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 was in a tournament last weekend and a rather strange situation came up. All the ruins on the table were considered area terrain, the walls, the floors, and the base. Okay the whole go to ground issue has already been dealt with in our local meta and we consider it a 2+ cover. But that's not why I'm posting about. Since we all consider the walls of the ruins area terrain this situation came up.

My opponent moved his rhino to tank shock my fire warriors in the process he had the tip his rhino on its side like a trick rider on one track of his tank. I called him out and said that it was illegal you cant tip your tank on its side to make the straight line for the tank shock. So we called over the judge, he said that my opponent was correct and the tank was assumed to be able to move through the ruin due to it being area terrain. I went with it because a judges ruling during the tournament is always final.

Does that seem right to you guys? If a ruin is considered area terrain can vehicles move through them freely?

Yes, the ruling was correct.

Even without being area terrain, the rules for ruins allow models to move freely through walls. Vehicles have no specific exception to this rule.

BRB Page 99. First paragraph under the "Walls, Doors, Ladders and Lateral Thinking" explicitly says that the rules allow you to move through walls. There's a lot of other things in that paragraph that try to contradict the rules itself but it does explicitly states that the rules allow for the movement through walls.

Thank you guys, I was just a bit confused.

Guys, be honest with him, it's entirely up to you and your opponent how you define and play terrain. In some instances TO's will do that for you but in most cases, the pre game discussion will dictate how ruins and other kinds of terrain will be played. In the exact same section "Walls, Doors, latters and Lateral Thinking" it also states its perfectly fine to play the walls as impassable, again as long as you and your opponent agree.

So I would suggest having a detailed pre game discussion about terrain with your opponent before the game to make sure you're both on the same page. I would also highly encourage playing ruin walls as impassable, makes fore better tactical play.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Guys, be honest with him, it's entirely up to you and your opponent how you define and play terrain. In some instances TO's will do that for you but in most cases, the pre game discussion will dictate how ruins and other kinds of terrain will be played. In the exact same section "Walls, Doors, latters and Lateral Thinking" it also states its perfectly fine to play the walls as impassable, again as long as you and your opponent agree.

If you and your opponent agree, you can count all the ruins on the table as purple daffodils that give your units a 3+ "I love you" save.

The default, though (as in, what the rules say to do before the part where they pointlessly tell us that we can change the rules if we want to) is that walls can be moved through. This is also, from my experience, how most peope play it, and have done for at least the last 3 editions.



On a side note, the only slightly arguable part of this issue is the being able to park the vehicle on top of the wall and count it as being halfway through the wall. Again, from my experience this is how most players do it, but there are some who argue that while it's perfectly acceptable for models to walk right through a wall, ending their movement halfway through the wall is not. (Apparently the laws of physics only apply when someone is standing still).

This comes down to whether you take the Wobbly Model Syndrome entry as allowing you to count a model as being somewhere that it can't physically be placed but rules-wise could move to, or if you interpret it as requiring you to be able to physically place the model in the final position before counting it as being there.

In this particular situation though, as the TO ruled that the placement was legal, for that event at least it was.

 insaniak wrote:

If you and your opponent agree, you can count all the ruins on the table as purple daffodils that give your units a 3+ "I love you" save.

It kinda offers two ways to play it, like there is two ways to set up the terrain.

The default, though (as in, what the rules say to do before the part where they pointlessly tell us that we can change the rules if we want to) is that walls can be moved through. This is also, from my experience, how most peope play it, and have done for at least the last 3 editions.

Here most people seem to play it with solid walls being impassable. I certainly prefer it that way, it's more immersive and more tactical.

That being said, it clearly outlines one way to treat the ruins as default, so if nothing else was agreed on, that's how it should be played.

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

If you and your opponent agree, you can count all the ruins on the table as purple daffodils that give your units a 3+ "I love you" save.

It kinda offers two ways to play it, like there is two ways to set up the terrain.

The default, though (as in, what the rules say to do before the part where they pointlessly tell us that we can change the rules if we want to) is that walls can be moved through. This is also, from my experience, how most peope play it, and have done for at least the last 3 editions.

Here most people seem to play it with solid walls being impassable. I certainly prefer it that way, it's more immersive and more tactical.

That being said, it clearly outlines one way to treat the ruins as default, so if nothing else was agreed on, that's how it should be played.

If you and your opponent didn't discuss and define terrain, no one has a leg to stand on.

True. However if you just say "that's a ruin " then the default applies. If you ask to change and the opponent doesn't agree, the default applies

RAW it actually says you can move through, this isn't debatable.

It does suggest talking to your opponent before the game starts!

Stormbreed wrote:
RAW it actually says you can move through, this isn't debatable.

It does suggest talking to your opponent before the game starts!

ruins have 4 pages of rules and there are several ways to play them contained within those 4 pages. Melting through walls is just as valid as treating them as solid, totally depends on how you and your opponent decide to play them. Look no further than what is allowed on upper floors of a ruin, you and your opponent have to decide on whether walkers or mc's will be allowed on upper floors.


And also, the op's opponent tipping his rhino on its side isn't supported anywhere in the rules.

 Crablezworth wrote:
And also, the op's opponent tipping his rhino on its side isn't supported anywhere in the rules.

The tipping on the side in this case is just to show the tank's appropximate location. Whether or not that is legal, as I mentioned, comes down to that interpretation of WMS that has been argued so heavily back and forth here and elsewhere previously.