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.

So ruins have the breachable rule that lets certain units move through walls. Do they mean solid LOS blocking walls or just particle, crumbled, partial walls. I feel the rule is very stupid if its a complete wall..... had a match and a disagreement.

It does exactly what it says. 'Infantry, beasts and swarms can move through walls, girders, chains and foliage.'

Solid LOS blocking walls are still walls, so yes, the listed model types can move right through them.

That said, its a terrain trait, so if you and your opponent(s) want to designate certain ruins as 'solid ruins' that don't have the breachable trait, you can do that.

---
Also, this might be better in the YMDC subforum than general.

Voss wrote:
It does exactly what it says. 'Infantry, beasts and swarms can move through walls, girders, chains and foliage.'

Solid LOS blocking walls are still walls, so yes, the listed model types can move right through them.

That said, its a terrain trait, so if you and your opponent(s) want to designate certain ruins as 'solid ruins' that don't have the breachable trait, you can do that.

---
Also, this might be better in the YMDC subforum than general.

Yeah I'll def clarify that better with my opponent better next time.

Whenever I put a question in YMDC people tell me I should post my question else where... so I just guess where to post q's now a days.

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
I feel the rule is very stupid if its a complete wall.....

My fluff justification for them ghosting through is that most units will carry some sort of tool for breaching a small wall (little bomb, laser cutter, etc.). I know it's not a theatre of the mind RPG but it helps sometimes to speak out "in character" to bring a bit of life to the game. Otherwise it is just a turbo crapshoot.

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
I feel the rule is very stupid if its a complete wall.....

Surely the same goes for Power, Plasma, Melta, Grav weapons, Psychic powers, Et al. then.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical. It is a rules system, an abstract system used to play a game by those rules.

The only thing that needs to be applied is the definition of the words in the rulebook.

If you are going by what is "very stupid" compared to the real world, then over 90% of the game is "very stupid", as most of it can not really happen.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
I feel the rule is very stupid if its a complete wall.....

Surely the same goes for Power, Plasma, Melta, Grav weapons, Psychic powers, Et al. then.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical. It is a rules system, an abstract system used to play a game by those rules.

The only thing that needs to be applied is the definition of the words in the rulebook.

If you are going by what is "very stupid" compared to the real world, then over 90% of the game is "very stupid", as most of it can not really happen.

I'm not saying its stupid because its not a technology we have now. I just think it makes bad game play. Whats the point of having solid walls if you can go right through it? lol

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
I feel the rule is very stupid if its a complete wall.....

Surely the same goes for Power, Plasma, Melta, Grav weapons, Psychic powers, Et al. then.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical. It is a rules system, an abstract system used to play a game by those rules.

The only thing that needs to be applied is the definition of the words in the rulebook.

If you are going by what is "very stupid" compared to the real world, then over 90% of the game is "very stupid", as most of it can not really happen.

I'm not saying its stupid because its not a technology we have now. I just think it makes bad game play. Whats the point of having solid walls if you can go right through it? lol

Because that is what the Breachable rule means, the "solid walls" are just a model. They are clearly not "solid walls" as far as the game is concerned just because they look like solid walls on the model.

If you want to not be able to move models through a solid wall, you have to make it an Obstacle, and not Breachable.

Do not bring "real world" logic into 40K, it never ends well.

P.S. You know the models can't move on their own either right? They are static models we use to play a game.

At what level of abstraction is a wall no longer a wall? I appreciate concessions to the setting, but expect them to be consistent with themselves. If a barrier has the porosity of a hedgerow, modeling it as a thick concrete wall breaks verisimilitude and makes gameplay harder. It is unintuitive for what appears to be a substantial barrier to be trivial to breach, I would not look at a stone wall to think it a chain link fence.

Hiseadmose wrote:
At what level of abstraction is a wall no longer a wall? I appreciate concessions to the setting, but expect them to be consistent with themselves. If a barrier has the porosity of a hedgerow, modeling it as a thick concrete wall breaks verisimilitude and makes gameplay harder. It is unintuitive for what appears to be a substantial barrier to be trivial to breach, I would not look at a stone wall to think it a chain link fence.

"breaks verisimilitude"???

So since we are talking fluff:

You realize a super soldier like a Space marine can probably punch through a thick concrete wall right?

Guard have grenades to take out a section to go right through it, etc...

P.S. The whole setting "breaks verisimilitude" Power fists, Psykers, Nids, Necrons, etc...

I believe that the rules or reality apply in fiction unless explicitly contradicted or implicitly contradicted as a consequences of the former. it would seem we strongly disagree on that.

I have no issues with destructible terrain, remove the destroyed terrain piece and replace it with difficult terrain rubble. Nor with removing a small section to indicate a local breach.

However, when a Aegis defense line is as much an obstacle as a privacy fence, I fail to understand why anyone would make or bring the former to a fight. Moreover, when a barrier is so easily destructible as to be breached during movement, why I should not breach some LOS openings in it with heavy artillery in the same phase to facilitate subsequent shooting in the next.

