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.

This is an issue my gaming group has discussed but have not found an official rule orcome up with an answer for yet.....
Close combat in ruins/on buildings....
Example- An eldar (or whatever race) army has infantry on the 2nd of 3rd floor of a ruin. My imperial knight wants to assault them but is unable to get into base contact for obvious reasons yet the guys are literally right in front of it's face. Can it assault them? Obviously, I would assume athe stomp attacks would be lost lol.
Take it a step further and assume it is an actual building where I would of course not be able to assault the guys inside. What about the guys standing on top/a wraithknight standing on top. Could I assault them and if I can, how much do I have to be able to "reach".
So far, I've just been saying "I dont know so I'm not even going to try but will look into it". Looking for an official ruling but have not been able to find any.

 EVIL INC wrote:
This is an issue my gaming group has discussed but have not found an official rule orcome up with an answer for yet.....
Close combat in ruins/on buildings....
Example- An eldar (or whatever race) army has infantry on the 2nd of 3rd floor of a ruin. My imperial knight wants to assault them but is unable to get into base contact for obvious reasons yet the guys are literally right in front of it's face. Can it assault them? Obviously, I would assume athe stomp attacks would be lost lol.
Take it a step further and assume it is an actual building where I would of course not be able to assault the guys inside. What about the guys standing on top/a wraithknight standing on top. Could I assault them and if I can, how much do I have to be able to "reach".
So far, I've just been saying "I dont know so I'm not even going to try but will look into it". Looking for an official ruling but have not been able to find any.

This tends to be hotly debated. You can't declare an assault if you can't "reach" the target. Some people say if you're within 12", you should be able to reach the target and that if you can't physically place the model, you just invoke "wobbly model syndrome" and say "this is where I'm trying to place my Knight Titan". I tend to be on the other side of the fence and say that if you can't physically place the model, you can't reach the target and therefore can't declare the charge.

For me, wobbly model syndrome is for situations where you CAN place the model... it just tends to be top heavy and fall over, or maybe keeps sliding down a hill.

And from a fluff background, this makes sense. Is your Knight Titan actually going to enter a ruined building and climb to the second story? Or is it going to pound the building to dust with heavy weapons fire?

Ultimately, you have to decide what "reach" means. My take is "achieve base to base contact" while being able to physically place the model.

If the model can not stand in the location, no.

If there is enough space to physically place the model there, and it will stand, however precariously without assistance, yes(then put it where it is safe and agree to it's actual location per WMS).

Kriswall stated it more eloquently.

That quite literally means Megatron, that I can place a hive tyrant on the top of a ruin (those little corner pieces) and he will never get assaulted.... Rather than just saying that If I am right under him that I need a 3 inch charge (well 5 due to the -2 for difficult terrain). It would make no sense in the world if you played it your way. Anything bigger then a terminator base would never be able to assault anyone in buildings because their bases would be too big. What about my bikes? They cannot fit due to their basing, are they allowed to assault?

That seems to break the rules a little no?

Like Kriswall said, this is a hotly debated topic.

In other words, this thread is unlikely to reach a consensus, as is usually the case when RAW do not provide a clear answer but two opposing camps are convinced that RAW are in fact crystal clear. Many find it difficult to admit to ambiguity, even with rules as poorly written as GW's.

Im looking at it as though it would be easier in fact to attack with close combat weapons if the target is at stomach or chest height. At 6'11" it would be harder for me to swing a sword at a target that stands only 12" tall standing on the floor than it would be to swing it at a 12" tall target standing on a table in front of me.

I did not mean a rubble ruin with intervening walls and horizontal distance where the actual model would not be able to physically reach, I was talking a 90 degree angle between a flat table and the wall with the infantry stand on on the ledge right in front of the knight. I'm talking that if I were to swivel the knight at the waist, I could literally knock the eldar off of the ledge down onto the table (not that I would mistreat someone's models that way).
Looking for something official.

Not looking to gain any advantages, my one opponent has a wraithknight and another is looking into a stompa so i understand the official ruling would apply to them as well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NightHowler wrote:
Like Kriswall said, this is a hotly debated topic.

In other words, this thread is unlikely to reach a consensus, as is usually the case when RAW do not provide a clear answer but two opposing camps are convinced that RAW are in fact crystal clear. Many find it difficult to admit to ambiguity, even with rules as poorly written as GW's.

