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.

A buddy of mine sets up a unit on the bottom floor of an enclosed building/ruin with no windows. He sets them up like 1.1in from the wall. I can’t shoot them without indirect because I can’t see them.

My buddy also tells me I can’t assault him because all my guys are at least on 32mm bases (more than an inch) and thus my models won’t fit without being “in” the wall.

Is this correct? If so, I find it ridiculous that I cannot interact with this unit whatsoever.

he would be right except that infantry can in fact be in the wall of a ruin as they can freely move through ruins.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
he would be right except that infantry can in fact be in the wall of a ruin as they can freely move through ruins.

My buddies argument there was that the rule book says infantry can move freely THROUGH walls, etc. Not end their assault move inside one.

Your buddy is correct, if you choose to play an enclosed structure as ruins. This

GW ruins are not fully enclosed in this manner. GW building are fortifications with datasheets that dictate how they interact with units, preventing such shenanigans.

Seems legit. You can't end a move where models cant be placed (physically, no rules mention this scenario)

Yeah he is right you can't end your move in the wall because you physically can't place it there. You'd have to find a point in the building where his models aren't so close to the walls. Or shoot them from higher levels in the ruin. Or get some terrain with windows in.

Fun fact someone somewhat recently won a tournament with that shenanigans.

These kind of rules shenaningans are what I would consider abuse. The current terrain rules are a bit of a joke in what is otherwise a generally much better ruleset than any other edition of 40k. This behaviour on your buddies part is totally legal in rules term but generally leads to feel badsies.

I would suggest that you and your buddy create an agreement or an actual datasheet for all the terrain that you use. It shouldn't be the case that a completely enclosed structure would be a ruin in my opinion.

but if you're happy playing that way then ignore everything I've said and keep on playing playa. After all you could do the exact same thing to them in future games.

Just surround it so he can’t walk out and do anything. If he can’t kill you you don’t need to kill him.

Not much help if he had placed objective there. Point is scoring objectives while being immune. Even better if they have indirect fire weapons so they shoot back

Note that there should never be, in any game, a unit that cannot be attacked at all. If a building does not have a doors it is impassable and nothing can be deployed inside it.


Im not entirely opposed to a sniper unit on top of a tower (and thus unable to be charged), because he can be shot at, and because its equally possible to be placed were you cannot be shot at.


There should, however always be some way to attack the enemy.

Yea it is really odd that you are using a fully enclosed building as "ruins"

Honestly, the rules aren't really great for handling buildings- although buildings are hard, as Bolt Action's rules for buildings are pretty weak as well. Anyway, on point, 40K doesn't really have "building" rules as of 8th edition so your options are to either;
1) treat them as impassible terrain (whoops the door is locked!)
2) treat them as "ruins" or
3) house rule them into weaker fortifications.

This is why it is very important to discuss how terrain will be interpreted before a game starts, and even if it seems stupid it is usually a good idea to go over every piece of terrain. It happens quite frequently where a player develops an entire plan around how they will use a piece of terrain, and if the players have different definitions of what the terrain is, somebody will get very upset and feel "cheated". Its happened to everyone, and it sucks.

Anyway, I would avoid classifying any terrain as a ruin unless it is actually, you know, in ruins. As in crumbling walls, lots of open space, you know, like GW's ruins. If you are playing with a "concrete bloc" rather than treating it as an invincible bunker for units inside it should instead be impassible line of sight blocking terrain. Pieces like this are important, because they allow players to hide units from enemy long range guns, and can slow down units that have to go around them.

As a general rule, this is a game. Counterplay is an important part of any game. You should avoid interpreting terrain in a way that denies counterplay wherever possible. If you are open to playing with house rules, playing fully enclosed buildings as weaker fortifications with an assigned wound, toughness and save value. And allow players to attack and destroy them is a great compromise. There are rules for many fortifications to base these rules off of, but no rules for generic buildings. So keep in mind this interpretation while narratively rewarding is not supported by the rules.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Just surround it so he can’t walk out and do anything. If he can’t kill you you don’t need to kill him.

And I'd add that you should place an objective just outside the ruin, preferably about 2.1" from the wall. This will do 2 things:
A) probably prevent him from placing an objective inside the ruin for his unit to camp on. Unless the ruin is well over 12", he'll have to place an objective elsewhere and
B) It will tempt him to get close enough to claim the objective, and thus be close enough to the wall for you to assault him

-

I think the real answer is to tell the opponent that what he did was a one time thing and the next time he tries it, you're walking away from the table.

For a more practical answer, discuss terrain before a game and simply don't agree that 100% LOS blocking enclosed spaces will be treated as ruins. Treat them as impassable terrain and this issue goes away. Treat them with ruins and say that the walls don't block LOS and this issue goes away. Agree to a 100% LOS blocking enclosure and of course you're going to have issues.

Or just walk a Psyker up to the wall and Smite him.

But yeah. If someone tries this, be honest with them. Tell them it's bs.

 Kriswall wrote:
I think the real answer is to tell the opponent that what he did was a one time thing and the next time he tries it, you're walking away from the table.

