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.

Seems that it's impossible to have buildings that are neither ruins nor vehicles...this sucks as it seems about half the board is area terrain where we play. Anything wrong with buildings just being...buildings?

You can have:
1. Ruins
2. Buildings (with AV and fire points etc)
3. Impassable Terrain (large blocks that are just in the way)

The reason being that if you can go inside it, it must be destructible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My friends and I actually built a table which is sort of a village....lots of impassable cottage type buildings and stone walls and fences...the only area terrain we have is 6+ cover grass fields.

Its all about what you provide....i know the feeling of having way to much area terrain.

Joey wrote:Seems that it's impossible to have buildings that are neither ruins nor vehicles...this sucks as it seems about half the board is area terrain where we play. Anything wrong with buildings just being...buildings?

What difference are you looking for from them just being 'buildings' rather than using the current quasi-vehicle rules?

If you mean you just want them to be impassable LOS-blockers, the rules do allow for that.... Just don't assign them access points.

insaniak wrote:

Joey wrote:Seems that it's impossible to have buildings that are neither ruins nor vehicles...this sucks as it seems about half the board is area terrain where we play. Anything wrong with buildings just being...buildings?

What difference are you looking for from them just being 'buildings' rather than using the current quasi-vehicle rules?

If you mean you just want them to be impassable LOS-blockers, the rules do allow for that.... Just don't assign them access points.

Exactly what Insaniak said.

If you have a piece of terrain shaped like a building and you do not want it to be a building (With access points) or a Ruin, Just say it is a Power Station (Or something similar that is inaccessible to people on foot), and it is impassible terrain.

There's been plenty of times my buddy and I have wanted to make a bunch of cardstock urban buildings (like the ones from WorldWorks Games) that are perfectly intact to represent the early stages of a battle over a city, rather than freaking Stalingrad.

Then make those... they fall under the rules of being a building with access points and firing slots.

Lightcavalier wrote:You can have:
1. Ruins
2. Buildings (with AV and fire points etc)
3. Impassable Terrain (large blocks that are just in the way)

The reason being that if you can go inside it, it must be destructible.

Well the rules at present allow you to line up veicles on the ground floor of ruins. You can actually cover the entire ground floor of a ruin, somehing that my opponents do frequently...and it's completely legal. THAT makes no sense to me.
Try driving a line of tanks onto the ground floor of a building and see what happens to the upper floors.
A ruin is just as structurally stable as a normal building. It's just got stuff in it (apparently enough to warrant area terrain...smells like bs to me but oh well).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Psienesis wrote:Then make those... they fall under the rules of being a building with access points and firing slots.

Would also need to give them AV. That's bollocks.

Joey wrote:

Lightcavalier wrote:You can have:
1. Ruins
2. Buildings (with AV and fire points etc)
3. Impassable Terrain (large blocks that are just in the way)

The reason being that if you can go inside it, it must be destructible.

Well the rules at present allow you to line up veicles on the ground floor of ruins. You can actually cover the entire ground floor of a ruin, somehing that my opponents do frequently...and it's completely legal. THAT makes no sense to me.
Try driving a line of tanks onto the ground floor of a building and see what happens to the upper floors.
A ruin is just as structurally stable as a normal building. It's just got stuff in it (apparently enough to warrant area terrain...smells like bs to me but oh well).

C'est la rules. :/

Joey wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Psienesis wrote:Then make those... they fall under the rules of being a building with access points and firing slots.

Would also need to give them AV. That's bollocks.

Why? Seems reasonable to me - buildings are sometimes great cover against bullets, and most pillboxes are as indestructible as some of the largest tanks.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Joey wrote:

Lightcavalier wrote:You can have:
1. Ruins
2. Buildings (with AV and fire points etc)
3. Impassable Terrain (large blocks that are just in the way)

The reason being that if you can go inside it, it must be destructible.

Well the rules at present allow you to line up veicles on the ground floor of ruins. You can actually cover the entire ground floor of a ruin, somehing that my opponents do frequently...and it's completely legal. THAT makes no sense to me.
Try driving a line of tanks onto the ground floor of a building and see what happens to the upper floors.
A ruin is just as structurally stable as a normal building. It's just got stuff in it (apparently enough to warrant area terrain...smells like bs to me but oh well).

C'est la rules. :/

Joey wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Psienesis wrote:Then make those... they fall under the rules of being a building with access points and firing slots.

Would also need to give them AV. That's bollocks.

Why? Seems reasonable to me - buildings are sometimes great cover against bullets, and most pillboxes are as indestructible as some of the largest tanks.