Understood. I'm one of the few who acknowledge their ambiguity and catch a lot of flack for it on here. i dont think my groups would have any problem hammering out a house rule for it amongst ourselves. I was just wondering if there was something official to base our decision on or maybe save us the trouble.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Im looking at it as though it would be easier in fact to attack with close combat weapons if the target is at stomach or chest height. At 6'11" it would be harder for me to swing a sword at a target that stands only 12" tall standing on the floor than it would be to swing it at a 12" tall target standing on a table in front of me.

I did not mean a rubble ruin with intervening walls and horizontal distance where the actual model would not be able to physically reach, I was talking a 90 degree angle between a flat table and the wall with the infantry stand on on the ledge right in front of the knight. I'm talking that if I were to swivel the knight at the waist, I could literally knock the eldar off of the ledge down onto the table (not that I would mistreat someone's models that way).
Looking for something official.

Not looking to gain any advantages, my one opponent has a wraithknight and another is looking into a stompa so i understand the official ruling would apply to them as well.

There is no official ruling.

You and your gaming group would do well to talk to each other and decide how you would play it. RAW will not provide you with a clear answer.

To help your group decide, here is my best understanding of the two sides of this argument.

CANNOT CHARGE CAMP
If there is no space to place the models then it is not possible to put the model into base to base contact with the unit it is trying to charge and so the charge will automatically fail. This is because the rules for charging say that you must place the initial charger in base to base with the closest model in the unit being charged.

CAN CHARGE CAMP
If you have rolled the required distance to put the model into base to base, but there is not enough room to place the model, you can claim wobbly model syndrome and call the charge successful, leaving the charging model in the closest place it can fit without falling over.

These two camps do not agree. Your group should decide which works best for you.

Edited to say that you had replied while I was posting this. I wasn't trying to beat a dead horse. Hope you guys find something that works for you.

fidel wrote:
That quite literally means Megatron, that I can place a hive tyrant on the top of a ruin (those little corner pieces) and he will never get assaulted.... Rather than just saying that If I am right under him that I need a 3 inch charge (well 5 due to the -2 for difficult terrain). It would make no sense in the world if you played it your way. Anything bigger then a terminator base would never be able to assault anyone in buildings because their bases would be too big. What about my bikes? They cannot fit due to their basing, are they allowed to assault?

That seems to break the rules a little no?

It also means that those bikes that don't physically fit on the second floor can't go onto the second floor. Moving through terrain second paragraph 1st sentence "Models can also use their move to 'climb up' terrain, as long as the model is able to finish the move on a location where it can be stood."

You literally are required to be able to physically place the model there, so yes a Tyrant on the top floor of a building is impossible to assault.

For an additional example, consider a single model standing at the end of a 40mm wide "alleyway" between two buildings. An Imperial Knight is right outside the alleyway, about 6 inches away from the target model. Can the Imperial Knight declare a charge? I say no because there is no way he'll fit down the alleyway and such can't be placed to make base to base contact.. From this, I say that distance alone won't allow a charge to be declared. You need to also be able to place the model.

The "different levels in a ruin" isn't the only scenario where this would apply. Essentially, any tight terrain scenario can cause similar problems.

So... If you completely fill up a level on a ruin, you are essentially unassaultable... unless your opponent shoots one or two dudes and makes room for an assaulting model. This generally isn't that hard to do. If you can't kill a single dude with a 4+ cover save... your army list probably needs work.

Models with very large footprints (i.e., Imperial Knights and most Monstrous Creatures/60mm base critters) will always have problems being placed in buildings. Assault doesn't really change that. It just because a problem in assault because that's the only time a player is likely to want to put IKs on the 2nd or 3rd floor of a building.

But there are other examples where the "can't place the charging model in base to base" reasoning seems to break down, or at least becomes less clear.

Let's say the sole surviving member of a space marine squad is 2" away from a Knight Titan. Unfortunately for the Knight Titan, the space marine has cleverly hopped up onto a 1" tall crate. The Knight Titan must now wail in impotent fury as it is unable to assault the space marine since he cannot be placed in base to base. If that space marine were a librarian who could cast invisible on himself he would become invincible.

