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.

Overall i am just not a fan of this rule and the way it works in the game. Now before the haters scream i do believe that there needs to be LOS blocking. But the invisible free moving untargetable unassaultable objective holding infantry units need some reigning in. Also it would be nice to play on a board that is not a ruined city once in a while.

So to that end i propose the following

4" of woods (area terrain?) blocks LOS

part 2, pick one of the following to make a unit targetable inside a ruin for both shooting and psychic

"across" being defined as 2 walls of the same ruin thus you can still hide on the far side, around a corner etc..
across a ruin also means that if the ruin forms an area like a triangle/rectangle (yes a square is a rectangle) by inclusion of 1 invisible wall, this invisible wall counts as a wall for "across". This is nmost likely because of an L or U shaped building.

1) Units within 9" of shooting/psychic unit and not "across" a ruin. Clarification 9" or less from shooter to target
2) Units within 3" of the facing wall
3) you can shoot into/out of but not across

while i considered some other options those change the core rules of the BBB, opposed to just addressing the ITC arbitrary ruins rule.

Discuss.

Why feel bad? It's an ITC specific rule. GW has no input in it. Not even sure if the ITC guys check over this forum (likely not).

On invisible/untargetable/unassaultable units:
I get "invisible" in that they can be very difficult to see, especially inside a "magic box" (closed in ruin on all sizeds), but I don't get unassaultable. I'd want to double-check the wording, but I believe that if your opponent's models are within 1" of the edge of the ruin on the inside, you only need to get within 1" of that point, meaning you can fight into a ruin while outside of it. If they're unassaultable because they're filling out the top floor, well at least you can shoot them.

Problem with Woods;
There are many players that don't use woods with clearly defined bases, and without a vertical line a lot of people will start getting into arguments over whether they can or can't see around it. Personally, I think that if a model is simply partially obscured by woods, without being in them, then they should benefit from cover. Good enough.

 Yarium wrote:
Why feel bad? It's an ITC specific rule. GW has no input in it. Not even sure if the ITC guys check over this forum (likely not).

On invisible/untargetable/unassaultable units:
I get "invisible" in that they can be very difficult to see, especially inside a "magic box" (closed in ruin on all sizeds), but I don't get unassaultable. I'd want to double-check the wording, but I believe that if your opponent's models are within 1" of the edge of the ruin on the inside, you only need to get within 1" of that point, meaning you can fight into a ruin while outside of it. If they're unassaultable because they're filling out the top floor, well at least you can shoot them.

If you have a large base greater than 25mm (like 32mm primaris) even as infantry if they are 1.0001" from the wall you can not assault them. if it is a dready or a vehicle dont even bother because you are not gonna fit in the magic invulnerable box.

and yes i submitted to them, but i wanted to get a feel of what others thought.

I get why it was introduced and I get why people don't like it.

To be honest the unassailable units in a magic box is just wrong especially when that is a nasty CC unit as has become a bit of a thing.

A better tweak as I think it's a good concept that just fails at giving shooting focused armies without efficent nlos shooting. Which you should probably be bringing anyway would be to allow you to shoot into the building when within either 12 or 9 inches from the building.

That or they need to be destructible, but that has lots of jankyness and isn't viable.

Fair point. I find that I can't quite understand what you were saying for how you want to solve this on your last point. I think you're saying to choose one of the following;

1) Models within 9" of a ruin do not treat the ground floor as fully obscuring Line of Sight, unless doing so would allow you to shoot through 2 sets of walls/windows.

2) Models within 3" of a ruin do not treat the ground floor as fully obscuring Line of Sight.

3) The ground floor of a ruin does not fully obscure Line of Sight, unless doing so would allow you to shoot through 2 sets of walls/windows.

Of those options, I don't really like any of them based on how ITC currently does it. All of them destroy what ITC is trying to do in your effort to get rid of the magic boxes.



Something that I've seen done, and which I'll be experiencing in a few weeks, is a system for allowing you to charge units that are otherwise inaccessible.

"If a model is in a unit that rolled a high enough charge distance such that its base would reach the opponent's base, but the model itself cannot fit within 1" of your opponent's models due to the positioning of the terrain, then you may move that model as close as possible to the position of your opponent's unit. If you do so, that model counts as being within 1" of that enemy unit during the Fight phase. Other models in your unit cannot use this model to determine if they are within 1" of a friendly model within 1" when determining if they can make close combat attacks."

In other words, it allows you to charge rooftops that are fully spaced out, but only with the models that could get there. Such a rule also solves the magic boxes being unassaultable. Meanwhile, the ruins still act exactly as they are supposed to (for ITC purposes) when it comes to shooting.

Having played for 7 editions that solution just infuriates me.
It's abusing the heck out of wobbly model rules which as having a lot of older metal models I tend to have a serious problem with seeing disappear as a solution to people abusing it far beyond it's intention of not forcing you to leave a model in a place where it risks taking a 3-6 inch drop if someone bumps the table.

Simply put my solutions is that the first floor of ruins blocks line of sight unless the shooting model is shooting into the building and within X inched, the unit in the ruins still count as being in cover.

I.E you can still interact with them but they can also rush out and charge you fairly easily.

