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 will try and present this without indicating which way I think it should go..

If you have Ruins, and add a base to them, what happens?

Does just the base count as area terrain?
Does the base and all of the levels count as area terrain?

If shooting at a model on the base, and it is only 10% obscured by the ruins, what would the saving throw be?
If shooting at that same model, but it is obscured 50% by the ruins, what would the saving throw be?

If shooting at a model on the 3rd floor, and it is only 10% obscured.... what would the saving throw be?
If the model is 50% obscured, what would the saving throw be?

This came up in a different thread, and wanted to get an outside opinion, thanks

coredump wrote:
I will try and present this without indicating which way I think it should go..

1) If you have Ruins, and add a base to them, what happens?

2) Does just the base count as area terrain?
3) Does the base and all of the levels count as area terrain?

4) If shooting at a model on the base, and it is only 10% obscured by the ruins, what would the saving throw be?
5) If shooting at that same model, but it is obscured 50% by the ruins, what would the saving throw be?

6) If shooting at a model on the 3rd floor, and it is only 10% obscured.... what would the saving throw be?
7) If the model is 50% obscured, what would the saving throw be?

This came up in a different thread, and wanted to get an outside opinion, thanks

1) It counts as area terrain
2) No
3) Yes
4) 4+
5) 4+
6) 4+
7) 4+

Neorealist is spot on.

If ruins don't have bases, the bottom floor is just open terrain (the ruin might give you cover anyways though). All other parts of the ruin are area terrain. If you add a base, the bottom floor is area terrain, too.

Jidmah wrote:Neorealist is spot on.

If ruins don't have bases, the bottom floor is just open terrain (the ruin might give you cover anyways though). All other parts of the ruin are area terrain. If you add a base, the bottom floor is area terrain, too.

This is totally wrong (well, the part about the other parts of the ruin being area terrain besides the base)!

Please check out his thread I made a while ago on this very subject:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/458369.page


But to clarify:

If you read the ruins rules carefully, THEY ARE NOT CLASSED AS AREA TERRAIN. Only the ruin's base is area terrain (which is a 5+ save). So if a model is up on an upper floor of a ruin, but the enemy is shooting them from the back where the ruin doesn't actually obscure the model 25%, then that model is not getting ANY cover save from that ruin.

This is precisely why the Techmarine bolster defences rule in the FAQ now lists different cover values for the base of a ruin and the actual ruin, because the ruin itself is a 4+ (non area terrain) save, while the base, providing it has one, is area terrain, which is 5+.


The other thing to note is that rubble/debris is classed as being area terrain, but has a 4+ cover save listed. However, if you read carefully you'll see that models actually only gain the 4+ save for being BEHIND the rubble/terrain as opposed to being IN the terrain, as spelled out in stuff like the crater area terrain description.

Therefore I think even for rubble/debris, if a model is just standing in the area terrain he's only getting a 5+ unless 25% of the model is actually obscured by the rubble/debris terrain piece, in which case he'd get a 4+ save from it.

But one thing is abundantly clear: Ruins on their own are never, ever even hinted at being area terrain. This is a big shift from what we're all used to in 5th edition, but it is true.

The other big change when it comes to area terrain is that ONLY forests are still classified as granting cover saves when a model simply draws line of sight through the area terrain to a target beyond...all other types of area terrain (such as craters, debris, etc) do not actually provide cover saves when the line of sight of a firer passes over them to a target on the opposite side of the terrain piece unless the terrain piece physically obscures them.

deleted a mis-post.

W

wait. what?

In the interest of saving time i'm going to reply here rather than in that other thread.

how do you resolve what you said above in light of the following rules (taken directly from the 'ruins' and 'area terrain' sections of the new 6th ed rulebook)?

"All ruins are difficult terrain and provide a 4+ cover save..."
"A ruin might be mounted on a base, decorated with rubble, and other debris. In this case, treat the base as area terrain..."
...Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured...