Let's say that there are 10 crates! Then the whole squad can become invincible and could shoot their melta weapons at the Knight from the safety of their unassaultable crates.

If the rules are even a little bit unclear, I say that's a great time to bring some sanity back to the game. Even if everyone on YMDC says it's HIWPI.

fidel wrote:
That quite literally means Megatron, that I can place a hive tyrant on the top of a ruin (those little corner pieces) and he will never get assaulted.... Rather than just saying that If I am right under him that I need a 3 inch charge (well 5 due to the -2 for difficult terrain). It would make no sense in the world if you played it your way. Anything bigger then a terminator base would never be able to assault anyone in buildings because their bases would be too big. What about my bikes? They cannot fit due to their basing, are they allowed to assault?

That seems to break the rules a little no?

It's not so much that it breaks the rules as that the rules are broken to begin with. This is another of the things that they fixed in 5th edition (by allowing you to assault in ruins by just moving as close as possible and calling it good enough) and then broke in 6th (by reverting to the base contact requirement with no thought to how that would affect units on terrain).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NightHowler wrote:
If the rules are even a little bit unclear, I say that's a great time to bring some sanity back to the game. Even if everyone on YMDC says it's HIWPI.

This statement confuses me. If you're deliberately changing the rules, then that is just a house rule (or HIWPI). The fact that the original rules are silly doesn't change that fact.

You seem to be suggesting that YMDC (as some sort of collective hive-mind entity) has a problem with house rules. It (even though it isn't such an entity) has no problem at all with house rules... It's just generally preferred for them to be clearly presented as such.


In the case under discussion, there is no clear consensus, on YMDC or elsewhere. Some players think WMS should apply... some have no problem with models being un-assaultable in this sort of situation. Personally, I lean towards applying WMS, precisely because of situations like your crate example... or any other situation where a model isn't sitting flat on the table.

 insaniak wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
If the rules are even a little bit unclear, I say that's a great time to bring some sanity back to the game. Even if everyone on YMDC says it's HIWPI.

This statement confuses me. If you're deliberately changing the rules, then that is just a house rule (or HIWPI). The fact that the original rules are silly doesn't change that fact.

You seem to be suggesting that YMDC (as some sort of collective hive-mind entity) has a problem with house rules. It (even though it isn't such an entity) has no problem at all with house rules... It's just generally preferred for them to be clearly presented as such.


In the case under discussion, there is no clear consensus, on YMDC or elsewhere. Some players think WMS should apply... some have no problem with models being un-assaultable in this sort of situation. Personally, I lean towards applying WMS, precisely because of situations like your crate example... or any other situation where a model isn't sitting flat on the table.

I never said I was changing the rules. I said that when the rules aren't clear, it's a great opportunity to bring some sanity to the game.

I also lean toward applying the WMS because it seems more reasonable than a 75 foot tall metal robot not being able to step on a dude because he's standing on a bucket. That's all I was trying to say.

And I think 99% of people on YMDC are very reasonable. But when people are not reasonable, they also tend to be much more vocal and the debates much more heated. My point wasn't that the folks of YMDC would all disagree, but that even if they did, if the rules do not give a clear RAW answer , I would play it the way that made the most sense.

Hypothetical positions are a non starter, the 5th and 6th ed rules for ruins made it clear you can only move a model where they can physically fit. They also had rules to handle assauling up a floor in a ruin in which the floor was entirely full of enemy models and as such base to base contact was not possible. In 7th, the ruin rules are a joke and instead of being 4 pages are a few sentances.


The reality is this, the game, even without terrain, involves "un-assaultable" situations. Simply put, enemy models are impassable, if you want to assault enemy unit x but it's entirely surrounded by enemy unit y, you simply cannot assault enemy unit x. Perhaps another unit could shoot unit y opening up a gap allowing you to assault unit x.



I don't want to see mawloc's sideways on a middle ruin floor, at the same time I'm fair, I think model height should be factored into assault, but I also think infantry should be able to retreat deeper into large ruins to avoid getting assaulted by large models.


I want involved terrain rules, it makes for a better game. I want to avoid like the plague nova style hyper abstract terrain because land raiders of rooftops are emblematic of everything wrong with this game .

