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.

Dear fellow players, i need you wisdom once again.

Let's suppose we have a unit on the second floor of a ruin. Because it is partly concealed from the firer's point of view, it is granted a 4+ cover save.
Now, the same unit is shot again by a second firer, from another angle and this time no part of the ruin conceals the model.

What happens in the second instance?

The unit gets no cover save?
Is it considered to be in area terrain and gets a 5+ save?
Does it get a 4+ again because it is inside a ruin?


Thanks!

My understanding is that the Base of the terrain (if it has a base) is considered area terrain. This means on the bottom floor you can gtg for +2 to cover and grants the 5+ cover save for being in area terrain. However, if models are on the second floor or above you would use tlos to determine if a cover save would be allowed. If the model is not obscured by 25 percent or more, no cover save. Thats the gamble for putting units in a higher vantage point with no wall behind them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So to answer your question on the second instance, it would seem like no cover save for them =(

When you say "second firer" do you mean second UNIT? Or second model frmo the same unit as the first firer?

When determining if you get cover fro ma unit firing at you, if ANY model in the firing unit grants a cover save, you get a cover save against all shooting at that model. You then check the next model in the target unit, see if it gets cover, and so on

So if a unit is firing at a model on the 1st, 2nd or higher floor of a ruin, and their LOS is not obstructed 25% by terrain (the ruin, for instance) then no cover saves apply

BASED ruins are only Area Terrain on the GROUND floor of the ruin - not any higher.

Ruins with bases
A ruin might be mounted on a base, decorated with rubble, and other debris. In this case, treat the base as area terrain

By explicitly making the base an exception, it is clear that the 2nd floor and above are not.

It is difficult terrain, but although all area terrain is difficult terrain, all difficult terrain is not area terrain.

So, conclusion: You get the line of sight cover that you are behind when you stand on the second floor in a ruin.

I had this discussion on another forum about a month or so ago.

I just copied and pasted what I put there. There it is.

Are ruins listed as area terrain? YES Pg 91 :Trees, rocks, ruins or whatever is appropriate for the kind of area terrain you are representing.
Therefore the entirety of the ruin is area terrain.

Are the secondary, tertiary, etc. floors also part of the ruin? YES (unless you are playing with some building where part is an intact structure and part are indeed ruin)

The exact quote from the book. Pg 91 second paragraph. The "trees, rocks, ruins, or whatever is appropriate" sentence.

It doesn't say the gound floor of ruins. It's the whole thing. The entire peice of terrain is terrain. It is the ruin itself that represents the area terrain. It is similar to having a rock or pile of rocks on the table. Just because the model is standing on top of a rock doesn't mean that it's no longer in area terrain. You can't properly model a ruin, or any area terrain for that matter, and still have it be usable as a playing surface. That's why we have area terrain.

I really don't understand the argument that part of a terrain piece isn't to beconsidered part of the terrain.

The one argument that truly can be made here is what cover save is granted. Is it 4+ of 5+? This is deffinetely debateable.

Regular area terrain give a 5+. Ruins as established on pg 91 refer to ruins as area terrain.

The bolded rule on page 98 states two things: 1: All ruins are difficult terrain. 2: All ruins provide a 4+ cover save.
That rule is specific to ruins and would be used instead of the more general rule for area terrain.

Even if you decided that parts of a ruin weren't area terrain. The rules specificaly inform you that a ruin provides a
4+ cover. That wold be if you are behind it or in it, just like any other bit of terrain.

That point is moot, because ruins are listed as area terrain as well. Just with a better cover save than other area terrain.

That's what I get out of it.

Edit: The reference to the base of a ruin, is just that. It is a reference to consider the base that the ruin is placed upon to be considered as area terrain. The Ruin itself has already been established as area terrain in earlier entries. It is an inclusion of the base, not an exclusion of the ruin itself.

 Idolator wrote:

That point is moot, because ruins are listed as area terrain as well.

Where? They're listed as terrain, but area terrain is a specific type of terrain. All terrain is not area terrain.
The entire argument you posted hinges on that one sentence. Where are Ruins listed as Area Terrain?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but rather inquisitive. If they ARE listed as Area Terrain, then I wish to know where.

 Purifier wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

That point is moot, because ruins are listed as area terrain as well.

Where? They're listed as terrain, but area terrain is a specific type of terrain. All terrain is not area terrain.
The entire argument you posted hinges on that one sentence. Where are Ruins listed as Area Terrain?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but rather inquisitive. If they ARE listed as Area Terrain, then I wish to know where.

BRB page 91.
Heading: Area Terrain
first paragraph, second sentence.

Even if if someone were to diisregard the reference to ruins being area terrain. (which they shouldn't as it mentions the other forms of area terrain as well) Ruins are a specific terrain type that provide rules for being in it or 25% obscured behind it. The second, third and fourth floors or a ruin are still terrain(ruin) Providing the cover save for that type of terrain.

Not considering the entirety of the ruin, including the different levels, would need to be applied to the other specified terrain types as well. Rules for water features do not state that they are area terrain. The rules for forests state that they are always at least difficult terrain and are usually area terrain.

The heading of Area Terrain states that they are all area terrain.

It being a game, however, you could make certain terrain features as impassible (Dense Forrest, Lake of Acid, Burning Building) The minimum that they could be would be area terrain according to the rules.