Normal area terrain provides a 5+ cover save. However, the 'area terrain' in this case does not stop being a 'Ruin' just because it's also area terrain. Further, models on the higher levels of the ruin are still (presumably, unless the ruin is modelled like a mushroom or something) 'in' the area terrain as outlined by it's base; area terrain does not have a 'vertical' limit over which it no longer applies, just a horizontal boundry.

Neorealist wrote:wait. what?

In the interest of saving time i'm going to reply here rather than in that other thread.

how do you resolve what you said above in light of the following rules (taken directly from the 'ruins' and 'area terrain' sections of the new 6th ed rulebook)?

"All ruins are difficult terrain and provide a 4+ cover save..."
"A ruin might be mounted on a base, decorated with rubble, and other debris. In this case, treat the base as area terrain..."
...Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured...

Normal area terrain provides a 5+ cover save. However, the 'area terrain' in this case does not stop being a 'Ruin' just because it's also area terrain. Further, models on the higher levels of the ruin are still 'in' the area terrain as outlined by it's base; area terrain does not have a vertical limit over which it no longer applies just a horizontal boundry.

Again read the ruins rules very, very carefully.

Ruins themselves are not area terrain. If the ruins have a base, that BASE is area terrain.

So if a model is standing in the base of a ruin, then it is getting a 5+ cover save unless the shooter's line of sight is obscured 25% by the ruin walls, in which case the cover save is a 4+.

Also, you mention that area terrain does not have a 'vertical limit', but again you're still thinking in previous editions. There actually are no rules, outside of forests, about area terrain magically providing cover saves to models that are on the opposite side of the area terrain (but not in it).

So if a model is standing out in the open, but is on the other side of a piece of non-forest area terrain (like rubble or a crater) but is not physically obscured 25% by that piece of area terrain, then he's not getting a cover save from that area terrain!

Models have to actually BE In the area terrain to get cover from it now, unless it is a forest, which is the ONLY area terrain that has rules about LOS being drawn 'through' it to models on the other side.


The rules for area terrain have been radically changed, from last edition to this one, so everyone needs to wrap their head around it, read the terrain sections carefully and recalibrate their thinking on it...and yes, it will take quite a while I envision for most people to 'get it'.

Forests are now the ONLY area terrain that provide any kind of 'magic cylinder' area terrain protection. All other area terrain needs to actually physically obscure a model to give it cover unless the model is actually standing in the area terrain piece.

yakface wrote:
Again read the ruins rules very, very carefully.

Ruins themselves are not area terrain. If the ruins have a base, that BASE is area terrain.

So if a model is standing in the base of a ruin, then it is getting a 5+ cover save unless the shooter's line of sight is obscured 25% by the ruin walls, in which case the cover save is a 4+.

Also, you mention that area terrain does not have a 'vertical limit', but again you're still thinking in previous editions. There actually are no rules, outside of forests, about area terrain magically providing cover saves to models that are on the opposite side of the area terrain (but not in it).

So if a model is standing out in the open, but is on the other side of a piece of non-forest area terrain (like rubble or a crater) but is not physically obscured 25% by that piece of area terrain, then he's not getting a cover save from that area terrain!

Models have to actually BE In the area terrain to get cover from it now, unless it is a forest, which is the ONLY area terrain that has rules about LOS being drawn 'through' it to models on the other side.


The rules for area terrain have been radically changed, from last edition to this one, so everyone needs to wrap their head around it, read the terrain sections carefully and recalibrate their thinking on it...and yes, it will take quite a while I envision for most people to 'get it'.

Forests are now the ONLY area terrain that provide any kind of 'magic cylinder' area terrain protection. All other area terrain needs to actually physically obscure a model to give it cover unless the model is actually standing in the area terrain piece.

