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 as a newer player of 40k, my biggest issue so far is that the two groups I play with each treat ruins differently.

Assuming our table has the sort of generic/iconic 3-story GW ruined building on it... Its "area terrain", it blocks LOS, and thus denies shooting through it, charging units in/under it, etc... But then, during movement, you treat area terrain as "difficult" and as such can just sort of teleport "through" the solid wall that blocked LOS moments earlier?

I understand the fluff of it being abstracted "ruins" and models are scrambling over/around gaps, etc...

So do most tournaments play ruins as area terrain, and you can "walk through walls", or as impassible terrain?

Ruins only count as area terrain if they are on a base. So an unbased ruins is terrain, but not area terrain. Area terrain ruins gives a 4+ cover save to any non vehicle on the base regardless of where it is on the base. Unbased only give them the save if they have 25% coverage from the unit shooting at them.

To the meat of you question though. The rules actually say you can just move through the walls. See page 98, Ruins Without Bases
and page 99 Walls, Doors, Ladders and Lateral Thinking.

Sorry, cannot give you any help on what Tournaments tend to rule, but it would seem very strange if they ruled different then the above two rules sections.

Well, I obviously read the rule, and as I said, I understand the reasoning and abstraction, but I guess the debate is Rules-as-Intended, versus Rules-as-Written.

A few players I talk to swear up and down that the rule as intended couldn't possibly mean for players to walk-through-walls. I guess the imagination for that level of abstraction is just asking a lot of some folks, and I can certainly appreciate both ways of thinking.

I don't know how intent can be anything other than what the text says here, though... I was surprised by this at first, but it makes sense. Models are just bashing their way through / finding holes in the wall / etc.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
A few players I talk to swear up and down that the rule as intended couldn't possibly mean for players to walk-through-walls.

It's a little difficult to take that point of view seriously when the rules quite explicitly state that they can...

There is such a thing as impassable terrain. You and your opponent should decide what that is before hand. If it's a huge wall (say about half again as tall as a marine) and it blocks line of sight, you might decide you think guys shouldn't be able to simply hop over it by taking a difficult terrain test.

Yes to move through, no to see through.

So you can't assault the unit on the other side unless you can see them, then you can bust through the wall like Kool-Aid man.

It is only impassable if you guys decide it so. Almost all tourneys have a universal ' no impassible' in my experience.

In 5e, there were rules regarding ruins that allowed models to shoot through the solid walls of the terrain. This is no longer the case in 6e, which follows TLoS in all regards. If the model cannot draw TLoS to its target, then the model cannot fire (or declare a charge).
I had a pretty big argument once with someone once who hadn't read this rules change, so you're not the only one to encounter confused people who are still (a year and a half later) clinging to 5e for some reason.

HOWEVER, in the section for ruins, it does say you can move through the walls--you just can't shoot through them. Although your group or a tournament may house rule that models cannot move through walls.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
In 5e, there were rules regarding ruins that allowed models to shoot through the solid walls of the terrain.

Um. No there weren't. Not that I recall anyway.

No, 5th edition had true LOS.

You could move through the ruin walls fine, but still needed TOLS for shooting.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
A few players I talk to swear up and down that the rule as intended couldn't possibly mean for players to walk-through-walls.

I can't imagine why not. Really, the units which couldn't breach a wall are the minority. Terminators certainly shouldn't care much, nor any Monstrous Creatures. Units with a melta weapon won't be too fussed, either. Units with krak grenades might be slowed down a bit, but they'll still get through.

If you really want to fuss over it, you could rule that units without any S6+ (or S-whatever) weapon at all treat certain walls as impassable instead of difficult, but that's generally more detail than the rules provide.

Rumbleguts wrote:
Ruins only count as area terrain if they are on a base. So an unbased ruins is terrain, but not area terrain. Area terrain ruins gives a 4+ cover save to any non vehicle on the base regardless of where it is on the base. Unbased only give them the save if they have 25% coverage from the unit shooting at them.

To the meat of you question though. The rules actually say you can just move through the walls. See page 98, Ruins Without Bases
and page 99 Walls, Doors, Ladders and Lateral Thinking.

Sorry, cannot give you any help on what Tournaments tend to rule, but it would seem very strange if they ruled different then the above two rules sections.

This has all sorts of wrong in it.

