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.

Had a bit of a heated discussion today during a game.

My unit of Marines was in a ruin, behind a wall that had no slits, openings, windows, or doors. It was a solid piece of plastic. Some of the models in the unit were in base contact with the wall.
My opponent (an Ork) wished to charge my unit. I told him he could not, since none of the Ork models could see the Marine models. The rulebook says you must have Line of Sight to declare a charge. I took this to mean TLoS, while my opponent thought it meant something reminiscent of 5th edition (I know that in 5th, models could see through ruins if they were within 2" of the solid object. I also know that this is not the case in 6th.) He pointed to the piece of Battlefield Debris called "Barricades and Walls" and said that, since my models were in base contact with the wall, and his models would be in base contact with the wall, then he could charge. I first tried pointing out that a Ruin was a Ruin, and not a Barricade and Wall. He called me silly and said of course it was a wall. I conceded that it might be a wall (even though it's not a Wall, but most people don't like that argument), but that he still needed LoS to declare a charge in the first place. I eventually won, because he didn't want to keep arguing.

I'm not that interested in RAW. My opponent thought me to be very unreasonable, since I would only rely on the rulebook and not on what he referred to as "common sense." I agreed that it does seem a bit silly that you can Move through ruins, but not Charge through them, but that's the rules. I did not enjoy the experience, even though I am certain I am in the right. I want to know how Dakka would play this situation. Let the Ork have his charge, even though it's clearly against the rules? Offer to roll off? Stick to my guns and potentially have him snub me? Take the offered Overwatch against the Orks (even though I wouldn't get Overwatch because of a nearby Dirgecaster*)?

*team game

Again, I will repeat, I am most interested in HIWPI, not in RAW. I think RAI might also be helpful: did the game designers want you to be able to charge things you cannot see, but somehow overlooked this situation? or did they purposefully make it different from 5th?

Elric Greywolf wrote:
I think RAI might also be helpful: did the game designers want you to be able to charge things you cannot see, but somehow overlooked this situation? or did they purposefully make it different from 5th?

If they wanted you to be able to charge some things you couldn't see, they would have purposefully included them. You've needed line of sight to charge for donkeys now, and the 2" rule that was present was removed, as you've spotted. So the intention is obvious.

HIWPI all comes down to whether you've been able to fire with that unit or not. With no slits, windows or otherwise was your unit able to shoot? Nope - so it's only fair that they can't be charged through that wall.
If you HAD been firing with that unit, specifically the models behind that solid wall, then they're fair game.

 Super Ready wrote:

HIWPI all comes down to whether you've been able to fire with that unit or not. With no slits, windows or otherwise was your unit able to shoot? Nope - so it's only fair that they can't be charged through that wall.
If you HAD been firing with that unit, specifically the models behind that solid wall, then they're fair game.

I should not, under normal circumstance, be able to fire through a solid wall. Now, Astral Aim may have been at play here, which may also have contributed to his feeling that he should be able to charge. But I think Astral Aim might over-complicate the issue. (So, did I shoot? Yes. Did I have TLoS? No. Does passing the Astral Aim psychic test allow me to shoot without TLos? Yes. If it was not a Purgation Squad, then I would not have been shooting with it. Knowing we would be playing on a ruin-heavy board, I specifically took a Purgation Squad to garner me the advantage of being able to shoot without the enemy being able to charge me.) So let's say that no, I was not shooting with the squad. To keep things simpler.

You need LOS to charge. That's both RAW and how I play it.

And you couldn't see through walls in 5th either. It may have been a rule in Cities of Death, but not in regular 40k.

Page 91 of the BRB

Make sure you talk about cover, LOS blocking terrain etc. before the game starts.

For example, in my local gaming group, we have a house rule about Ruins that makes them block LOS unless shooting through a wall (with windows/doors) that either your target is against or your own unit is against.

 Hansisaf wrote:
Page 91 of the BRB

Make sure you talk about cover, LOS blocking terrain etc. before the game starts.

This is a good guideline. I do this every time if there is mixed terrain on the board--for example, forests and ruins. I always point out which is which, to avoid confusion. I have found great resistance in my club to advanced rules discussions. Every time I try to bring up a potential problem, this same Ork player says, "Pfft, of course it's the way I think it is. Any other way is stupid and TFG." For example, I asked if models on top of a flat-roofed ruin would get a cover save, even though they were not 25% obscured (since the roof is flat). I understood that ruins were not area terrain except on the bottom floor. The general response was "Ruins are area terrain." But any talk about real rules vs house rules is always met (by the Ork) with a dismissive, "You're stupid, it's just a game, let's not over-complicate things."

How would others "play" this social situation?

I would show him the True Line of Sight and cover saves section that clearly says models not in area terrain do not get a cover save unless they are 25% or more obscured from the view of any firing model.

Tell the Ork player, as politely as possible, that you prefer to play by the rules of 6th edition. There have been a great many changes from 5th, including the requirement to have LOS to charge, and the change to Ruins so that they're only Area on the base, not on upper levels. These changes can be a bit hard to keep track of and all of us make mistakes, given that the rules aren't very old yet. That being said, you're making the effort to learn and play by them, and you'd appreciate it if other folks were supportive of that, rather than being insulting and dismissive of it.

I think the RAW and RAI are in agreement here. You cannot charge things you cannot see.
HIWPI is "No, you can't charge."
I would also politely, but assertively, tell the Ork guy that reading, following, and discussing the rules isn't "over-complicating" things, it's simply commonsense. I would also suggest to him that if anyone is being TFG, it's him due to his blatant manipulation of, and disregard for, rules and convention when it suits his advantage.

