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.

Hi everyone

I have a question about Sanctuary.


If you are already standing in difficult + dangerous terrain, am I right to think that sanctuary has no additional effect upon an enemy intending to charge whilst this power is active? It definitely seems that in this situation, sanctuary would make the terrain impassable.

My logic is -

1) Normal becomes difficult + dangerous

2) Difficult + dangerous becomes impassable.



Your thoughts please. Thanks!

If it's already difficult and dangerous to begin with, then sanctuary has no change....

Thanks for clearing that up. Although it makes no sense from a rules point of view for there to not be an extra hinderance if you happen to be in difficult/dangerous terrain XD

Brother-Captain-Rawr! wrote:Thanks for clearing that up. Although it makes no sense from a rules point of view for there to not be an extra hinderance if you happen to be in difficult/dangerous terrain XD

Why not? Sanctuary just goes through and says all the terrain in a given area is now difficult and dangerous, it only upgrades it when it's not already.

Think of it like this, If X is the terrain value, it looks like this

X=0 is open terrain
X=1 is Difficult or Dangerous terrain
X>1 is Difficult and Dangerous terrain

Sanctuary says all terrain's value is now X+2

Well you can look at it both ways can't you then lol but as I imagine it on the battlefield, if this were real, i'd compare it to:

A fight against daemons amongst the ruins of a bombed out city = the difficult/dangerous terrain

Then the ADDITIONAL hinderance of sanctuary = nigh on impossible to charge on


so you've got daemons already suffering from the tricky slog through the ruins of a city, and then to top it all off, a grey knights librarian creates a blizzard drawn from the warp lol.


Anyway. Thats the way I see it.

Yes, FLUFF wise, (ie. in the stories and NOT in the rules) rough ground and sanctuary would be harder to move through than just rough ground.


RULES wise (ie. what happens on the tabletop) It does not matter what the terrain is. Sanctuary makes it difficult and Dangerous, no matter what it was to start with.

My point is that the RULES should reflect the FLUFF. Simples

Brother-Captain-Rawr! wrote:My point is that the RULES should reflect the FLUFF. Simples

And if it did, we would have yet more unresolved rules issues due to overly-complicated special rules...

Brother-Captain-Rawr! wrote:My point is that the RULES should reflect the FLUFF. Simples

Wrong choice of game then, I guess. I'd rather play a well balanced and playable game, rather one that has its rules fit the fluff to the letter.

Jidmah wrote:

Brother-Captain-Rawr! wrote:My point is that the RULES should reflect the FLUFF. Simples

Wrong choice of game then, I guess. I'd rather play a well balanced and playable game, rather one that has its rules fit the fluff to the letter.

Example: They have rules for moving into (or not being able to move into, more specifically) impassible terrain... what happens when the terrain under a model becomes impassible? There's literally no way in the rules to resolve this situation, and the game breaks without a specific stipulation.

Huh? Responding to me? I actually agreed to you

If the rules reflected the fluff, then space marine armies would consist of 10 models while guard and orks would have up to 3x as many MORE models per points.

Weight of numbers would still spell doom for marines.
They would sell fewer sets as a result and not be the poster child for the company.

Jidmah wrote:Huh? Responding to me? I actually agreed to you

More for clarification's sake that anything else. The button says "Quote", not "Disagree", as some users in this subforum seem to think it does.

Dronze wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Huh? Responding to me? I actually agreed to you

More for clarification's sake that anything else. The button says "Quote", not "Disagree", as some users in this subforum seem to think it does.

I like this man.

Dronze wrote:

Brother-Captain-Rawr! wrote:My point is that the RULES should reflect the FLUFF. Simples

And if it did, we would have yet more unresolved rules issues due to overly-complicated special rules...

Jidmah wrote:
Wrong choice of game then, I guess. I'd rather play a well balanced and playable game, rather one that has its rules fit the fluff to the letter.

chromedog wrote:If the rules reflected the fluff, then space marine armies would consist of 10 models while guard and orks would have up to 3x as many MORE models per points.

And none of you think the new Daemons clarifications are Rules reflecting fluff?

They are rules reflecting some fluff (DP can be controlled by the daemon or with the mortal in charge, making them demidaemons at best) and not others.

If rules reflect ALL the fluff, then Orks can only draw at worst.

nosferatu1001 wrote:They are rules reflecting some fluff (DP can be controlled by the daemon or with the mortal in charge, making them demidaemons at best) and not others.

If rules reflect ALL the fluff, then Orks can only draw at worst.

Actually, the same can be said for the Necrons, and the tyranids will, eventually, win, due to attrition and adaptation.

Jidmah wrote:

Brother-Captain-Rawr! wrote:My point is that the RULES should reflect the FLUFF. Simples

Wrong choice of game then, I guess. I'd rather play a well balanced and playable game, rather one that has its rules fit the fluff to the letter.

If einstein could come up with the theory of relativity...I'm sure there are people that exist who could successfully create rules which are relative to the fluff of a fantasy wargame lol

I mean geez ... for the highly unlikely scenario where difficult becomes impassable (due to sanctuary), a leadership check could be made to see if the daemons maintain their hold
on the material realm for that particular turn.


Anyway, I don't believe that in order for the game to be balanced, certain aspects of the 40k universe should be ignored. It does'nt do justice to the game that the fiction it is born from.

There is always something that can be done to balance rules.

So Orks should never lose? Fluff in their codex explicitly states this.

Try balancing that.

