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.

How does your gaming group handle units moving through a pretty much solid wall with a few windows? It seems bothersome to have impassable walls everywhere, but is also seems gamey when 20 gaunts leap through a single window into an assault.

Another issue is vehicles. Do you allow a chimera to drive through the wall of the Shrine of the Aquila, with only a 1/6 chance of getting tied up? (the same chance as driving over a crater).

What do you do?

What do the rules suggest?

We treat it as difficult terrain, unless we deem it impassable.

Gernaly windows are difficult, and solid walls no doors would be impassable.

If it is a Ruin, the default is that you can move through walls etc at will, using a DT test.

You can choose to classify walls as impassable etc, but you have to decide before the game.

This is all clearly laid out in the rules for Ruins.

If they are Intact Buildings, then they are impassable terrain.

If you're trying to get realistic, then a Vehicle making a dangerous terrain test should only ever get immobilized on a roll of a 1 from a D10,000. A 1 in 6 chance isn't very good odds for such advanced vehicles in the first place, they wouldn't get too far.

Point being, don't assume rules based on realism because people have different cognitive processes. What might seem like a logical interpretation of a rule could in fact be over thinking the little picture and resulting to imbalanced play.

Your imagination is key for making unrealistic rules coincide into realistic tabletop scenarios. Read the last paragraph on page 83 of the Rulebook, this should broaden the kind of thinking necessary to maintain balanced games and to avoid too critical of thinking.


Personally, I count solid walls from ruins difficult terrain and solid walls from in-tact buildings as impassable.

Sigh... leave the whining out of the rules forum.

Obviously simple, as there is no rule saying I CAN'T. How can their be any confusion? Simple simple rules. People these days.

No offence...

ooglatjama wrote:Sigh... leave the whining out of the rules forum.

Obviously simple, as there is no rule saying I CAN'T. How can their be any confusion? Simple simple rules. People these days.

No offence...

agred. the rule need to said that you CAN NOT do something. rules are the guiderules to the game fun.. and if they don't said that.. assume you can't just.


holyshift

~signing out y para fuera!

ooglatjama wrote:Sigh... leave the whining out of the rules forum.

Obviously simple, as there is no rule saying I CAN'T. How can their be any confusion? Simple simple rules. People these days.

No offence...

Speaking of confusion, I have no idea what you are talking about here, or what relation it has to the actual thread. Nobody was whining. It was a simple question about how people handle a given rule.

Why was there a question

sigh....

obvious answer

ooglatjama wrote:Why was there a question

sigh....

obvious answer

Your ignorance boggles even me. Well actually it doesn't.

Maybe you should re-read the initial question. He was asking how other peoples local 40k groups treat terrain in games. He gave a couple of examples where realism intersected rules. He asked what we do, and he asked what do the rules suggest.

You strike me as a kid who has been wrong on so many occasions that when he is presented with an opportunity to be on the dealing end, he can't help but to eagerly answer it rudely and impatiently. However your eagerness failed you, as you misinterpreted the question and thus failed to give a helpful answer.

Press his name and read through some of his posts.

It is just his (obnoxious) way.

ooglatjama wrote:Why was there a question

sigh....

obvious answer

You did notice what this forum is for, right?

Seriously, folks, if you have nothing on-topic to contribute to the thread, kindly refrain from posting in it.

Thanks for the input everyone, and thank you insaniak for attempting to be a bastion against useless posters.