all about the slow decay and rot of disease, and their subsequent change as a result. I can’t recall any instances of crumbling walls to dust instantly being a common benefit of Nurgle Daemons.

Slaanesh Daemons, again they are all about agility and excess. They’d also have to rely on “phasing” through walls, as they aren’t known for their brute strength.

Khorne, I guess they can just smash the wall to pieces, but it’s not exactly a “quick” process.

Tzeetch could blast with magic, but the horrors aren’t known for their control or ability to cast powers (1d6 in game). Pinks could “shoot“ the wall down as they have the shots, but Blues and Brimstones aren’t as lucky.

If anything, I think Beasts and Monsters should be allowed to charge through solid walls, rather than infantry, but, it’s the other way around.

The point is, not all infantry are equal, and so, imo, they shouldn’t be treated as equal across the board when it comes to things like a solid block wall and terrain.

Another potential solution is, if a unit charges through a solid wall, roll a d6 for every model in the unit. Each 1 causes the unit to suffer a mortal wound from “falling debris”.

I’ve decided. I’m going to write a comprehensive set of rules for terrain and submit it for everyone to rip apart and build on. Yes, it’s going to hurt some builds and some units, but, that is unavoidable if we want to submit ideas to improve the game.

Rather than go to the auto mortal wounds crutch that GW has implimented far too widely in 8th why not just make it take an armour save. Terminators, mega nobs and tanks shouldn't give much of a care while lightly armoured units are more likely to be injured by debris.

8th edition needs less mortal wound nonsence not more

Oh, I agree, however for now (see post section above) I’ve kept the idea as mortal wounds simply for ease of continuality with the rest of the game.
Changing it to “takes an automatic armour save with no benefit from cover” is probably the smarter way of doing things, but it is then a departure to how the game currently plays out.

I also initially had both the charging and charged unit making the rolls, but, I can’t help but think that that would hurt the melee armies a bit too much.

I would just adopt the AoS rules for buildings, they are much easier to use and have both drawbacks and advantages.
In AoS a unit can garrison into a building. From there, the building becomes the base of the unit, so all models inside can shoot from every corner of it, they can punch from any wall and any enemy unit can shoot at them if they see the building and can melee them if in contact with a wall. Models inside have the bonus of cover. Easy.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


"Buildings/walled ruins block LOS to units shooting through them BUT NOT INTO THEM. If you are inside you get a cover save" Holy crap FLG - it's so easy to be smarter than you. That is not good for the game.

It's easy to be the hero when you have the advantage of hindsight especially when they hasn't been an issue in the previous tournaments.

It's really not hard to foresee these things if you think them through for just a moment and play through some scenarios. My friends and I play around with making house rules all the time. There is rarely a change we make that doesn't have multiple unintended consequences. You have to play through sometimes to figure it out. They clearly didn't think it through hard enough.

That's the thing - GW doesn't run buildings like the ITC guys do and even in all my ITC games the problem has never come up.

And here we are - a year and some months later with these same rules and this is the first real discussion we're having about it.

Hindsight.

I am specifically calling out FLG on this (they make the ITC rules) This is their stupid rule. It's been around for about a year.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


"Buildings/walled ruins block LOS to units shooting through them BUT NOT INTO THEM. If you are inside you get a cover save" Holy crap FLG - it's so easy to be smarter than you. That is not good for the game.

It's easy to be the hero when you have the advantage of hindsight especially when they hasn't been an issue in the previous tournaments.

It's really not hard to foresee these things if you think them through for just a moment and play through some scenarios. My friends and I play around with making house rules all the time. There is rarely a change we make that doesn't have multiple unintended consequences. You have to play through sometimes to figure it out. They clearly didn't think it through hard enough.

That's the thing - GW doesn't run buildings like the ITC guys do and even in all my ITC games the problem has never come up.

And here we are - a year and some months later with these same rules and this is the first real discussion we're having about it.

Hindsight.

I am specifically calling out FLG on this (they make the ITC rules) This is their stupid rule. It's been around for about a year.

Yes I'd have to agree that the houserule is incomplete as far as interactions go.

Better way of going about this problem would have been simply limiting the number of ruins that can be placed on battlefield (and allow TLOS thru the ruin) and provide more wall type terrain that blocks LOS.

 cvtuttle wrote:
Where does it say infantry can pass through walls? I'm missing something. I see under movement:

"No part of the model’s base
(or hull) can move further than this. It
cannot be moved through other models
or through terrain features such as walls,
but can be moved vertically in order to
climb or traverse any scenery. "

I just want to understand if I have been playing something wrong.

Page 248 of BRB, under Ruins.
2nd paragraph
"Infantry are assumed to be able to scale walls and traverse through windows, doors and portals readily. These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment"

Technically, the terrain rules at the back of the book are optional.

I actually find it odd that people assume the "Advanced Rules" are always in place.

 Blndmage wrote:
Technically, the terrain rules at the back of the book are optional.

I actually find it odd that people assume the "Advanced Rules" are always in place.

Technically, all rules are optional due to TMIR.