By BRB, ruins are never area terrain. If ruins have a base, the *base* is considered area terrain, and gives a 5+ save. (not 4+)
The rest of the terrain is not area terrain. You can get a 4+ cover save if the parts of the building obscure 25% of the model.

If you are on the 2nd floor, but not at all obscured, then no cover save.

coredump wrote:

Rumbleguts wrote:
Ruins only count as area terrain if they are on a base. So an unbased ruins is terrain, but not area terrain. Area terrain ruins gives a 4+ cover save to any non vehicle on the base regardless of where it is on the base. Unbased only give them the save if they have 25% coverage from the unit shooting at them.

To the meat of you question though. The rules actually say you can just move through the walls. See page 98, Ruins Without Bases
and page 99 Walls, Doors, Ladders and Lateral Thinking.

Sorry, cannot give you any help on what Tournaments tend to rule, but it would seem very strange if they ruled different then the above two rules sections.

This has all sorts of wrong in it.

By BRB, ruins are never area terrain. If ruins have a base, the *base* is considered area terrain, and gives a 5+ save. (not 4+)
The rest of the terrain is not area terrain. You can get a 4+ cover save if the parts of the building obscure 25% of the model.

If you are on the 2nd floor, but not at all obscured, then no cover save.

This is correct as per the rules for ruins with bases.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
So as a newer player of 40k, my biggest issue so far is that the two groups I play with each treat ruins differently.

Assuming our table has the sort of generic/iconic 3-story GW ruined building on it... Its "area terrain", it blocks LOS, and thus denies shooting through it, charging units in/under it, etc... But then, during movement, you treat area terrain as "difficult" and as such can just sort of teleport "through" the solid wall that blocked LOS moments earlier?

I understand the fluff of it being abstracted "ruins" and models are scrambling over/around gaps, etc...

So do most tournaments play ruins as area terrain, and you can "walk through walls", or as impassible terrain?

How terrain is played is very much a gaming culture thing, different groups tend to play terrain differently. I tend to prefer as little abstraction as possible IE no melthing through walls, using the actual physical size of the model to determine where it can and cannot go. In my personal expreience, when playing with melting throug walls, eventually an opponent wants his model to hold a "hypothetical" position like halfway through a wall or floor or other piece of terrain. I would rather avoid this as it just tend to escalate into more and more absurd model placement. It also detracts from tactical play in my experience.

It's worth remembering to discuss terrain in detail with your opponents and make sure you both are on the same page. There's no real right or wrong so long as both sides know and agree beforehand, so for example you could decide to simply play all cover as the same for simplicity's sake, I have yet to play a single game of 6th with mysterious terrain as an example.

The rules in the BRB say that it can be treated however you and your opponent agree on- so, as long as your opponent agree, you can have them 'walk' (AKA blowing up, cutting through, going through that window over there) through the walls. Whatever you do, make sure your opponent agrees with you on that case.

BolterUnlimited wrote:
The rules in the BRB say that it can be treated however you and your opponent agree on- so, as long as your opponent agree, you can have them 'walk' (AKA blowing up, cutting through, going through that window over there) through the walls. Whatever you do, make sure your opponent agrees with you on that case.

Of course the normal (Default) rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to move through walls if there is no door (P. 99 has more info)

I play with "insubstantial" walls like a lot of other people do, although I'm curious about one specific aspect of them.

Are people generally comfortable with models parking themselves halfway through one of those walls?

Like, most people wouldn't think twice about a model passing from one side of a wall, through it, and winding up on the other side. But what if the model wants to/is forced to conclude its movement with part of its base on one side of the wall, and part on the other?

Since it's impossible to actually place the model there, do people just try to keep track of its "actual" location and inform their opponent?

From my experience, yes, most players are happy to let models stop halfway through the wall.

From previous discussions online, some players are opposed to the idea, but I haven't come across any of these in actual games so far.

 insaniak wrote:
From my experience, yes, most players are happy to let models stop halfway through the wall.

From previous discussions online, some players are opposed to the idea, but I haven't come across any of these in actual games so far.

Most of my regular opponents don't play with melting or hypothetical model placement. Always good to be on the same page prior to dice rolling, that can't be stressed enough.

 Altruizine wrote:
Are people generally comfortable with models parking themselves halfway through one of those walls?

