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.

How does this work in current edition? The place where I play sometimes houserule the 6th version, I'm interested in how it should work in 7th.

The BRB says about ruins that they are difficult terrain, with 4+ cover for whoever stands in it (does this mean fully inside, or you only need a bit of your base to be inside the ruin?), and that's it. No mention of levels (other than in the moving phase, that you can move up/down for a constant 3" (?) move).

Blast weapon rules says, that when the marker stopped scattering around, whatever you see below it is hit. For me this means that all models in all levels of ruins that are under the marker are hit. There's an other interpretation, that since the BRB says ~ "take a good look, and whatever is below the marker is hit", the floor of each level hides the models in the lower levels, so whatever is on the current level is hit (this actually may include models on lower levels which are not covered by floors (e.g. blast is at the edge of current floor)).

Also multi level ruins have buildings. Do the walls etc. count as impassable terrain, or you can just phase through them, as if they weren't there (after difficult terrain test)? Currently we use it that it blocks LoS, but it's just difficult terrain for movement (which is slightly weird for me, but I can live with it).

Regarding blasts/templates - in 7th edition they hit everything underneath them. There have been a couple threads on this in the past, due to how counter-intuitive this is.

Moving through the walls of a ruin is something that should be discussed with opponents. Previous editions specifically said you could move through the walls treating them as difficult (it is assumed models carry cutting torches or something similar to break their way through). As it is most people continue to play that way.

7th edition is very poorly written regarding ruins - so poorly written, in fact, that it doesn't really mention them.

out gaming group currently plays it as if the page regarding blasts & ruins was simply missed out, so we use the rules from 6th to determine who's hit with barrage or blast weapons on multiple levels. it's the best way to do it, as long as you and your opponent both know that it's the case.

I apologies for digging this up, but this very question came up I'm a game recently with my Heldrake burning two units from two different floors.

Now I reason it that because of the unique height of the flyer, and it's specific arc of fire, verically and diagonally it IS possible for the templates to hit all floors, as by definition the template ignores cover, including ceilings as well as walls.

We're it an infantry model that must have th e base of the template hit, the arc of fire is more restricted I the regards to how far the templates can hit.

But also, we must imagine the flame template to be made with a swooping motion, touching upwards and downwards.

Does this seem like a fair interpretation?

We had a "passionate" discussion about this recently. By the rules it says to touch the template to the base and not touch any friendly models. The picture in the rulebook shows a top-down view, and regardless of it being over multiple different things, is not angled in any of them (all same length).

However, the way most people play is that you just place the template above the battlefield and look down to see what is "touching" and what isn't. The current rules mean you'll hit all the levels of the ruin. The general consensus is that you don't need to angle it.

 Yarium wrote:
The picture in the rulebook shows a top-down view, and regardless of it being over multiple different things, is not angled in any of them (all same length)..

It also shows the narrow end being below the models' guns, rather than super-imposed above them...

Well, remember the model in question is the Heldrake, higher than ground floor on its flying base and measured from the weapon as per its FAQ with a 45 degree LOS horizontally and vertically.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Well, remember the model in question is the Heldrake, higher than ground floor on its flying base and measured from the weapon as per its FAQ with a 45 degree LOS horizontally and vertically.

I was actually about to start a thread on the subject of baleflamers.
They are a torrent weapon so have only two restrictions on how they can be placed. 12" from the weapon and facing away from the model.

So a baleflamer does not (as i read it) have to be placed in the 45° fire arc. I find it hard to believe that is rai.

Torrent does mean that you can place it anywhere within 12", so even vertically.

 jokerkd wrote:
They are a torrent weapon so have only two restrictions on how they can be placed. 12" from the weapon and facing away from the model.

So a baleflamer does not (as i read it) have to be placed in the 45° fire arc. I find it hard to believe that is rai.

You'll still need LOS to actually allocate wounds from it, though.

Sorry to bump this but this came up again tonight in a game.
It was a bit of a wtf moment.
There were 15 lootas spread across 3 levels in a ruin (ground, 1st floor, 2nd floor).
A unit of 3 shadow weavers shot them (str 6, small blast). All 3 hit.
From the top down 7 lootas were under the blast.
So was it correct that in total 21 hits were caused?(3 templates + 7 orks under them).
Rolling to wound saw something like 18 wounds out of 21.
They made horrible saves and all 15 died.
Was that played correctly?
Or should the first 7 have been removed after the first SW shot? Leaving 8 (much more spread out obviously, hence, scoring less hits on shot #2 and 3).
It just seemed a bit broken =/

 Ratius wrote:
Sorry to bump this but this came up again tonight in a game.
It was a bit of a wtf moment.
There were 15 lootas spread across 3 levels in a ruin (ground, 1st floor, 2nd floor).
A unit of 3 shadow weavers shot them (str 6, small blast). All 3 hit.
From the top down 7 lootas were under the blast.
So was it correct that in total 21 hits were caused?(3 templates + 7 orks under them).
Rolling to wound saw something like 18 wounds out of 21.
They made horrible saves and all 15 died.
Was that played correctly?
Or should the first 7 have been removed after the first SW shot? Leaving 8 (much more spread out obviously, hence, scoring less hits on shot #2 and 3).
It just seemed a bit broken =/

You did it right. Your resolve all hits then wound. So you would do all 3 blasts at the same time

Also instead of necro-bumping an old thread, you're suppose to make your own thread

Thanks for the clarification.
Agreed I could have made my own thread but
A. do we really need another ruins and blasts thread?
B. The bump from the last post was just over 3 months old so hardly a gross violation of rules

 Ratius wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.
Agreed I could have made my own thread but
A. do we really need another ruins and blasts thread?
B. The bump from the last post was just over 3 months old so hardly a gross violation of rules

A. Your question wasn't about ruins it was about resolving a unit's shooting that has multiple blasts. Ruins didn't play into it at all. All you did was post your question in a thread full of cluttered post.
B. Even bumping a thread that is a week inactive is a gross violation of the rules

It was blast templates going into ruins with guys on multiple levels.

But I can see where this one is going so I bid thee farewell.

 CrownAxe wrote:
B. Even bumping a thread that is a week inactive is a gross violation of the rules

No, it isn't.

So long as the discussion is still relevant to the current rules, it's not generally that big a deal (certainly not a 'gross violation' of anything) and is often easier than starting a new thread and having to go through all of the same discussion all over again.


Threadnomancy is only really an issue where a discussion is too dated to still be useful, or where nothing new is actually being added. In this case, posting into the existing thread was fine. While we used to discourage posting in anything more than a week or two old, over time we've come to realise that there's no real point to that sort of restriction, and so it's relaxed somewhat.


Posting just to argue over whether or not someone else's post is breaking rules, however, is against dakka's rules, as it's off-topic. If you see a post that you think is breaking the rules, hit the report button and move on. Playing moderator yourself just drags the thread off topic and often leaves the moderators with more work than would have been needed to sort it out if you had just left it alone.


So, asked and answered here. I'm going to lock it to avoid any further silliness.