Well using the 5th edition rule of just moving close enough to a building and then being able to assault a target on the 15th floor is an example of how it was not fixed then any more than it is now. You just traded different players being upset without ever actually addressing the issue or using common sense.of course, we are talking about the current edition rather than 2nd are 4th or 5th so nts made about those editions are less and irrelevant.
Not that i ever plan to do this but a player could lay the knight on its side so that the base sticks up and could then touch the base of a mode standing on a ledge would allow base contact likewise along the line of the crates making you unreachable, I cant see anywhere in the book that says the model HAS to be standing on it's base. Whats to stop a tau player from modeling their entire army doing handstands with the bases in the air? True, their LOS might suffer but they would be immune from assault.
Use the minfantry in an alley between 2 ruins example. a knight can move through ruins. How does this affect where the model's base is at? I remember in an older warhammer fantasy book where they mentioned destroying castle walls and they suggested getting a sledgehammer OR just marking it in some way to mark the point here it is destroyed and not "actually" on the table. If we do something like that (not the sledgehammer idea of course lol) it would not "be" there but we still couldnt get into base contact.

The point is, I was hoping for an official ruling without actually expecting one.
In order to cover EVERY possibility that could ever come up in a game, the rulebook would have to be as large as Good Magician Humphrey's book of answers and would likely be as hard to read and understand. However, I feel that GW should put better "general guidelines in place that use common sense and have a public living document FAQ for reference. Sorry, the FAQs I have seen so far just dont really cut it for me.

On this issue, not a big deal, I'm sure we can hammer something out.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
If the model can not stand in the location, no.

If there is enough space to physically place the model there, and it will stand, however precariously without assistance, yes(then put it where it is safe and agree to it's actual location per WMS).

Kriswall stated it more eloquently.

I don't believe this is true. I had an opponent put 5-6 tau battlesuits at the top of one of the battlements terrain pieces. When he went to charge he said I couldn't because I couldn't place models. If you think about it from a reality standpoint my models ran through the front door and ran up to them. I do not believe you actually have to make base to bade contact. Just have to be in the range of the charge and place them as close as possible.

Fluff wise don't hormagaunts and genestealers scale buildings? To say that because there are 5 termites on the top floor that nothing can reach them is absurd.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Well using the 5th edition rule of just moving close enough to a building and then being able to assault a target on the 15th floor is an example of how it was not fixed then any more than it is now. You just traded different players being upset without ever actually addressing the issue or using common sense.

That's not quite how it worked. It only enabled assaults one level removed.

And i dont recall seeing a single complaint about it during 5th edition. It was pretty universally regarded as the simplest, most common-sense way to handle it.

There were plenty complaints about it then. However, this is not a "5th edition" thread. Personal preferences towards different editions dont really play a part in the question asked and can only serve to cause unnecessary disruption and controversy because as we have seen, people with axes to grind will shoehorn that argument in anywhere they can and many of us just want to play a game and have fun without internet politics.
Of course, in the OP, I did not specifically state which edition so i will state it now to clear that up. I am asking the question about the CURRENT edition and the current edition ONLY.
As there is evidently no page number to flip to in the rulebook with an answer, has anyone seen anything by way of FAQs or any rulings for it at tournaments or events and how it was played there?

They thought they had fixed the problem by adding an intrinstic climbing mechanic but they didn't because the only time you can be out of base to base for combat currently is with barricades.

As for placing a knight on its side, you actually can't do that after moving it. Feel free to start all your models laying on their side if you want to, the second you move them by the rules they'll have to end their movement standing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
There were plenty complaints about it then. However, this is not a "5th edition" thread. Personal preferences towards different editions dont really play a part in the question asked and can only serve to cause unnecessary disruption and controversy because as we have seen, people with axes to grind will shoehorn that argument in anywhere they can and many of us just want to play a game and have fun without internet politics.
Of course, in the OP, I did not specifically state which edition so i will state it now to clear that up. I am asking the question about the CURRENT edition and the current edition ONLY.
As there is evidently no page number to flip to in the rulebook with an answer, has anyone seen anything by way of FAQs or any rulings for it at tournaments or events and how it was played there?

That's a great attitude you've got there chief.

And the answer to the question about rulings and faq's is a resounding no, in fact the state of terrain rules is so poor that nova is basically not even using terrain rules, everything is abstract, nothing is impassable and anything can drive vertically up walls if they're able to end their move without falling. Land raiders on rooftops.