In my experience, no. RAW is perfectly clear on this, you must be able* to place your model at the end of its move, and unless you've changed the laws of physics to allow you to put an object inside another object you will never be able to place that model halfway through a wall. You might wish to be halfway through the wall, but range and LOS will be measured based on the model's actual position on the table. I've never seen anyone attempt to claim otherwise.

*WMS does allow you to place it elsewhere and count it as being on the desired spot if it is difficult to place it, without spending a bunch of time on careful balancing, but that doesn't apply here.

Since it's impossible to actually place the model there, do people just try to keep track of its "actual" location and inform their opponent?

Nope. If you can't move far enough to reach a legal end point then you just stay on the other side of the wall. There is no "actual" location to worry about, only the final spot where you placed the model on the table.

 Peregrine wrote:
*WMS does allow you to place it elsewhere and count it as being on the desired spot if it is difficult to place it, without spending a bunch of time on careful balancing, but that doesn't apply here.

Actually it does apply as placing a model 1/2 way through the wall is quite a difficult thing to do. It can be done, it is not impossible (though you would have to ruin the wall of the ruin to get it placed which I do not recommend doing).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually it does apply as placing a model 1/2 way through the wall is quite a difficult thing to do. It can be done, it is not impossible

No, it is impossible. No amount of effort or careful balancing will allow you to place a solid object inside another solid object.

(though you would have to ruin the wall of the ruin to get it placed which I do not recommend doing).

And you are never given permission to cut a hole in the wall to make space for the model, so this is irrelevant.

coredump wrote:

Rumbleguts wrote:
Ruins only count as area terrain if they are on a base. So an unbased ruins is terrain, but not area terrain. Area terrain ruins gives a 4+ cover save to any non vehicle on the base regardless of where it is on the base. Unbased only give them the save if they have 25% coverage from the unit shooting at them.

To the meat of you question though. The rules actually say you can just move through the walls. See page 98, Ruins Without Bases
and page 99 Walls, Doors, Ladders and Lateral Thinking.

Sorry, cannot give you any help on what Tournaments tend to rule, but it would seem very strange if they ruled different then the above two rules sections.

This has all sorts of wrong in it.

By BRB, ruins are never area terrain. If ruins have a base, the *base* is considered area terrain, and gives a 5+ save. (not 4+)
The rest of the terrain is not area terrain. You can get a 4+ cover save if the parts of the building obscure 25% of the model.

If you are on the 2nd floor, but not at all obscured, then no cover save.

Yeah, sorry, I should have said the base is considered area terrain and the ruins is a ruins.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually it does apply as placing a model 1/2 way through the wall is quite a difficult thing to do. It can be done, it is not impossible

No, it is impossible. No amount of effort or careful balancing will allow you to place a solid object inside another solid object.

False. I can move a model so it is through the wall. I would break the terrain in the process, but it can be done, it is just difficult to do so...

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
(though you would have to ruin the wall of the ruin to get it placed which I do not recommend doing).

And you are never given permission to cut a hole in the wall to make space for the model, so this is irrelevant.

Who said anything about cutting?

However, the movement rules telling you that you can move through them, so if I can force my model though the wall then it can physically be there. This is not an impossible task, though it is difficult.

Not irrelevant.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
From my experience, yes, most players are happy to let models stop halfway through the wall.

From previous discussions online, some players are opposed to the idea, but I haven't come across any of these in actual games so far.

Most of my regular opponents don't play with melting or hypothetical model placement. Always good to be on the same page prior to dice rolling, that can't be stressed enough.

Agreed, you need to discuss terrain rules before the game begins because if you don't then no one has the precedent when issues come along.

As for WMS, the rules state that you invoke it when you can physically place the model in a position, but move it for fear of breaking the model if it loses balance (hence the whole "wobby model" bit).

Melting through terrain generally leads to 4th dimensional model syndrome :p pacman would be really boring the way some people play terrain.

NewTruthNeomaxim: play however you and your opponent prefer, I would suggest trying a game with less abstraction and see if you and y our opoonent prefer it.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
As for WMS, the rules state that you invoke it when you can physically place the model in a position, ...

No, they don't.

 insaniak wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
As for WMS, the rules state that you invoke it when you can physically place the model in a position, ...

No, they don't.

We're not gonna do this again are we? How many threads do we need with you and deathreaper debating wms with peregrine and myself?

 Crablezworth wrote:
We're not gonna do this again are we?

There's no particular need to do so, no. I merely pointed out that the rules don't say what Mr Greatsword was claiming.