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.

Pyrian - the phrase is "similarly solid"

The similarity is in the solidity. And, I would say a hill is approximately as solid as a 40k wall. What differs is thickness, but that isnt a solidity comparison any longer.

If you want a RAW defense against this tactic here you go.

The RAW allows you to move through doors, windows,walls and similarly solid objects.

Claim a steep hill or battlefield wreckage is not a similarity solid object because the 4 things listed are barriers that you pass from one side to the other, and never remain within.

Note that the rule allows models the move through these obstacles, not remain within them.

Mention that impassible terrain is where models physically cannot be placed. The surface of a steep hill or battlefield wreckage would be difficult terrain, but the interior would be impassible.

If WMS is being tossed about, don't agree the model's actual position is inside the terrain. Reference Points 1 and 2 if needed.

This will, undoubtedly turn into a RAI debate. If you're in a friendly game, decide if the argument is worth the time. If your in a tournament call a TO over to settle it. You might loose.

 insaniak wrote:
If a rule allows you to place a model in a particular position, and then another rule that kicks in later can not be followed for whatever reason, that's not the fault of the player who carried out the first action. It's a failure of the rules to anticipate that the original rule could lead to an impossible situation.

Fortunately the rules do not allow you to place models in any location where you would be unable to put them back to check range/LOS, so this situation will never come up. It's nice how consistently the rules work sometimes.

This is one of the situations where it is utterly immaterial what the rules actually say. Anyone trying this is a dick, simple as that. This is like actually trying to claim in a game that Wraithguard cannot shoot as they have no eyes.

 Crimson wrote:
This is one of the situations where it is utterly immaterial what the rules actually say. Anyone trying this is a dick, simple as that. This is like actually trying to claim in a game that Wraithguard cannot shoot as they have no eyes.

I think these forums are here to discuss what the actual rules say, not how you feel is right or wrong.

Polecat wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
This is one of the situations where it is utterly immaterial what the rules actually say. Anyone trying this is a dick, simple as that. This is like actually trying to claim in a game that Wraithguard cannot shoot as they have no eyes.

I think these forums are here to discuss what the actual rules say, not how you feel is right or wrong.

The forums are here to discuss the rules. What the rules say, how you interpret them and what you think of them is all included. I havn't seen anything asking me to not post an opinion here.

Once a vehicle is Wrecked, arent the occupants forced to disembark? This would likely be due to the fluff reasoning of it not being safe to be inside like a radiation leak or some such irrelevant. I have never seen anyone able to go back inside a Wrecked vehicle... I would say that the cover, difficult and dangerous terrain is based upon climbing on top of the Wreck. I dont have my book with me at work but I would look under the Wreck and disembarking rules for more of an answer.

For myself, if I ever had someone try this against me and insisted they could, I would dice off for the rules to move on, and not play the scammer again. 9-)

Ok, for future thoughts, if we were to agree that wrecked vehicles are impassible terrain for purposes of moving inside them (either by TO ruling or player agreement) would you then have to spend movement to move up a level like you would a building?

Also if this were to apply, Rinos or any of the Box vehicles are easy to consider movement on but what about Eldar Falcon Chasis or (heaven forbid) a wrecked Monolith?

I dont think climbing on to a vehicle would use the same rules as climbing up levels in a ruin. But it would be "difficult and dangerous" to climb over a wrecked vehicle, hence those rolls. Makes sense to me.

I am glad to see so many see this for what it is. It is sad to see others attempt to justify it for whatever pretense.

This thread made me think, but what if the model is actually able to fit where you want it to?

Not with a wrecked vehicle, but lets use the WMS partner the Skyshield. You can actually fit smaller models inside the legs, and leave them there to check LOS.

If the biggest RAW against hiding in stuff is being able to hold the model back where it is supposed to be, then when the models itself fits nicely in the skyshields legs with the objective just next to the leg everything should be 100% raw

For the record I've never tried this, but it could be something interesting to do in a tourny

After reading this thread, I have a new plan:
I will construct a single-level ruin without a roof, with window-less, door-less walls in a square about 5"x5". There will be no LoS into this square. I will place my Purgation Squad inside the square, in a way that is impossible for enemy units to gain LoS (because my models will be up against the wall, and the enemy can't get w/i 1"). The Purgation Squad, not needing LoS to shoot, will then fire happily away with 16 S7 Rending shots per phase. (I'll of course TL them, and hope for 'Perfect Timing' also.)
I'll target any Barrage weapons first, and hope they don't have a Callidus Assassin or Purgation Squad of their own.

I'll probably only be able to use this trick once per opponent, but it will be quite unsportsmanlike and exciting!

SaganGree wrote:
Ok, for future thoughts, if we were to agree that wrecked vehicles are impassible terrain for purposes of moving inside them (either by TO ruling or player agreement) would you then have to spend movement to move up a level like you would a building?