I'm sorry, i believe you are wrong on a few points above, which i'll outline below:

1) The base of the ruin is still 'part' of the ruin. As such it should still benefit from the 'all ruins provide a 4+ cover save' rules-text.
2) Any model standing in area terrain benefits from it even if the model is less than 25% (presumably all the way down to 0%) obscured by said terrain. (as per the rules for area terrain in general)
3) A model placed in area terrain (ie: past that horizontal boundry which defines it, in this case the edge of the base of the ruin) counts as being in the area terrain regardless of how 'high' the model may be off the table. (as there is no listed vertical cutoff point where area terrain ceases to apply).

Neorealist wrote:
I'm sorry, i believe you are wrong on a few points above, which i'll outline below:

1) The base of the ruin is still 'part' of the ruin. As such it should still benefit from the 'all ruins provide a 4+ cover save' rules-text.
2) Any model standing in area terrain benefits from it even if the model is less than 25% (presumably all the way down to 0%) obscured by said terrain. (as per the rules for area terrain in general)
3) A model placed in area terrain (ie: past that horizontal boundry which defines it, in this case the edge of the base of the ruin) counts as being in the area terrain regardless of how 'high' the model may be off the table. (as there is no listed vertical cutoff point where area terrain ceases to apply).

Please re-read the sections on ruins and area terrain (including forests) again and try to wipe away your preconceived notions of how area terrain worked in previous editions and you will see that there IS a big change here. Ruins are NOT area terrain any longer...I don't know how else to put it to you.

Just look at the SM FAQ for bolster defenses, it makes it even more clear that this is the case:

Change the last sentence to "For example, a normal ruin with a 4+ save for the walls, and a 5+ save for the area terrain, would offer 3+ and 4+ saves respectively."


Now just look at the rest of the terrain types in the book and you'll see they are very specific about classifying certain terrain types as area terrain and with ruins they go out of their way to avoid this and simply say that the BASE of a ruin (if it has one) is area terrain, not that having a base on the ruin makes the ruin area terrain. This is a very important distinction!

yakface wrote:<snip> Only the ruin's base is area terrain (which is a 5+ save). <snip>

It's easy to draw this conclusion if you only read the general section on Area Terrain (that Area Terrain is always 5+), but if you investigate further and look at some of the Mysterious Terrain types you'll find that it's possible for Area Terrain to provide differing levels of cover save (see: Ironbark Forests).

So if Area Terrain (Ironbark Forest, 3+) is possible I see no reason that Area Terrain (Ruins, 4+) is not also possible, given that the rules for Ruins explain how they're always 4+ cover.

I'm still not sure about the other half of this discussion (leveled TLoS Ruins within Area Terrain), since I see merit in both sides of that argument.

Actually, what yakface posted (especially considering defense bolstering) makes perfect sense to me.

Altruizine wrote:

yakface wrote:<snip> Only the ruin's base is area terrain (which is a 5+ save). <snip>

It's easy to draw this conclusion if you only read the general section on Area Terrain (that Area Terrain is always 5+), but if you investigate further and look at some of the Mysterious Terrain types you'll find that it's possible for Area Terrain to provide differing levels of cover save (see: Ironbark Forests).

So if Area Terrain (Ironbark Forest, 3+) is possible I see no reason that Area Terrain (Ruins, 4+) is not also possible, given that the rules for Ruins explain how they're always 4+ cover.

I'm still not sure about the other half of this discussion (leveled TLoS Ruins within Area Terrain), since I see merit in both sides of that argument.

Please read everything I have written! The rules are quite specific about when terrain is area terrain or not, and ruins are never classified as being area terrain, only their BASE, if they have them is.

Again, look at GW's bolster defenses ruling for the SM codex, and you can see there is clearly a difference between the base of the model (area terrain) and the walls (which are not area terrain).

yakface wrote:

Altruizine wrote:

yakface wrote:<snip> Only the ruin's base is area terrain (which is a 5+ save). <snip>

It's easy to draw this conclusion if you only read the general section on Area Terrain (that Area Terrain is always 5+), but if you investigate further and look at some of the Mysterious Terrain types you'll find that it's possible for Area Terrain to provide differing levels of cover save (see: Ironbark Forests).