We play a terrible game.

 EVIL INC wrote:
There were plenty complaints about it then. However, this is not a "5th edition" thread. Personal preferences towards different editions dont really play a part in the question asked and can only serve to cause unnecessary disruption and controversy because as we have seen, people with axes to grind will shoehorn that argument in anywhere they can and many of us just want to play a game and have fun without internet politics.
Of course, in the OP, I did not specifically state which edition so i will state it now to clear that up. I am asking the question about the CURRENT edition and the current edition ONLY.
As there is evidently no page number to flip to in the rulebook with an answer, has anyone seen anything by way of FAQs or any rulings for it at tournaments or events and how it was played there?

Nobody has an axe to grind. It was pointed out that the current rules don't clearly deal with the situation, even though previous editions did. Pointing out what those previous rules were is useful for enabling people to formulate house rules to deal with the situation.

So, seriously, less drama please.

Thanks. If only more people had a good attitude, there would be a lot less trouble and drama on the internet. lol. Not holding my breath on it happening any time soon. Till,then, we can keep setting a good example and refrainingfrom doing it ourselves..
The book actually says standing on base? What page is that on? I mentioned that as a crazy extreme example that no one I play with would actually do but thought that it would be possible if someone were actually tfg enough to do it.
I totally agree with you though about playing a terrible game. I think much could be done with adding a lil common sense to such items as we are discussing here. it wouldnt solve many of the issues but it would make a lot more of us happier about it. I've been playing since the very beginning and stick around for the fluff and the "world" along with the imagery and models. Would love to see new blood infused into the company and a willingness to change for the better. They claim to be a miniatures company and they have that down pat. Now is the time to elp market their models by making us and new players want to play the games that use them (well, well past time for it IMHO).

We use the "measure distance and claim WMS" to allow charges, because otherwise we end up with invincible snipers on ruins etc.

I shake my head and face palm real hard. This is why wh40k is so poorly written.

niv-mizzet wrote:
We use the "measure distance and claim WMS" to allow charges, because otherwise we end up with invincible snipers on ruins etc.

They aren't even remotely invincible...

Shoot them. Seriously. If they can see you, you can see them. They just get a simple cover save.

The RAW absolutely are broken. Which is why I tend to use whatever FAQ fits my whimsy for the next upcoming large tournament event, as they tend to take most of the stupid out of the rules (even if they do enforce their own artificial meta in doing so). It works quite fine for me and my group (and FWIW I can't think of a major event that doesn't say "if you roll high enough, you make the assault")

 megatrons2nd wrote:
If the model can not stand in the location, no.

If there is enough space to physically place the model there, and it will stand, however precariously without assistance, yes(then put it where it is safe and agree to it's actual location per WMS).

Kriswall stated it more eloquently.

yeah either the model fits or it doesnt.

both sides have some merit, but things like IKs and super heavies shouldnt be on top of ruins,

GW used to rule that bikes and other units as well couldnt go up there, but now RAW is that anything that fits can, anything that cannot, cannot.

it makes sense, as it denies crazy big stuff from getting up on top of ruins, but it has side effects that are odd too, IE hiding tyrants and so on on top of ruins.

I understand not having a knight "go to the second floor".
My point is, when you pick up a can of soda from the kitchen table, do you climb up on top of the table and stand on it to pick the can up? Or do you just reach out and pick it up.
It is the same thing if your swinging a sword at something the same height.

Dont get me wrong, i'm not advocating or claiming one should be "the way", only pointing out which way I would like it to be with the understanding that what I would like may not be what goes and that others disagree. This is why I was asking.

I started a series of questions and suggestions like this on my gaming groups facebook page so that we can as a group come up with our own "FAQ" for us. Only have a start but already getting positive feedback and counter ideas.

 Kriswall wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
We use the "measure distance and claim WMS" to allow charges, because otherwise we end up with invincible snipers on ruins etc.

They aren't even remotely invincible...

Shoot them. Seriously. If they can see you, you can see them. They just get a simple cover save.

A lot of sniper/scout type units get bonuses to cover saves, and can easily hit 2+ inside ruins. That's about as close to invincible as you can get on a low point infantry model. Also, what if you're playing something like orks, nids or daemons? Is a Daemon player seriously supposed to sit there and hope for the right result on the warp storm table (and then hope that it actually hits that unit?)