No. The ONLY time you spend a fixed amount of movement to go up or down is in multi-level ruins (ruins according to the rules, not just any terrain that looks kind of like a ruin). In any other situation you measure from the model's initial location to its final location, including any vertical distance, and compare that to its maximum movement value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
After reading this thread, I have a new plan:
I will construct a single-level ruin without a roof, with window-less, door-less walls in a square about 5"x5". There will be no LoS into this square. I will place my Purgation Squad inside the square, in a way that is impossible for enemy units to gain LoS (because my models will be up against the wall, and the enemy can't get w/i 1"). The Purgation Squad, not needing LoS to shoot, will then fire happily away with 16 S7 Rending shots per phase. (I'll of course TL them, and hope for 'Perfect Timing' also.)

If you're going to do that you might as well just make the entire table lethal terrain for your opponent's army. If you're going to make TFG terrain at least do it right.

I would have simply thought being in/on the wrecked vehicle (now being terrain) would simply give a 5+ cover save and count as both difficult and dangerous terrain. Simple really

Thats how we play it, it only blocks line of site if you are behind it kinda thing.

 DJGietzen wrote:
If you want a RAW defense against this tactic here you go.

The RAW allows you to move through doors, windows,walls and similarly solid objects.

Claim a steep hill or battlefield wreckage is not a similarity solid object because the 4 things listed are barriers that you pass from one side to the other, and never remain within.

Note that the rule allows models the move through these obstacles, not remain within them.

Mention that impassible terrain is where models physically cannot be placed. The surface of a steep hill or battlefield wreckage would be difficult terrain, but the interior would be impassible.

If WMS is being tossed about, don't agree the model's actual position is inside the terrain. Reference Points 1 and 2 if needed.

This will, undoubtedly turn into a RAI debate. If you're in a friendly game, decide if the argument is worth the time. If your in a tournament call a TO over to settle it. You might loose.

I agree with this, though I doubt the "you might lose" part. I find it hard to imagine a TO of any stripe allowing a model to stop inside a wreck or hill.

 DJGietzen wrote:
If you want a RAW defense against this tactic here you go.

The RAW allows you to move through doors, windows,walls and similarly solid objects.

Claim a steep hill or battlefield wreckage is not a similarity solid object because the 4 things listed are barriers that you pass from one side to the other, and never remain within.

Note that the rule allows models the move through these obstacles, not remain within them.

Not true, the allowance to move through is allowance to end the move at that location.

Mention that impassible terrain is where models physically cannot be placed. The surface of a steep hill or battlefield wreckage would be difficult terrain, but the interior would be impassible.

This point is not true unless both parties agree pre-game that this is true.

If WMS is being tossed about, don't agree the model's actual position is inside the terrain. Reference Points 1 and 2 if needed.

Which of course, does not matter. There can be no argument when you opponent points to a specific location and declares that is where the model is. it really is indisputable.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am glad to see so many see this for what it is. It is sad to see others attempt to justify it for whatever pretense.

Nobody in this thread has been trying to justify it.

Pointing out that the rules are a little screwy is not an argument for actually playing the game that way. It's just pointing out that the rules are a little screwy.

The rules aren't screwy but that is what you want us to believe. According to you my guardians can dig inside a hill to prevent being in enemy LoS. I don't think you're going to find many people that would agree to that.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The rules aren't screwy but that is what you want us to believe. According to you my guardians can dig inside a hill to prevent being in enemy LoS. I don't think you're going to find many people that would agree to that.

I don't 'want' you to believe anything. This is a discussion of the rules. So I present my opinion on how the rules work. You can agree or disagree.

So far as pure RAW is concerned, as I read it, yes, your Guardians can walk into the middle of the hill. That doesn't mean that I think the game should be played that way, just that it's how the rules are written, as I read them.

The thing is, players are going to have to decide for themselves just where to draw the line. The difficult terrain rules specifically allow you to walk through elements of that terrain. Nobody has an issue with it when what you are trying to walk through is a wall or a small rock or a bush...but just how big can the obstacle be before models can no longer walk through it? The rules make no distinction (particularly if you go by the popular interpretation of WMS that models can stop partway through difficult terrain elements) ... so players are just going to have to figure out for themselves what they will and won't allow.


This isn't me trying to push an odd interpretation of the rules on people. It's me pointing out that, in my opinion, the rules on difficult terrain are a mess and players are going to have to make them work as best they see fit.

BRB p.90. Moving Within Difficult Terrain
"Note that, as part of their move through difficult terrain, models can move through walls, closed doors and windows and all similarly solid obstacles, unless the players have agreed that a certain wall or obstacle is impassable."

as part of their move through difficult terrain, models can move through walls, closed doors and windows and all similarly solid obstacles,

The rule says you can move through terrain not inside it. It says absolutely nothing about you can move inside of dangerous terrain. If so we'd already be doing this with just about any large hill that has rocks.