Am I correct in understanding that one can move through a wall but not blast it of the table? If so, how is that consistent, that a guardsman can break thought something without an attack against it, but a Basilisk cannot level that thing instead?

Well in ymdc the tenents state


. 3 Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

Hiseadmose wrote:
Am I correct in understanding that one can move through a wall but not blast it of the table? If so, how is that consistent, that a guardsman can break thought something without an attack against it, but a Basilisk cannot level that thing instead?

I agree, but they are going for simplicity, not consistency. Imagine how many extra rules you would need to deal with destructable terrain. Does every terrain piece have its own toughness and wounds values? Who determines these? How do you keep track of them? Does it really add much more to the game for the amount of headaches it will introduce? The rules are an abstraction. This keeps things simple, but does occasionally lead to 'unrealsitic' situations where a guardsman can phase through a solid wall or a titan can't pass a 2 inch high pipe.

Hiseadmose wrote:
I believe that the rules or reality apply in fiction unless explicitly contradicted or implicitly contradicted as a consequences of the former. it would seem we strongly disagree on that.

We don't strongly disagree on that, you just don't understand the physics of 40K, because no one does. Also, it doesnt matter, because the rules do not have to be real-world logical. This is something you need to understand. They are just a set of rules to play a game and have no basis in modern day real world logic.

40K is science fiction and can break normal rules for what we understand to be reality. The rules/reality do not always apply in science fiction. I will cite the examples like Psykers, Plasma weapons etc... that I have cited before.

I have no issues with destructible terrain, remove the destroyed terrain piece and replace it with difficult terrain rubble. Nor with removing a small section to indicate a local breach.

Sure I do not have an issue with that either, but that is not what the Breachable Rule does. No rules in the game do that. (Well maybe one or two might, but there is nothing like that in the basic rules).

However, when a Aegis defense line is as much an obstacle as a privacy fence, I fail to understand why anyone would make or bring the former to a fight.

That is a tactics question and not a rules conundrum and as such does not apply to our discussion.

Moreover, when a barrier is so easily destructible as to be breached during movement, why I should not breach some LOS openings in it with heavy artillery in the same phase to facilitate subsequent shooting in the next.

Because the rules do not allow you to do that.

Am I correct in understanding that one can move through a wall but not blast it of the table?

Yes, because there are rules that allow for your models to move through a wall, and no rules that allow for you to "blast it of the table"

If so, how is that consistent, that a guardsman can break thought something without an attack against it, but a Basilisk cannot level that thing instead?

Because there are rules that allow for your models to move (not break) thought something without an attack against it, and there are no rules that allow for you to take a Basilisk and "level that thing instead"

The rules allow for things like being able to move through a solid wall without being able to target and destroy it.

The rules system is permissive, this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do and you are not allowed to do anything else.

I see where I have wandered off the point. I was elaborating on why I do not find the rule to be good thematically, approaching the game as a simulation that is abstracted for the sake of playability and as a simulation some internal logic needs to apply, hence if A is possible why is B not.

As a matter of game design, my objection to the rule would only the lack of visual indication informing me that a piece of terrain can be breached, when its other important effect, blocking LOS is determined visually.

Narratively, I would want apply some logic to it, but pure gameplay wise I have to take it to mean the terrain is not as sturdy as it looks and sufficient breaches can be opened on the move without destroying the barrier.

The game lets you define which keywords you apply by agreement with your opponent

Nothing stops you only applying breechable to models with windows doors or holes if you want visual indicators

However lots of players who don't have a £1000 of terrain to choose from will choose functionality over form and tournaments will rend to use the standardised definitions to minimise disagreements

I think I will just make certain house rules from now on. I get that certain units in the 40K universe can go through walls with ease. However, table top wise, a unit going through a solid wall, now being on the other side of the ruin, also has LOS blocking really pushes it for me. Where in the 40k reality, they would breach the wall, and leave a giant hole. I hope that makes sense. Like I said... its definitely something I'm going to house rule or if playing somewhere else, clarify before playing.

What are you trying to do here? You insist on declaring a terrain piece as having the BREACHABLE trait, but simultaneously think its dumb you declared it breachable as it clearly has solid wall(s)? U ok bruh?

First time I've heard of someone trolling themselves..

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
I think I will just make certain house rules from now on. I get that certain units in the 40K universe can go through walls with ease. However, table top wise, a unit going through a solid wall, now being on the other side of the ruin, also has LOS blocking really pushes it for me. Where in the 40k reality, they would breach the wall, and leave a giant hole. I hope that makes sense. Like I said... its definitely something I'm going to house rule or if playing somewhere else, clarify before playing.

Or they could teleport past the barrier and not have any hole at all "in the 40k reality" whatever that means.

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
I think I will just make certain house rules from now on. I get that certain units in the 40K universe can go through walls with ease. However, table top wise, a unit going through a solid wall, now being on the other side of the ruin, also has LOS blocking really pushes it for me. Where in the 40k reality, they would breach the wall, and leave a giant hole. I hope that makes sense. Like I said... its definitely something I'm going to house rule or if playing somewhere else, clarify before playing.