Brother-Captain-Rawr wrote:If einstein could come up with the theory of relativity...I'm sure there are people that exist who could successfully create rules which are relative to the fluff of a fantasy wargame lol

Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Theory of General Relativity, do not play nice with quantum physics. In fact, Einstein, who managed to point in the face of modern physics and say "Check THIS gak out!", as it turns out, may have been mostly wrong in execution, but the framework was fairly solid...

Much like GW, come to think of it....

Brother-Captain-Rawr! wrote:
If einstein could come up with the theory of relativity...I'm sure there are people that exist who could successfully create rules which are relative to the fluff of a fantasy wargame lol

I mean geez ... for the highly unlikely scenario where difficult becomes impassable (due to sanctuary), a leadership check could be made to see if the daemons maintain their hold
on the material realm for that particular turn.


Anyway, I don't believe that in order for the game to be balanced, certain aspects of the 40k universe should be ignored. It does'nt do justice to the game that the fiction it is born from.

There is always something that can be done to balance rules.

The Holy Grail of physics is a Unified Field theory that cleanly, elegantly describes everything in the universe. We are probably not going to find it any time soon because usually, unifying any two forces works, but as soon as you start trying to unify more the models start clashing and it turns into an ugly mess. While it is suspected that such a theory does exist, finding it is orders of magnitude more complicated than it superficially seems. This is with a real world where everything intuitively seems to exist under some kind of unified rule set.


In a game system where different writers are writing from different perspective, unification becomes a fever dream. Balancing rules necessitates ignoring at least one of those perspectives. Unless the fluff itself is written to reflect a balanced universe, then you cannot have game balance and fluff adherence. The 'something' that is done to balance rules is the act of discarding fluff.

Brother-Captain-Rawr! wrote:I mean geez ... for the highly unlikely scenario where difficult becomes impassable (due to sanctuary), a leadership check could be made to see if the daemons maintain their hold
on the material realm for that particular turn.

Look how much you're already suggesting to add, for just one psychic power in one codex.

Multiply by an untold number of possible scenarios that would possibly go against fluff even slightly.

The best games (remember: games) are simpler. The more complex, the less entertaining they become, and the more difficult to understand for many people.

The writers for GW need some kind of codex astartes for all of them to follow then.

Right. Lets get to work!

Brother-Captain-Rawr! wrote:My point is that the RULES should reflect the FLUFF. Simples

And most units can't stand in impassable terrain, so if the rules reflected the fluff you are wanting, the unit casting sanctuary would die, and the unit charging them would just stop and walk away

nosferatu1001 wrote:They are rules reflecting some fluff (DP can be controlled by the daemon or with the mortal in charge, making them demidaemons at best) and not others.

If rules reflect ALL the fluff, then Orks can only draw at worst.

Nos, I'm not condoning using fluff to justify rules. However, it was GW that opened the can of worms. If they're using fluff to justify rules, where does it start? Where does it end? And who is to say?

It's difficult to parse what fluff the rules are allowed to reflect and what fluff they aren't. I would figure that whole 'daemons' ruling would've given you fits.

Actually they dont give me fits; i just want some form of consistency. The GK FAQ was so full of errors in strict rules (Falchions only giving +1, scoring dreadnoughts) that both went for and against "fluff", that divining any intent or being able to predict how they will rule has gone waaaay down.

My point above wasnt directed at you, just at the inanity of trying to equate all fluff to rules.

Since when does Sanctuary create impassable terrain?

SJ

It doesnt. The OP was trying to suggest it should do so, without realising the implications....

Brother-Captain-Rawr! wrote:The writers for GW need some kind of codex astartes for all of them to follow then.

Right. Lets get to work!

This basically nails the whole problem - even if you didn't intend to. The writers make up rules, make up fluff and are never forced to make them work together. Some of the writers don't even care about making fluff or rules work with fluff or rules from the rest of the game. Why did they write fluff for a character that basically beat half the warp out of boredom, but gave him rules that would make him lose to any larger group of daemons? I can totally see Mephisto beat a mob of boyz dead after his "awakening", but you can't have a Mephisto in every codex. If they'd rather given him some fluff to fit his rules, he'd basically have the same fluff as 90% of space marine leaders (great inspiring leader, looked up to by everyone, almost died ten times blablabla). You ought to suffer some diminishing returns when writing seven codices about one army. Most xenos characters do fit their rules perfectly.

Jidmah wrote:

Brother-Captain-Rawr! wrote:The writers for GW need some kind of codex astartes for all of them to follow then.

Right. Lets get to work!

This basically nails the whole problem - even if you didn't intend to. The writers make up rules, make up fluff and are never forced to make them work together. Some of the writers don't even care about making fluff or rules work with fluff or rules from the rest of the game. Why did they write fluff for a character that basically beat half the warp out of boredom, but gave him rules that would make him lose to any larger group of daemons? I can totally see Mephisto beat a mob of boyz dead after his "awakening", but you can't have a Mephisto in every codex. If they'd rather given him some fluff to fit his rules, he'd basically have the same fluff as 90% of space marine leaders (great inspiring leader, looked up to by everyone, almost died ten times blablabla). You ought to suffer some diminishing returns when writing seven codices about one army. Most xenos characters do fit their rules perfectly.

It's EXACTLY what I meant. I just don't feel the need to painstakingly explain my point to wits end when a simple statement like that can punctuate the entire topic.
Even though we deviated just alittle


So in summary, My initial thought of how sanctuary should effect terrain was legit fluff-wise, it is'nt feasible due to the current rules-set and masterminds (chuckle) of the games progression.
At least this topic was thought provoking enough to have some merit, so Thanks for posting. I do believe we have covered this now