So if Area Terrain (Ironbark Forest, 3+) is possible I see no reason that Area Terrain (Ruins, 4+) is not also possible, given that the rules for Ruins explain how they're always 4+ cover.

I'm still not sure about the other half of this discussion (leveled TLoS Ruins within Area Terrain), since I see merit in both sides of that argument.

Please read everything I have written! The rules are quite specific about when terrain is area terrain or not, and ruins are never classified as being area terrain, only their BASE, if they have them is.

Again, look at GW's bolster defenses ruling for the SM codex, and you can see there is clearly a difference between the base of the model (area terrain) and the walls (which are not area terrain).

Looking at the FAQ, yeah, that seems to be an iron-clad indication of the way things work now. Good catch!

It does sort of conflict with the internal RAW of the rulebook. I mean, even a based Ruin is still a Ruin. It's in the section on Ruins, after all. So you'd naturally be inclined to combine the effects of Area Terrain and Ruins for figuring out how they interact as one piece of scenery.

i assure you i've read the rules and your posts very carefully indeed; please stop indicating that my comments are borne from a lack of due diligence regarding this topic .

i don't dispute that the base of the ruin is the only thing that is explicitly listed as area terrain, and the walls and upper floors (if any) are not(explicitly) listed as such.

What i dispute is that a model that is placed on the upper floors of a ruin is not in the area terrain by virtue of being inside the perimeter of the area terrain as defined by the base, regardless of how high up the model may be from the tabletop or how much of the model is obscured by the terrain features of the ruin.

Forests are not the only thing with a 'magical vertical cylinder' of protection in 6th ed. As i quoted in my earlier post (6th ed main book, page 91): "Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured."

You'll note it says 'area terrain' (as in 'all' area terrain unless explicitly indicated otherwise) not just 'forests'.

That said, your 'techmarine' reference is evidence that they may not consider the cover save granted by the base of a ruin to benefit from 'being' part of a ruin as they list it as a 5+. The funny thing is, the GK and BA techmarine FAQ updates do not include that: "Bolster Defences: After deployment, but before Scout redeployments and Infiltrate deployments, nominate one piece of terrain in your deployment zone (this may not be one you have purchased as part of your army). The terrain piece’s cover save is increased by one for the duration of the game (to a maximum of 3+). For example, a ruin (4+ cover save) would instead offer a 3+ cover save. A piece of terrain can only be bolstered once”. so it could just as easily be a mistake which slipped through editting?

Neorealist wrote:
I'm sorry, i believe ou are wrong on a few points above, which i'll outline below:
1) The base of the ruin is still 'part' of the ruin. As such it should still benefit from the 'all ruins provide a 4+ cover save' rules-text.

Yes and no. If model is 25%+ obscured by the ruin, then you get 4+ cover save. But rules are clear that area terrain only provides 5+ cover save.
There are no rules to support your viewpoint in 6e. Re-read the Area terrain rules on page 91 and please point out where does it say you gain cover save equal to the area terrain type.

Neorealist wrote:
2) Any model standing in area terrain benefits from it even if the model is less than 25% (presumably all the way down to 0%) obscured by said terrain. (as per the rules for area terrain in general)

It benefits from being in area terrain. For example, if you're standing in area terrain rubble and are less than 25% obscured, you get 5+ cover save. If you're over 25% obscured, you get 4+ cover save. Exactly same as ruins.

Neorealist wrote:
3) A model placed in area terrain (ie: past that horizontal boundry which defines it, in this case the edge of the base of the ruin) counts as being in the area terrain regardless of how 'high' the model may be off the table. (as there is no listed vertical cutoff point where area terrain ceases to apply).