 Rismonite wrote:
The rule says you can move through terrain not inside it.

How do you move through something without ever being inside it...?

@ insaniak - you make things way too difficult for nothing gained. Your PoV is peculiar.

 insaniak wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
The rule says you can move through terrain not inside it.

How do you move through something without ever being inside it...?

agreed. You have to go 'inside' the terrain to go 'through' the terrain. But through mean to go in one side and out the other. Game Workshop has alternatively used "within" or "enter" when the movement can end before reaching the other side. If you could enter a wall, or move withing it you'd be ok. But you have to move through it and that means you can't end still inside. That is the argument I'd use to (hopefully) stop a bunch of shenanigans.

I'd also point out that if you can't physically place the model there it must be impassible terrain so inside of wrecks is impassible, surface of wrecks are difficult.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
@ insaniak - you make things way too difficult for nothing gained. Your PoV is peculiar.

Odd, I don't recall having anything to do with the writing of the 6th edition rules...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
But through mean to go in one side and out the other.

No it doesn't. If you're swimming in a bowl of treacle, you're moving through treacle. 'Through' simply means 'passing within'... It doesn't have to mean you come out the other side at all.

Otherwise the 'Move Through Cover'rule would suddenly be a whole lot less useful...

 insaniak wrote:
Pointing out how you would choose to resolve a situation not covered by the rules is not off-topic in a thread discussing that situation.

Thought the OP was asking for RAW. How I'd handle it is get my gaming group it house rule it and I'd suggest not letting players end a units movement inside a piece of terrain that is not a Ruin or Building and that in game terms being on top of is considered 'within' the terrain. I'd then point out that the alternative is game-breaking and imply that it is absurd.

 Abandon wrote:
I'd suggest not letting players end a units movement inside a piece of terrain that is not a Ruin or Building and that in game terms being on top of is considered 'within' the terrain. .

So no ending movement inside a forest?

Or a crater?

 DJGietzen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
The rule says you can move through terrain not inside it.

How do you move through something without ever being inside it...?

agreed. You have to go 'inside' the terrain to go 'through' the terrain. But through mean to go in one side and out the other. Game Workshop has alternatively used "within" or "enter" when the movement can end before reaching the other side. If you could enter a wall, or move withing it you'd be ok. But you have to move through it and that means you can't end still inside. That is the argument I'd use to (hopefully) stop a bunch of shenanigans.

I'd also point out that if you can't physically place the model there it must be impassible terrain so inside of wrecks is impassible, surface of wrecks are difficult.

You are looking with a rather narrow perspective at a word with fairly broad meaning. You can move through time without passing into or outside of it. You can move though a room without entering or leaving. You can even go through a desk without ever even being inside. At best this is an RAI argument for what they meant by 'move through' but I find no supporting text even among your examples that would indicate a limit on the possible definitions of the word in this context. HYWPI is the best that can be done IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I'd suggest not letting players end a units movement inside a piece of terrain that is not a Ruin or Building and that in game terms being on top of is considered 'within' the terrain. .

So no ending movement inside a forest?

Or a crater?

Abandon wrote: and that in game terms being on top of is considered 'within' the terrain.

That being on top of the forest terrain piece is considered within that terrain type. Sorry if I was not clear.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not true, the allowance to move through is allowance to end the move at that location.

Please cite the rule where it says this. You are granted permission to trace a model's movement path through certain obstacles, but you are not ever given permission to point at a spot and declare that the model is ending its move there without actually placing the model in that location.

Wow, OK so how do we represent a rhino full of dudes that isn't wrecked? We put a couple on top... Now it's a wreck...the doors have been blown off, we still can't fit any figs in there so what do we do? We put him {them} on top to represent being in "difficult terrain/ruins" which the brb says confers a 5+ cover save, meaning they can be shot at/assaulted, the wreck is essentially a shed!

First post on Dakka......woot

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not true, the allowance to move through is allowance to end the move at that location.

Please cite the rule where it says this. You are granted permission to trace a model's movement path through certain obstacles, but you are not ever given permission to point at a spot and declare that the model is ending its move there without actually placing the model in that location.

Exactly, the rules give you permission to pass through certain objects (walls as an example), the rules never give you permission to stop while within them.

Imagine a wild west sheriff and he tells ya that you have permission to pass through his roadblock, where does that give you permission to stop? And if you did just stop while moving through the sheriff's barricade, do you think the sheriff would be happy about that?

He might even say something like "Did I give you permission to stop boy!?" in a deep southern accent.

There are plenty of places where the rulebook mentions "only if the model can physically fit there", ruins for example being one of them. That right there is an indication that even gw kinda factors in physics on rare occasions.



(the rules also allow for you and your opponent to play just about any terrain piece or feature as impassable, it's what some might call a more common sense aproach especially with very involved terrain pieces that can comprise of several different things)