For a more practical answer, discuss terrain before a game and simply don't agree that 100% LOS blocking enclosed spaces will be treated as ruins. Treat them as impassable terrain and this issue goes away. Treat them with ruins and say that the walls don't block LOS and this issue goes away. Agree to a 100% LOS blocking enclosure and of course you're going to have issues.

This. If someone wants a ‘bunker’ then give it vehicle stats and a transport capacity. We do that sometimes, using the Fortification Datasheets as a basis. Stops all kinds of nonsense, especially if you decide that no doors/windows means no fire points...

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Note that there should never be, in any game, a unit that cannot be attacked at all. If a building does not have a doors it is impassable and nothing can be deployed inside it.

Im not entirely opposed to a sniper unit on top of a tower (and thus unable to be charged), because he can be shot at, and because its equally possible to be placed were you cannot be shot at.

There should, however always be some way to attack the enemy.

Note thats its GW intent for units to be unchargeable.

Q: If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit that is
entirely on the upper level of a terrain feature such as a ruin,
Sector Mechanicus structure, etc., but it cannot physically end
its charge move within 1" of any models from that unit (either
because there is not enough room to place the charging unit, or
because the charging unit is unable to end its move on the upper
levels of that terrain feature because of the expanded terrain
rules for it – as with ruins, for example), does that charge fail?
A: Yes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
Or just walk a Psyker up to the wall and Smite him.

But yeah. If someone tries this, be honest with them. Tell them it's bs.

Explain how you smite someone you cant see.

...

Stupid visibility rules... *grumble*

This sounds to me like a structure that shouldn't have been defined as a ruin. Ruins should have at least one open side in my opinion, though it's up to individuals how they define their terrain.

 p5freak wrote:


Note thats its GW intent for units to be unchargeable.

Q: If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit that is
entirely on the upper level of a terrain feature such as a ruin,
Sector Mechanicus structure, etc., but it cannot physically end
its charge move within 1" of any models from that unit (either
because there is not enough room to place the charging unit, or
because the charging unit is unable to end its move on the upper
levels of that terrain feature because of the expanded terrain
rules for it – as with ruins, for example), does that charge fail?
A: Yes.

I don't think its fair to ascribe GW's intent as creating a situation where units are unchangeable. The problem comes down to GW's anathema to abstraction. Games Workshop is trying, for mostly worse honestly, to create a game that plays like it looks. You cannot physically place your model there? No charge. Besides it would look really weird if you cannot place the models thematically next to eachother. God forbid you take a picture of the assault and it isn't immediately apparent in the picture that there is an assault going on! How would that look on the book of faces, if somebody posted a picture of an assault that didn't look like an assault? The horror! Hyperbole aside, the ruling cited above is a clear indication of Games Workshop enforcing the aesthetic of how they want 40K to work. Not an indication on whether they intend for players to be unable to assault. In fact, GW seems to adore the idea of courageous assaults, at least from their battle reports, and they refuse to see 40K as a game with a competitive aspect as opposed to an opportunity to tell a visually engaging story.

This is the same reasoning behind the current cover rules (whole unit must be in terrain), as well as the true line of sight rules. GW wants you to bend over, really get down there. Look at the battlefield as courageous Primaris Lieutenant B. W. Wooster sees it. If he can see it, he can shoot at it. This should be contrasted with other systems- such as Malifaux, which involve a large amount of abstraction in Line of Sight. In Malifaux, a game which uses a lot of epic poses (not unlike GW), disassociates how a model looks from its rules in respect to line of sight. Malifaux assigns a height and a base size to each model. A man sized model occupies a "cone" the cone extends from his base size to 2 inches. A small model, like a scurrying spider robot or a gremlin, has a 1 inch tall cone, and a gigantic mechanical monstrosity like a Guild Peacekeeper has a 3 inch cone from its very large base. Various terrain bits also have a height assigned to them. Like a small hedgrow may be 1 inch tall. These heights are discussed before the game. The way line of sight works in Malifaux is you draw lines. You have clear line of sight if you can draw two lines from your unit's base to the base of your target. If you can only draw one line between the bases, the model is obstructed and will have cover. You are also restricted by height, as in you cannot see a height one model behind a height two model, assuming you cannot also draw a line to its base. This allows the developers and players to model their units in exciting ways. Like I have a Guild Watcher (Height 1 flying scout construct) that I have mounted thematically on a cactus, and one on a signpost. But I am not punished under the rules, because my model still only occupies that 1 inch cone over its base according to the rules. There are some additional rules with respect to elevation, but i don't want to get in there, and I understand that it might be complicated and scare people off. So when we return to GW's True Line of Sight, it is super easy to explain, and can be deduced in a moment, "see look, Lieutenant B. W. Wooster can SEE that model he must be able to shoot it!, Also you don't get cover because your base isn't inside the cover!" super easy to understand and easy to enforce. The problem is that it actively punishes players for building models thematically, you better not wave those swords around and keep your weapons close to your torso! And it also encourages un-fun play methods like players spreading out (using generous coherency rules) to create situations that make their units literally unassailable.

But these are problems inherent to making a game without or as little abstraction as possible, which is what GW has been trying so hard to accomplish.