CC is already hooked up to an iron lung in the intensive care unit. I just don't understand why people would want to kick it around even more by making spots where units can be totally immune to CC while still performing just fine.

It becomes especially stupid when the unit trying to get to them is something like a knight that could just swing and hit them at normal arm height, or winged/jump pack fighters who would be perfectly willing to slam into them with some hammer of wraiths to MAKE room for themselves.

niv-mizzet wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
We use the "measure distance and claim WMS" to allow charges, because otherwise we end up with invincible snipers on ruins etc.

They aren't even remotely invincible...

Shoot them. Seriously. If they can see you, you can see them. They just get a simple cover save.

A lot of sniper/scout type units get bonuses to cover saves, and can easily hit 2+ inside ruins. That's about as close to invincible as you can get on a low point infantry model. Also, what if you're playing something like orks, nids or daemons? Is a Daemon player seriously supposed to sit there and hope for the right result on the warp storm table (and then hope that it actually hits that unit?)

CC is already hooked up to an iron lung in the intensive care unit. I just don't understand why people would want to kick it around even more by making spots where units can be totally immune to CC while still performing just fine.

It becomes especially stupid when the unit trying to get to them is something like a knight that could just swing and hit them at normal arm height, or winged/jump pack fighters who would be perfectly willing to slam into them with some hammer of wraiths to MAKE room for themselves.

No, but maybe that demon player should try a different lore other than the make more demons one. There are several ranged attacks in the pyromancy chart that have ignores cover attacks in it, including the primaris because it is a template attack, and all template attacks have ignores cover standard. Not my fault that you don't choose it, and the rules make you pay for your choice. Sadly, I agree with the Knight example, but I can justify it as a He can't hit what he can't see, and the added cover will sometimes totally block it's line of sight to the target models once he actually gets there. And the added protection of the ruin could also deflect the attacks, if not stop it entirely.

I pretty much do the same thing as this:

niv-mizzet wrote:
We use the "measure distance and claim WMS" to allow charges, because otherwise we end up with invincible snipers on ruins etc.

The reasoning behind that is because if you can plant something in a ruin, knowingly place models to prevent an assault, and then argue about the legalities of WMS or charging or what-have-you, you are immediately THAT GUY.

The point of the game is to have fun. How fun is it to make something neigh on invincible? For those poor melee oriented armies with less than ideal shooting, simply shooting at said enemies isn't exactly an option. Having been on both sides, I just don't think that it's fair if you can use placement of models on terrain to prevent assault.

I know I'm not alone when I say that it should all be fair. Maybe in a tournament you can do that nonsense, but casual games shouldn't make you want to choke someone out.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
A lot of sniper/scout type units get bonuses to cover saves, and can easily hit 2+ inside ruins. That's about as close to invincible as you can get on a low point infantry model. Also, what if you're playing something like orks, nids or daemons? Is a Daemon player seriously supposed to sit there and hope for the right result on the warp storm table (and then hope that it actually hits that unit?)

CC is already hooked up to an iron lung in the intensive care unit. I just don't understand why people would want to kick it around even more by making spots where units can be totally immune to CC while still performing just fine.

It becomes especially stupid when the unit trying to get to them is something like a knight that could just swing and hit them at normal arm height, or winged/jump pack fighters who would be perfectly willing to slam into them with some hammer of wraiths to MAKE room for themselves.

No, but maybe that demon player should try a different lore other than the make more demons one. There are several ranged attacks in the pyromancy chart that have ignores cover attacks in it, including the primaris because it is a template attack, and all template attacks have ignores cover standard. Not my fault that you don't choose it, and the rules make you pay for your choice. Sadly, I agree with the Knight example, but I can justify it as a He can't hit what he can't see, and the added cover will sometimes totally block it's line of sight to the target models once he actually gets there. And the added protection of the ruin could also deflect the attacks, if not stop it entirely.

Unless they cast invisibility on themselves and then you can't hit them with template weapons. and you can't charge them because they're standing on that crate and it's like half an inch off the ground and the same size as their base. Practically invincible.

OR, you could just charge them, claim WMS, and stop the shenanigans.

I not only prefer the latter, but think it makes much more sense - both logically and from an ease of game play perspective.