The rules are an abstraction for the sake of simplicity. The goal of the Breachable rules seems to be to provide an environment where a vehicle or monster would struggle in the tight confines of a city fight, whereas infantry are more capable of moving building-to-building to flush enemies out.

Likewise, the walls remain "solid" for LOS purposes because keeping track of where a model has breached the wall would be insane in a game of this scale, so you can imagine the soldiers "in the 40k reality" approaching the wall in such a way so as to not be seen through a breach, something we can't really do with our models.

A good middle ground might be to give all Breachable walls the Difficult Ground trait as well, representing infantry scaling the wall, or moving around to a breach, or creating a breach themselves.

tauist wrote:What are you trying to do here? You insist on declaring a terrain piece as having the BREACHABLE trait, but simultaneously think its dumb you declared it breachable as it clearly has solid wall(s)? U ok bruh?

First time I've heard of someone trolling themselves..

Not sure if you're talking to me , but not I did insist on a terrain piece having the breachable rule but not using it. I said I would house rule not being able to go through solid walls for ruined building... ie ruins would lose the breachable rule.... bruh....

Cheex wrote:

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
I think I will just make certain house rules from now on. I get that certain units in the 40K universe can go through walls with ease. However, table top wise, a unit going through a solid wall, now being on the other side of the ruin, also has LOS blocking really pushes it for me. Where in the 40k reality, they would breach the wall, and leave a giant hole. I hope that makes sense. Like I said... its definitely something I'm going to house rule or if playing somewhere else, clarify before playing.

The rules are an abstraction for the sake of simplicity. The goal of the Breachable rules seems to be to provide an environment where a vehicle or monster would struggle in the tight confines of a city fight, whereas infantry are more capable of moving building-to-building to flush enemies out.

Likewise, the walls remain "solid" for LOS purposes because keeping track of where a model has breached the wall would be insane in a game of this scale, so you can imagine the soldiers "in the 40k reality" approaching the wall in such a way so as to not be seen through a breach, something we can't really do with our models.

A good middle ground might be to give all Breachable walls the Difficult Ground trait as well, representing infantry scaling the wall, or moving around to a breach, or creating a breach themselves.

Makes sense Cheex. I can see if you had ruined partial rumble walls where soldiers need to climb/crawl to get through. The solid wall piece just doesn't make much send to me... unless the equipment load out list starts to include C4 hahahaha



Automatically Appended Next Post:

I think you should take a hammer to the terrain piece every time to represent it being breached

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:

Or they could teleport past the barrier and not have any hole at all "in the 40k reality" whatever that means.

I'm starting to think you're just trying to throw out anything at this point to annoy people.

I am just trying to get you to realize that what would happen in the real world has no bearing on the 40K rules. Why would I be trying to annoy people?

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
So a 40k reality has infantry able to teleport past walls... but they some how cannot figure out how to have a vehicle blast a hole in a wall to move through it?

They absolutely could figure that out if it were a part of the rules. But it is not (Check the proposed rules forum, it may have what you are looking for). Stop trying to bring realism into a fantasy/sci-fi setting, it never ends well.

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
I'm not saying this should be a rule by any means... just showing how your "future technology logic" is getting annoying and irrelevant.

You are the one that went down the "annoying and irrelevant" path when you said "Where in the 40k reality, they would breach the wall, and leave a giant hole. I hope that makes sense." Because that does not make sense for a tabletop game with plastic models. I just followed you down the path.

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
There are other people on the thread explaining rules wise how GW may have intended this to work, why it may work better, and maybe better ways to approach the rule in general.... trying doing something like that in the future....

I did explain rules wise how this works, since the rules allow for certain units to move through solid walls of terrain with the breachable rule. This is the YMDC forum, we discuss the current rules here. If you want to propose rules, like being able to destroy terrain, there is a different forum for that.

Voss wrote:
It does exactly what it says. 'Infantry, beasts and swarms can move through walls, girders, chains and foliage.'

Solid LOS blocking walls are still walls, so yes, the listed model types can move right through them.

That said, its a terrain trait, so if you and your opponent(s) want to designate certain ruins as 'solid ruins' that don't have the breachable trait, you can do that.

---
Also, this might be better in the YMDC subforum than general.

Can I ask about this to clarify? So, what about Cavalry? Are they a separate keyword from beasts? So, can Cavalry move through breachable walls? Also, can Cavalry move through ruins ? Because ruins usually have the breachable keyword. It seems odd to me that a bunch of people riding horses can move through a ruined building, but just wanted to confirm.

Also, can Cavalry benefit from cover?

Yes as a general rule cavalry are cavalry not beasts but units can have multiple keywords to find out what keywords a specific unit has check its datasheet

breachable rules do not refer to the cavalry keyword so no unless the unit had another keyword such as infantry that would allow it to do so..

Any unit can move across area terrain unless a rule says it can't

It seem odd to me that a bunch of people on horses would look at the open flat surface of a ruined building and think there's a small hole in the rock over there well we can't walk on this open flat surface. - I think as established from a rules perspective what you think is logical doesn't matter it is a simulation

Every unit in the game that does not have an explicit rule preventing it can benefit from cover but only if a rule gives it cover