So to take out Eldar Pathfinders I'd first need to penetrate AV14, THEN break through 2+ cover save? Lame
The rules for AV buildings make sense for pillboxes but not buildings.
I don't get why there's no rules for a building that isn't a ruin or a fortification. It's a huge whole in the rules.

Joey wrote:
I don't get why there's no rules for a building that isn't a ruin or a fortification. It's a huge whole in the rules.

There are? Count it as a tin shed, or something with AV8. Or a Log Cabin with AV9. Or a cottage /house with AV10, etc.

Really, these are all in the rulebook.

Why are you giving it AV14, unless it actually IS a bastion and thus deserving of it?

If its a wooden shed, it has Av9. Work up from there. No "whole" in the rules at all

1) You can just make them impassable terrain
2) Even if not, they don't have to be AV14, I usually go for AV12
3) Your complaint about ruins and filling the entire bottom floor with vehicles is one of the weirdest things I've heard in a while

nosferatu1001 wrote:Why are you giving it AV14, unless it actually IS a bastion and thus deserving of it?

If its a wooden shed, it has Av9. Work up from there. No "whole" in the rules at all

This hadn't actually occurred to me. I'll bring it up next time I play, cheers for the heads up.

Battlecult wrote:1) You can just make them impassable terrain
2) Even if not, they don't have to be AV14, I usually go for AV12
3) Your complaint about ruins and filling the entire bottom floor with vehicles is one of the weirdest things I've heard in a while

Why is it "weird"? You think it's legit parking vehicles on the bottom floor of a building?
I know it's within the rules but I still think it's damn strange.

You could use the cityfight rules where you can destroy ruins.

Joey wrote:I know it's within the rules but I still think it's damn strange.

Are you sure you understand how the rules work? Just because they're in ruins doesn't mean they get a cover save, and true line of sit means there should be a good possibility he's screwing up his own ability to fire. Not to mention if he ever needs to move those tanks, that's a lot of dangerous terrain tests to take. If you know he's going to be using that, why aren't you loading up on things that fire high S templates? If they're packed in so tight, even a scatter is going to score a direct hit. Or figure a way to get assault troops in fast - how long do you think he's going to keep playing parking lot when you're hitting the rear armor on 2 or 3 vehicles in assault?

There's nothing 'weird' about the rules, it's just that the level of detail does not go down to 'unstable ruins - entering the ruins with more than one vehicle, or having units with armor save 3+ or better move higher than the ground floor makes the whole thing fall down.'

Portugal Jones wrote:

Joey wrote:I know it's within the rules but I still think it's damn strange.

Are you sure you understand how the rules work? Just because they're in ruins doesn't mean they get a cover save, and true line of sit means there should be a good possibility he's screwing up his own ability to fire.

Being on the ground floor of a ruin gaurentees a cover save unless I'm right behind them. and it's easy to poke a weapon out of a window. Or they could be transports keeping troops safe and sound.

Portugal Jones wrote:
Not to mention if he ever needs to move those tanks, that's a lot of dangerous terrain tests to take.

Well not really. It would take 1, probably with a dozer blade (1 in 36 chance of immobilisation)

Portugal Jones wrote:
If you know he's going to be using that, why aren't you loading up on things that fire high S templates?

Because an individual template has about a 20% chance of damaging even light armour in cover, lower that to about 10/15% for medium/heavy armour.

Portugal Jones wrote:
If they're packed in so tight, even a scatter is going to score a direct hit.

Uh, no. I'd have to target one, and the chance of hitting would be ~50%. Then add cover and you're looking at 25%, before you even get to roll for penetration. Blast weapons suck at taking out vehicles, I know this from experience.

Portugal Jones wrote:
Or figure a way to get assault troops in fast - how long do you think he's going to keep playing parking lot when you're hitting the rear armor on 2 or 3 vehicles in assault?

I'm a guard player, how many assault units do you think I have that can do that?

Portugal Jones wrote:
There's nothing 'weird' about the rules, it's just that the level of detail does not go down to 'unstable ruins - entering the ruins with more than one vehicle, or having units with armor save 3+ or better move higher than the ground floor makes the whole thing fall down.'

No it's just most players don't realise that you're allowed to occupy the lower floor of a ruin with vehicles. If they did it'd probably be more of an issue. Or maybe most people don't play with ruins.

I think the suggestion to reread the rules is a good one, because there are some issues in your response.

How is the cover save 'guaranteed?' It sounds like you're letting your opponent screw you over by always setting up the terrain to his benefit, unless you're playing on a table with all the terrain bolted in place. Just sticking a vehicle in cover doesn't guarantee a save, it has to be 50% obscured, and as mentioned above, if there's multiple crammed in there they're going to be getting in each other's way too.

