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.

Heya!

I am in progress of working on a full city board and am torn between modeling the terrain as full buildings or ruins. I like the look of full buildings, but the rules seem really fiddly. I personally have never played using the building rules and would like some input from those who have.

For those who play frequently with the building rules, how do you like them? Do you feel ruins offer a better tactical experience or buildings? Any information would be appreciated!

Thanks.

They make for good LOS blocking terrain. You could always just have them be impassable so simplify the game a bit.

For a full city board, a mix of ruins, intact buildings and impassable structures is the way to go. Keeps things interesting.

I am a fan of intact buildings personally. For fast simple games just make it only jump troops and jet troops can use the roofs. For complicated games give buildings a transport capacity etc etc.

Its also good at blocking line of site.

I am always wondering about that too, especially with my buildings.
I own a complete set of this: http://dwilson91.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/imperial-buildings.jpg
And now I never know if I should treat them as buildings or ruins.

As buildings they could be shot at/down; but I think the rules for assaulting and shooting at/from them is easier if I treat them as ruins.

What would be the difference and what would everyone prefer for their games?

A mix is the best, both rules and model-wise. Have large solid buildings as impassable LOS blockers, have ruins as area terrain with some parts intact enough to block LOS entirely.

Buildings have hullpoints now, and unlike vehicles, their damage charge did not give them a boost in survivability.
So, its sort of dumb when a little meltagun shoots a 3 story apartment complex and the entire thing explodes, dealing 4D6 str6 hits to everyone inside.

 McGibs wrote:
Buildings have hullpoints now, and unlike vehicles, their damage charge did not give them a boost in survivability.
So, its sort of dumb when a little meltagun shoots a 3 story apartment complex and the entire thing explodes, dealing 4D6 str6 hits to everyone inside.

Then simply don't use rule for buildings like that. Its clearly meant to apply to small bunkers ect, rather than huge tower blocks. Treat them as difficult terrain that provides a cover save or blocks los depending on the angle of fire.

Have high rise buildings on both sides of the board, or else the game becomes an LOS nightmare and one player's long range infantry support is useless. Make sure you can fit a Leman Russ Tank and a half down the main roads or else vehicles become a pain to use.

Oh, and don't give only one player the sort of building that is long and has plenty of windows on the side facing the enemy. Houserule that all doors to ruins can be opened, or keep them open.