This is debatable. Fact that there is no listed vertical cutoff point can just as easily be interpreted to mean that unless model is placed exactly on top of the vertical boundary layer, it is not in the area terrain at all.

Relevant rules: "Models in area terrain receive a 5+cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured." 6e, page 91.

edit: Typo

Neorealist wrote:so it could just as easily be a mistake which slipped through editting?

I think that's impossible; it's just too conceptually apropos to the new function of ruins/area terrain (as argued in this thread) to be a mistake.

Where i'm getting the 4+ cover save from is the 'ruins' rules-text indicates that all ruins grant a 4+ cover save and i have seen little reason (other than that one anomalous SM techmarine FAQ update) not to consider the base of the ruins as part of the ruins themselves and thus benefiting from the increased cover save.

Neorealist wrote:i assure you i've read the rules and your posts very carefully indeed; please stop indicating that my comments are borne from a lack of due diligence regarding this topic .

i don't dispute that the base of the ruin is the only thing that is explicitly listed as area terrain, and the walls and upper floors (if any) are not(explicitly) listed as such.

What i dispute is that a model that is placed on the upper floors of a ruin is not in the area terrain by virtue of being inside the perimeter of the area terrain as defined by the base, regardless of how high up the model may be from the tabletop or how much of the model is obscured by the terrain features of the ruin.

Forests are not the only thing with a 'magical vertical cylinder' of protection in 6th ed. As i quoted in my earlier post (6th ed main book, page 91): "Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured."

You'll note it says 'area terrain' (as in 'all' area terrain unless explicitly indicated otherwise) not just 'forests'.

That said, your 'techmarine' reference is evidence that they may not consider the cover save granted by the base of a ruin to benefit from 'being' part of a ruin as they list it as a 5+. The funny thing is, the GK and BA techmarine FAQ updates do not include that: "Bolster Defences: After deployment, but before Scout redeployments and Infiltrate deployments, nominate one piece of terrain in your deployment zone (this may not be one you have purchased as part of your army). The terrain piece’s cover save is increased by one for the duration of the game (to a maximum of 3+). For example, a ruin (4+ cover save) would instead offer a 3+ cover save. A piece of terrain can only be bolstered once”. so it could just as easily be a mistake which slipped through editting?

First off, its clearly not an editing error as it fits the actual rules presented in the rulebook for ruins. Second, it is included in the digital version of the SM codex now, which frankly, it seems like the two codexes they've taken the time to do digitally for 6th edition they spent much more time on being thorough than the other codex FAQs.

Third, as I've said a number of times, the rules for ruins are really specific in that they are never classified as being area terrain. GW had a perfectly sensible way of describing how ruins worked in the last edition...that they were area terrain but if they didn't have a base on them, then models on the ground floor didn't count as being in the area terrain.

But they went and threw that all out the window and totally changed how it was all presented. They could have really, really easily said that a ruin with a base is area terrain, but they didn't.

They go out of their way to NOT classify ruins as area terrain and then take the time to clearly spell out that the base (and only the base) of a ruin is area terrain.

I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes or argue for the sake of arguing, I'm just saying that if you wipe the past precedents of the previous editions' of the rules from your mind and approach this fresh, you can see that the way they're handling ruins now is actually different than before...its not bad. I've played quite a few games now this way and it works totally fine IMHO.

I mean, if you want to class the entire ruin as always giving a 5+ save minimum but a 4+ save if the firing is coming from the ruin's 'front side' then be my guest, but I think you'll quickly find that once people catch on to the change that has happened in the rules that everyone will soon be playing it as the base only being a 5+ and the walls being a 4+ but only if the walls area actually obscuring the target model 25%.

Altruizine wrote:I think that's impossible; it's just too conceptually apropos to the new function of ruins/area terrain (as argued in this thread) to be a mistake.

Fair enough, i respect your right to that opinion. I only wish it was as clear in the main book itself and that there were not more (otherwise functionally identical) FAQ entries without that particular rider than there are 'with'.