If the ruins are packed with vehicles, that's not a 50% chance of a hit, that's ~100%. If it scatters off one, it's almost definitely going to land on another. Even if the tank is in enough cover to get a cover save, that's still a 50-50 chance of hitting it with a high S template. Are you rolling to hit with blast weapons? You don't do that, you just roll scatter.

Then outflank with something like Vendettas, drop some melta vets nearby, have Marbo jump out and hit them with a demo blast from behind. Can rough riders outflank? See how he likes having a bunck of s5 lances hitting his rear armor, especially if he's been letting them sit there stationary.

The problem doesn't seem at all to be with the rules, but rather your understanding and how you use them (like the whole intact buildings are all AV 14 thing)

Joey wrote:Why is it "weird"? You think it's legit parking vehicles on the bottom floor of a building?
I know it's within the rules but I still think it's damn strange.

It's weird because I've never heard it as a complaint from anyone else. What are you guys doing that makes this in any way an effective strategy? You must have some massive ruins with convenient portholes for line of sight. Even a Rhino or Chimera is like 3 1/2" wide. Consider having less terrain and pieces that aren't so huge, and don't set things up in deployment zones so that you can easily do this. I would suggest setting up the terrain differently and building some with lower floors which block line of sight completely so people can't just set up like that.

Honestly it's not that it's a bad idea, the mind just boggles at how the situation's come up that this is a regular problem in your games. If your opponents are setting up with complete cover all the time they should be having real trouble ever getting line of sight but you make it sound like they're getting a constant 4+ on every vehicle in their (presumably mechanised) armies whilst firing back with impunity.

Bookwrack wrote:I think the suggestion to reread the rules is a good one, because there are some issues in your response.
How is the cover save 'guaranteed?' It sounds like you're letting your opponent screw you over by always setting up the terrain to his benefit, unless you're playing on a table with all the terrain bolted in place. Just sticking a vehicle in cover doesn't guarantee a save, it has to be 50% obscured, and as mentioned above, if there's multiple crammed in there they're going to be getting in each other's way too.

Well...ruins have walls, ergo cover save.

Bookwrack wrote:
If the ruins are packed with vehicles, that's not a 50% chance of a hit, that's ~100%. If it scatters off one, it's almost definitely going to land on another. Even if the tank is in enough cover to get a cover save, that's still a 50-50 chance of hitting it with a high S template. Are you rolling to hit with blast weapons? You don't do that, you just roll scatter.

The average scatter distance is 7". Reduce it by the BS of the crew and you're looking at 4". The only small advantage I'd get by the two of them being right next to each other is if I scattered in exactly the right direction.

Bookwrack wrote:
Then outflank with something like Vendettas, drop some melta vets nearby, have Marbo jump out and hit them with a demo blast from behind. Can rough riders outflank? See how he likes having a bunck of s5 lances hitting his rear armor, especially if he's been letting them sit there stationary.

Sure I'll devote 75% of my list to taking out two rhinos, why wouldn't I.

Bookwrack wrote:
The problem doesn't seem at all to be with the rules, but rather your understanding and how you use them (like the whole intact buildings are all AV 14 thing)

No I suspect I just play with far more ruins than I should.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corrode wrote:

Joey wrote:Why is it "weird"? You think it's legit parking vehicles on the bottom floor of a building?
I know it's within the rules but I still think it's damn strange.

It's weird because I've never heard it as a complaint from anyone else. What are you guys doing that makes this in any way an effective strategy? You must have some massive ruins with convenient portholes for line of sight. Even a Rhino or Chimera is like 3 1/2" wide. Consider having less terrain and pieces that aren't so huge, and don't set things up in deployment zones so that you can easily do this. I would suggest setting up the terrain differently and building some with lower floors which block line of sight completely so people can't just set up like that.

"Hey my rhino can't actually fit in the corner here so I'l prop it on top and we can pretend it's on the bottom floor". It's pretty easy to stick 2-3 vehicles in a ruin. And we usually have 2-3 each side so it's not really unbalanced against me.

Corrode wrote:
Honestly it's not that it's a bad idea, the mind just boggles at how the situation's come up that this is a regular problem in your games. If your opponents are setting up with complete cover all the time they should be having real trouble ever getting line of sight but you make it sound like they're getting a constant 4+ on every vehicle in their (presumably mechanised) armies whilst firing back with impunity.

It isn't a "regular problem" at all. I've never struggled to take out vehicles positioned in such a way.I was simply pointing out how fething stupid it is that you're allowed to occupy the entire ground floor of a ruin with vehicles. Presumably the supporting girders are warp-touched.