I have issues with ITC's solution being so overtly favouring to chaff over allowing smaller more elite armies to be actually functional.
It's better than GW's terrain yeah it looks pretty but does nothing untill you go to the rediculous over correction that is cities of death and everyone is hitting on 6's only. That has some terrible interactions when you pay more for the same weapon on a BS3 model over a BS4 model.

Having played since the start of 3rd, I hear what you're saying. But it also irks me that a Lictor or a Harlequin can't run up walls with their alien biology/technology. Suffice it to say, the fluff is cool, but I like me some tight rules. You can use fluff to argue things in any direct (they're rushing up/in, the models are in constant motion so where a model is isn't actually where they stay, are you telling me that the wraithknight can't bend down and just start grabbing guys with his huge arm?, etc. etc.).

 Yarium wrote:
Fair point. I find that I can't quite understand what you were saying for how you want to solve this on your last point. I think you're saying to choose one of the following;

1) Models within 9" of a ruin do not treat the ground floor as fully obscuring Line of Sight, unless doing so would allow you to shoot through 2 sets of walls/windows.

2) Models within 3" of a ruin do not treat the ground floor as fully obscuring Line of Sight.

3) The ground floor of a ruin does not fully obscure Line of Sight, unless doing so would allow you to shoot through 2 sets of walls/windows.

Of those options, I don't really like any of them based on how ITC currently does it. All of them destroy what ITC is trying to do in your effort to get rid of the magic boxes.

I disagree, none of the destroy what ITC is trying to do.

1) if the shooting model is within 9" of the target inside the magic unhittable box. EG range 9" or less.
2) if you dont want to get shot then be 3.01" away from the wall of course that does mean you can not hold an objective while being inside your magic unhittable pillbox.
3) used to work just fine in prior editions

all of these leave the ruins capable of blocking line of sight past them, they just are no longer uninhitable untargetable infantry magic pillboxes.

 lixulana wrote:
Overall i am just not a fan of this rule and the way it works in the game. Now before the haters scream i do believe that there needs to be LOS blocking. But the invisible free moving untargetable unassaultable objective holding infantry units need some reigning in. Also it would be nice to play on a board that is not a ruined city once in a while.

So to that end i propose the following

4" of woods (area terrain?) blocks LOS

part 2, pick one of the following to make a unit targetable inside a ruin for both shooting and psychic

"across" being defined as 2 walls of the same ruin thus you can still hide on the far side, around a corner etc..
across a ruin also means that if the ruin forms an area like a triangle/rectangle (yes a square is a rectangle) by inclusion of 1 invisible wall, this invisible wall counts as a wall for "across". This is nmost likely because of an L or U shaped building.

1) Units within 9" of shooting/psychic unit and not "across" a ruin. Clarification 9" or less from shooter to target
2) Units within 3" of the facing wall
3) you can shoot into/out of but not across

while i considered some other options those change the core rules of the BBB, opposed to just addressing the ITC arbitrary ruins rule.

Discuss.

I'm a big fan of windows blocking LOS, everywhere I play we've boarded up the windows of all our ruins to help block LOS, that improves non-ITC games and makes ITC games simpler. As far as magic boxes go, I don't like those, but I don't like ruins with 3 walls or roofs either, L ruins all the way.

I think adding more abstraction needs really solid reasoning and I don't think this level of abstraction meets my standards. It's too many rules with no respect to what I'm seeing on the game, it's rules for rules sake. I don't see any solid ways to remember these rules, they don't really make sense to me. Another option would be for forests or ruins with windows to provide a cover save in addition to the benefit of cover if the target is within the terrain piece and further away than the closest wall/tree in the piece or simply at all times.

If you have a large base greater than 25mm (like 32mm primaris) even as infantry if they are 1.0001" from the wall you can not assault them. if it is a dready or a vehicle dont even bother because you are not gonna fit in the magic invulnerable box.

and yes i submitted to them, but i wanted to get a feel of what others thought.

ITC uses house rules for wobbly model so you can ignore ruin walls for the purposes of where your infantry can stand and for second level ruins so you can charge units that are filling our the entire top floor. This allows ITC to push for more melee units which I'd say is a very good thing. It also feels super gamey to say no, it's one of the few things I hate to do to win, I'm glad I don't have to do it in competitive ITC games any more. In casual I can still do it and I might do it once in a while but in casual lists I take lots of melee heavy lists so it's not really something I need to do to survive. I still use the no room tactic sometimes in competitive non-ITC and I'd recommend if you play those sorts of games a lot that you get terrain with ramps for second floors and make sure not to play with magic boxes that prevent charging.

Ice_can wrote:
I have issues with ITC's solution being so overtly favouring to chaff over allowing smaller more elite armies to be actually functional.
It's better than GW's terrain yeah it looks pretty but does nothing untill you go to the rediculous overcorrection that is cities of death and everyone is hitting on 6's only. That has some terrible interactions when you pay more for the same weapon on a BS3 model over a BS4 model.

How does ITC rules favour chaff? Are Bullgryn chaff?

The best I see is garrisoned structures in Apocalypse.

Units get to go inside buildings. Units get to shoot at them or assault the building itself. You can mod it for 40k fairly easily.

You get -1 to hit. However apoc has the order that can give +1 to hit.

You got lucky hit as well: what's good don't see why anyone would dislike this. (unmod 6 = success.) Some armies (orks also get success of diff numbers)

I like Cities of Death cover is like best thing ever. I combined it with above in my own Narrative Format.