Edit: The heading of Area Terrain is the only deffinition of area terrain that I can find. It mentions marshes, woods, ruins and other types of rough ground. The heading for difficult terrain includes all of those as well as several others, but the Area terrain only includes those four.

My group plays the same way, Idolator. I agree that it's RAW, though, as is the case with a lot of GW wording, it'd be great if it were worded clearer than it is.

The only way that we change it is if we agree ahead of time that something will be different.

When in doubt, I generally grant my opponent the cover save.

 kcwm wrote:
My group plays the same way, Idolator. I agree that it's RAW, though, as is the case with a lot of GW wording, it'd be great if it were worded clearer than it is.

The only way that we change it is if we agree ahead of time that something will be different.

When in doubt, I generally grant my opponent the cover save.

I think that it was left with ambiguity on purpose. It's meant to provide flexibility for play. As GW only makes a few pieces of terrain features and those are highly customizable it would be impossible to cover every variation that exists.

It could be that you make a park that contains trees, bushes and a ruined building with a small stream running through it. You have several different guidlines all occuring in one place. You just have to discuss it with your opponent.

Edit: Bottom line for all terrain...talk about it with your opponent before the game and agree on what is what.

pg 98 works better here:

all ruins provide a 4+ cover..

the base is different. ruins do not need bases. if it has a base the base is treated as area terrain.

so if your in the "ruins" you get a 4+ save.
if your in the base, you get a 5+ save unless the shot goes through the wall.

Now to muddy the waters even more, if you get the warlord trait "move through ruins" do you allow it to work when just moving through the base? IF so then you might as well call the base part of the ruins and just grant a 4+ for the whole thing.

terrain is negotiable at the start of the game, spend some time talking about it.

If you are on something that could be the floor of the ruins meaning the base if it has one or the actual upper floors you are in Area and get a 5+ save just for standing there because ruins are also area terrain. Now if 25% of the model in question is blocked by parts of the building from the unit shooting at it you can also claim the 4+ save for being in a ruin. For the most part this means that if the unit in the building is being shot by another unit in front of the building you will have a 4+ save and if being shot from behind where the building is no longer in the way you only get a 5+ save. This would also mean that two models staring at each other in a ruin would both get a 5+ save even if only an inch from each other and nothing in the way just because they are both in area terrain. regardless of what some may claim other then area terrain which is only good for a 5+ unless something says otherwise to get any other type of cover save you must have 25% of the model covered by the terrain you are hiding behind.

You know, it's worth pointing out that you should probably play terrain in a way that both you and your opponent are ok with and agree to before rolling dice. It might just involve an actual discussion about the terrain before the game, a discussion where you define and agree to all the terrain rules. Going to the rulebook is a really bad idea after the fact. Unless of course you want to have an argument about that statue "obivously" being an imperial statuary or those little metal things "obviously" being shield generators.

Gotta check it later.

The base, if the Ruin has one, is 5+ area terrain. Everything else is purely based on LoS.

Remember that cover is done on a model by model basis, not the unit as a whole.

So if one model is 25% obscured that model gets the 4+ ruin cover save.

I've seen people play it both ways.

Ruins also require certain decisions to be made collectively by both players, like how climbing works, how doors will work and if walls are permeable or not.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Ruins also require certain decisions to be made collectively by both players, like how climbing works, how doors will work and if walls are permeable or not.

Unless you go by the default. Then things are laid out in the BRB under Ruins on how the default works.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Ruins also require certain decisions to be made collectively by both players, like how climbing works, how doors will work and if walls are permeable or not.

Unless you go by the default. Then things are laid out in the BRB under Ruins on how the default works.

Right so when I play you and when we’re discussing and defining our terrain pre game, you say how you want to play ruins and I say how I want to play ruins.... is your preference somehow more valid than mine?

My thought is we’d have to come to some agreement.

If, however, you dont state anything you play as per the default.

Though I personally think the rules say that the entire ruin is area terrain, this is a good example of a time when it might be prudent to ask your opponent before game how terrain works. Doesn't help you with the current situation, but a good example of clarifying terrain before hand.

The rules clearly state that IF a ruin has a base, you treat that base as area terrain. Which has different rules than the rules for Ruins. This is a significant change from 5th.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If, however, you dont state anything you play as per the default.

If you didn't discuss terrain at all how can you play? You literally haven't defined anything as anything.

The rules do a fair amount of defining for us.

That being said, most games I play do start with a terrain discussion.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The rules do a fair amount of defining for us.

That being said, most games I play do start with a terrain discussion.

Exactly.

We usually point at the terrain and say things like "Ruin?" the opponent usually says "Sure" if it looks like a ruin and we do that for the rest of the terrain and go about our business.

 Crablezworth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If, however, you dont state anything you play as per the default.

If you didn't discuss terrain at all how can you play? You literally haven't defined anything as anything.

Did the discussion say "Ruin" when you poointed at the terrain? If so, then you dont need to determine anything else as the rules determine a default you can play with.

So you have had a discussion, and still ended up with the default. Amazing how possible that is.

We use a simpler method.
Is it a building? Yes = Building.
Was it a building? Yes = Ruin.
Is it water? Yes = Do something.
Is it a forest? Yes = Do something.
Is it neither but modeled different from the general board? Area Terrain.
You get the point.

We take the time to build a board with at least some worth after having spent so much time on the models. We might as well model terrain that looks like what it is supposed to be rather then look at this piece if felt it's a forest.