Joey wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:
Then outflank with something like Vendettas, drop some melta vets nearby, have Marbo jump out and hit them with a demo blast from behind. Can rough riders outflank? See how he likes having a bunck of s5 lances hitting his rear armor, especially if he's been letting them sit there stationary.

Sure I'll devote 75% of my list to taking out two rhinos, why wouldn't I.

HAHA so it's 2 rhinos, how about ignoring them

2-3 vehicles... again, your problem is that your terrain is too fething big.

Joey wrote:Sure I'll devote 75% of my list to taking out two rhinos, why wouldn't I.

If it is important enough to make a thread to complain about it. When people give you advice on proper units that you should be taking (well, aside from Rough Riders) to provide flanking fire into protected areas, instead of sitting in your deployment zone and moaning about cover saves, AND THEN dismiss their suggestion with sarcasm saying "it's not that big a deal", you kinda look like a troll. Either it is a big deal, hence thread, or it's not.

It also sounds like your terrain was put together by a six year old if you can get multiple vehicles in a ruin. Are you trying to reenact the mall scene out of Blues Brothers?

culsandar wrote:

Joey wrote:Sure I'll devote 75% of my list to taking out two rhinos, why wouldn't I.

If it is important enough to make a thread to complain about it. When people give you advice on proper units that you should be taking (well, aside from Rough Riders) to provide flanking fire into protected areas, instead of sitting in your deployment zone and moaning about cover saves, AND THEN dismiss their suggestion with sarcasm saying "it's not that big a deal", you kinda look like a troll. Either it is a big deal, hence thread, or it's not.

This thread was made to enquire as to whether you can have a building that is not a ruin or a vehicle and the answer was "no", though having low AV helps. Maybe the ruins we play with are too big. I'd say the smaller ones were about 6" by 4", bigger ones about 12" by 8".

culsandar wrote:
It also sounds like your terrain was put together by a six year old if you can get multiple vehicles in a ruin. Are you trying to reenact the mall scene out of Blues Brothers?

I hate that film.

Joey wrote:Well...ruins have walls, ergo cover save.

Read the rules on cover again, especially as how they apply to vehicles. You'll figure out what you're doing wrong.

No it's just most players don't realise that you're allowed to occupy the lower floor of a ruin with vehicles. If they did it'd probably be more of an issue.

5th edition came out in 2008. Your opponent did not discover some amazing new tactic that no one else had ever thought of before. It seems the whole issue is coming down to rule mistakes you and he are making, although since your story keeps changing, who knows what is really going on? Two rhinos sitting in cover and plinking at stuff without moving isn't scary. The drawbacks to packing a ruins with vehicles has already been well laid out, as has been how to deal with them. This isn't even an issue of too many ruins, just you and your opponent not playing the game right.

Portugal Jones wrote:

Joey wrote:Well...ruins have walls, ergo cover save.

Read the rules on cover again, especially as how they apply to vehicles. You'll figure out what you're doing wrong.

Okay I don't know if you're genuinely trying to be helpful or if you're trolling, I will assume the former for etiquette's sake.
Vehicles have to be obscured 50% or more to get a cover save. Parking behind a wall is pretty fething gaurenteed to get 50% cover.

Portugal Jones wrote:

No it's just most players don't realise that you're allowed to occupy the lower floor of a ruin with vehicles. If they did it'd probably be more of an issue.

5th edition came out in 2008. Your opponent did not discover some amazing new tactic that no one else had ever thought of before. It seems the whole issue is coming down to rule mistakes you and he are making, although since your story keeps changing, who knows what is really going on? Two rhinos sitting in cover and plinking at stuff without moving isn't scary. The drawbacks to packing a ruins with vehicles has already been well laid out, as has been how to deal with them. This isn't even an issue of too many ruins, just you and your opponent not playing the game right.

Right my opponent's objective holders are parking in a rhino on the bottom floor of a ruin next to an objective...and that's playing the game wrong? Despite that he's hiding them from indirect fire and granting them a cover save, we're playing it wrong?
I never said I strugled against such a tactic, I just said the idea of parking a tank on the ground floor of a building is silly.

Joey wrote:Parking behind a wall is pretty fething guaranteed to get 50% cover.

Of course it isn't. They're supposed to be ruins, the walls are not completely intact, and how much of the vehicle is covered should be dependent on what direction the shots are coming from.
Look at the 40k ruins GW sells. As built in the example pictures, from two sides a single vehicle in there would probably get a cover save. From the other two, they get no save at all.

Joey wrote:I never said I strugled against such a tactic, I just said the idea of parking a tank on the ground floor of a building is silly.

Let me introduce you to an oft overlooked little skirmish called, "World War 2..."