It's definitely the rule, although I will confess to thinking it's a dumb change. Imagine, if you will, a single model, perhaps with a mortar or some such, hiding in a thick bush. You can't shoot him because he's out of LoS. You can't charge him because he's out of LoS. And you can't get close enough to see him because of the 1" rule. Obviously, that's an extreme example, but even in the OP's pretty standard situation, it can be an awfully long way around for an obstacle that could normally be walked right through.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Tell the Ork player, as politely as possible, that you prefer to play by the rules of 6th edition. There have been a great many changes from 5th, including the requirement to have LOS to charge, and the change to Ruins so that they're only Area on the base, not on upper levels. These changes can be a bit hard to keep track of and all of us make mistakes, given that the rules aren't very old yet. That being said, you're making the effort to learn and play by them, and you'd appreciate it if other folks were supportive of that, rather than being insulting and dismissive of it.

Now, here's a thing about that.

In fifth edition, I was very vocal about my disdain about the FAQ ruling for PotMS.

I felt that smoke launchers meaning you could fire 0 weapons, then PotMS allowing you to fire +1 on your normal allowance would make 0+1 which is 1. I was annoyed about the unnecessary change (as I saw it).

However, when 6th edition rolled around and made it rules that I couldn't flat out or pop smoke and fire weapons, I accepted it. Why? because that's the rule.

Point of this little tangent is, you play the current rules. You do not choose to stay in any edition but the current one outside of your own home (gaming club.) and in pick up games, you play sixth edition.

Not third, fourth or fifth edition, not sixth edition with fifth edition FAQs or even Sixth Edition with Fifth Edition interpretations, you play sixth edition.

Feel free to Copy-pasta this little rant next time someone wants to port obsolete rules from fifth edition into sixth edition 40,000.

@Scipio: Ranting is well and good in an online forum, but my main problem is going to be in real life social interactions, where it is important to be polite and considerate of the other party's feelings.

It wasn't exactly a 5th ed rule, it was a "house rule" that I think was heavily influenced by 5th ed ruins. Now, we both play in the same LGS, and I've never played with this house rule, but he thought it was established.

This Ork has a lot of clout in our 40k social circle. Disagreeing with him in public, while he protested quite loudly, made everyone very anxious, and ruined the remaining turns of the game. It has also potentially lost me several opponents, since when he re-tells the story (and he loves telling stories), I will come off like a jackass, a rules-lawyer who no one wants to play with.

And thanks, Mannahnin, for the advice. It was well put.

How about trying to talk to the guy and show him the actual rules.

If he gets loud, get a little loud yourself and ask him to try to actually follow the rules.

Just re-tell the story to the " 40k social circle" and point out that the rules he was trying to play by were not correct.

You must be able to see your target(s) to charge it/them.

If your table has lots of complete LOS blocking things, consider making a few windows, because having models inside a box that they can't see out of is kinda cheap.

 juraigamer wrote:
You must be able to see your target(s) to charge it/them.

If your table has lots of complete LOS blocking things, consider making a few windows, because having models inside a box that they can't see out of is kinda cheap.

Yeah, a Purgation Squad inside a box just big enough to fit them would be pretty cheap. But this ruin--and indeed all the ruins at our club--are either GW ruins or inspired by GW ruins. There are plenty of clear spaces and windows to draw LoS. This ruin has a section about 4x4in that is blocked on two sides by solid walls. The other two sides are open; deployment and subsequent movement had resulted in my models being completely hidden from his models. It will only rarely happen. I would consider it to be useful or detrimental tactically, and a good player will consider ways to overcome/utilise any particular piece of terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:


If he gets loud, get a little loud yourself and ask him to try to actually follow the rules.

Don't get loud, just be the most reasonable person there. Be calm and choose your words carefully but be firm and insist that the rules are clear and show it to someone else there to get others on board.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


If he gets loud, get a little loud yourself and ask him to try to actually follow the rules.

Don't get loud, just be the most reasonable person there. Be calm and choose your words carefully but be firm and insist that the rules are clear and show it to someone else there to get others on board.

I meant loud as in so everyone can hear you (Thus the little loud).

Lit has it right "be the most reasonable person there. Be calm and choose your words carefully but be firm and insist that the rules are clear and show it to someone else there to get others on board."

do it in a voice where most people that are close can hear you, but do not scream or yell at him.

Ah right, I just thought you meant to shout them down.

Elric Greywolf wrote:
@Scipio: Ranting is well and good in an online forum, but my main problem is going to be in real life social interactions, where it is important to be polite and considerate of the other party's feelings.

It wasn't exactly a 5th ed rule, it was a "house rule" that I think was heavily influenced by 5th ed ruins. Now, we both play in the same LGS, and I've never played with this house rule, but he thought it was established.

It is not important to be polite to someone who is ruining your game. If you think it is, there's something wrong.

You need to agree to play house rules. If he is trying to force you to play them. It is not Impolite to tell him that he can't do that because the rules don't tell him he can't.

I agree with the whole not shouting thing. I think if you are calm and reasonable it will diffuse the situation. Also sometimes you just have to be the man and let it go.

I play against a friend a lot and we get in tiffs about stupid little things. He usually just is the man and let's me take the call I wanted. That or else we roll off for it.

Either way. If this guy is notorious for telling stories and crap, then just be a gentleman and people will be able to he'll


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tell that he just tells stories and you are a legit gamer.

Not getting hot headed is always the better choice.