 NurglesR0T wrote:


Page 248 of BRB, under Ruins.
2nd paragraph
"Infantry are assumed to be able to scale walls and traverse through windows, doors and portals readily. These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment"

I'd only allow it if the section they wanted to move through had modeled windows, doors or portals. (or painted in the case of the ancient cardboard wall pieces from 2nd ed)

kaotkbliss wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:


Page 248 of BRB, under Ruins.
2nd paragraph
"Infantry are assumed to be able to scale walls and traverse through windows, doors and portals readily. These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment"

I'd only allow it if the section they wanted to move through had modeled windows, doors or portals. (or painted in the case of the ancient cardboard wall pieces from 2nd ed)

RAI vs RAW

RAW if the terrain piece is classified as a ruin and your unit has the infantry keyword, you move through it with no impediment.

If it's just a bunch of random walls etc or a building that is not a ruin, then yes, I'd say you can't move through it (but can fly over it in the movement phase with the fly keyword

 Blndmage wrote:
Technically, the terrain rules at the back of the book are optional.

I actually find it odd that people assume the "Advanced Rules" are always in place.

People assume it because without the "advanced" rules the game is utter garbage without them. You need things like units in the footprint of a ruin getting cover for it to be even remotely interesting, and those things would have been basic rules in previous editions. They're only "advanced" in the sense that you won't use them in your first "learn to play" game with a squad of tactical marines for each player, otherwise they're just part of the normal game.

tneva82 wrote:
Also keep in mind terrain shouldn't be too much of a hindrance. Don't make mistake like fantasy battles had where forests were basically impassable terrain for anything but specific units. That will end up reducing amount of terrain you will see on boards.

This highlights a huge problem with terrain and how people use it. Terrain is supposed to hinder you, that's the whole point. But people act like anything that prevents their overpowered math combo from killing at 100% efficiency is an unfair burden and should be removed.

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also keep in mind terrain shouldn't be too much of a hindrance. Don't make mistake like fantasy battles had where forests were basically impassable terrain for anything but specific units. That will end up reducing amount of terrain you will see on boards.

This highlights a huge problem with terrain and how people use it. Terrain is supposed to hinder you, that's the whole point. But people act like anything that prevents their overpowered math combo from killing at 100% efficiency is an unfair burden and should be removed.

So much this. Terrain needs to get in the way. It needs to be something you have to plan around and overcome.

Otherwise, let's just forget terrain all together and set up our gun lines on each table edge and math it out. Better yet, let's save time deploying units and just open an excel spreadsheet and declare the statistical winner.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also keep in mind terrain shouldn't be too much of a hindrance. Don't make mistake like fantasy battles had where forests were basically impassable terrain for anything but specific units. That will end up reducing amount of terrain you will see on boards.

This highlights a huge problem with terrain and how people use it. Terrain is supposed to hinder you, that's the whole point. But people act like anything that prevents their overpowered math combo from killing at 100% efficiency is an unfair burden and should be removed.

So much this. Terrain needs to get in the way. It needs to be something you have to plan around and overcome.

Otherwise, let's just forget terrain all together and set up our gun lines on each table edge and math it out. Better yet, let's save time deploying units and just open an excel spreadsheet and declare the statistical winner.

There's a huge difference between 'in the way' and unable to be touched in multiple phases of the game. Infantry moving through walls is great because it is a way for good positioning to reward the melee oriented player with a overwatch-free charge. It also encourages taking some infantry as they offer a unique capability to the army, in this case, rooting out donkey-caves hiding in buildings. The 'fluff' explanation is that every infantry unit is running around with some form of breaching tools/charges so moving through walls is NBD.

Also,

Q: What happens when an Infantry model cannot
completely end its move on a floor of ruins when
attempting to scale the walls?
A: If an Infantry model is unable to complete a move
to a stable position, use the Wobbly Model Syndrome
guidelines in the core rules to identify with your
opponent where your model’s actual location is.

RogueApiary wrote:
There's a huge difference between 'in the way' and unable to be touched in multiple phases of the game.

Fortunately no such terrain exists in any reasonable game. Walls in a ruin don't prevent a unit from entering or shooting in at all, they merely force the unit to move around the wall and attack from another direction. Having to move extra distance to shoot or charge is not the same thing as the target being untouchable. For a unit to be genuinely untouchable it would have to be a "ruin" with walls creating a completely enclosed perimeter around the unit inside, and that isn't terrain worth considering. Nobody uses nonsense terrain like that, and even if it did exist the unit inside would be trapped by its own walls and unable to do anything but maybe stand on an objective if the scenario designer is dumb enough to allow objectives to be placed inside.

(Yes, intact buildings exist in the rules but they are represented as "units" that can be attacked and destroyed directly to get at the unit inside, much like attacking a transport..)

Infantry moving through walls is great because it is a way for good positioning to reward the melee oriented player with a overwatch-free charge.

It also rewards the melee player for their poor positioning by allowing them to cross through a wall instead of having to maneuver around it to attack from a clear direction, enabling a strategy of mindlessly moving forward until they charge instead of having to think about approach directions. It also punishes the shooting player by denying them the ability to use LOS-breaking terrain to prevent attacks on their units from certain directions.

Q: What happens when an Infantry model cannot
completely end its move on a floor of ruins when
attempting to scale the walls?
A: If an Infantry model is unable to complete a move
to a stable position, use the Wobbly Model Syndrome
guidelines in the core rules to identify with your
opponent where your model’s actual location is.

You use the WMS rules. The WMS rules require you to successfully place the model in its "real" location before moving it to a safer location. You can use WMS to protect a model that can move onto a floor of a ruin but only by standing dangerously close to the edge, you can not use WMS to have a model hovering at an arbitrary point in the air or inside a wall.