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 first up: I'm not a tournament player, I never play by etc or ITC rules and I rarely play by ars bellica rules.

I had a quick discussion last night when playing someone who does go to a lot of tournaments in Europe, which I assume means he's playing all of the mentioned tournament rule sets.

Luckily this didn't happen during game but when looking at the table after setting up the terrain, when he came up with what I guess was - to him - some kind of "fun fact" : pointing at an Imperial Bastion (which was used as a ruin terrain) he explained that you could move infantry inside the bastion - specifically not by embarking on it (since rules wise it wasn't a bastion) but by picking up the bastion, placing the models down and then putting the bastion back in place on top of them (since it's hollow).

I didn't want to argue with him over that so we just chose to ignore that little pre game discussion, but I'm curious if this has any basis in the actual rules (both standard 40k and tournament specific)

I don't think picking up terrain is legal at all.
I don't think calling wobbly model is legal to just claim that the models are inside the terrain and then placing the models on top.

I'm very confident on both of these arguments and I simply can't find any rule that would allow doing this, so maybe someone can explain this to me? I'd honestly even appreciate a BCBhammer argument just for the sake of it.

Ask him to show you the rules that allow him to pick up the terrain, put models there and then put the terrain down.

 doctortom wrote:
Ask him to show you the rules that allow him to pick up the terrain, put models there and then put the terrain down.

"everyone at all the tournaments plays it like that", which is why I didn't continue the discussion with him. I do not like arguing with that person, but I'm still curious.

 doctortom wrote:
Ask him to show you the rules that allow him to pick up the terrain, put models there and then put the terrain down.

And he'll promptly point to the advanced terrain rules that allow infantry to move through walls and floors of ruins (which is the way the Bastion in question was explicitly described as being played).

He's kinda correct, if you state the Bastion is Ruins, which allows infantry to move through walls. However, you could also declare the Bastion was a hill with barricades on top and avoid the nonsense.

Sterling191 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Ask him to show you the rules that allow him to pick up the terrain, put models there and then put the terrain down.

And he'll promptly point to the advanced terrain rules that allow infantry to move through walls and floors of ruins (which is the way the Bastion in question was explicitly described as being played).

Yes, but I fail to see how that actually supports his argument of "I can just put them there by lifting the terrain piece up".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
He's kinda correct, if you state the Bastion is Ruins, which allows infantry to move through walls. However, you could also declare the Bastion was a hill with barricades on top and avoid the nonsense.

I can see how you get to run through the entire bastion and pop out the other side in one go.

But you can't stop inside a wall, and I don't see how you could legally place the model inside the Bastion "ruin".

nekooni wrote:

Yes, but I fail to see how that actually supports his argument of "I can just put them there by lifting the terrain piece up".

Because there's physically no other way for him to get them there. I want to again emphasize that by your own admission this thing was being played as a ruin, which adds particular rule quirks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
He's kinda correct, if you state the Bastion is Ruins, which allows infantry to move through walls. However, you could also declare the Bastion was a hill with barricades on top and avoid the nonsense.

This. It's why the pre-game conversation is important for non-organized play.

Yeah if anything this is demonstrating why you shouldn't dedicate a terrain feature that isnt a ruin as a ruin.

But I guess that's maybe more on the tournament organisers?

Sterling191 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Yes, but I fail to see how that actually supports his argument of "I can just put them there by lifting the terrain piece up".

Because there's physically no other way for him to get them there. I want to again emphasize that by your own admission this thing was being played as a ruin, which adds particular rule quirks.

If im physically unable to place a model somewhere I'm not allowed to place it there, at least that's my understanding.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
He's kinda correct, if you state the Bastion is Ruins, which allows infantry to move through walls. However, you could also declare the Bastion was a hill with barricades on top and avoid the nonsense.

This. It's why the pre-game conversation is important for non-organized play.

And completely unhelpful if the other person is unreasonable. Sure, I can just go home or find someone else to play, but that doesn't answer the rules question. We found a way to play this without conflict, but as I've stated I'd like to have a discussion on this because I'm curious.

nekooni wrote:

If im physically unable to place a model somewhere I'm not allowed to place it there, at least that's my understanding.

This isnt a "this model doesnt fit on the terrain without falling" scenario. The ruleset explicitly states that infantry can go through the sides of this thing. And that's precisely what happened. That your opponent needed to manipulate said terrain piece to make that happen is irrelevant.

nekooni wrote:

And completely unhelpful if the other person is unreasonable. Sure, I can just go home or find someone else to play, but that doesn't answer the rules question.

Your opponent wasnt remotely being unreasonable. You didnt have a conversation with him about a stated part of the game, and as a result he took action according to the agreed upon parameters for the match.

Sterling191 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

If im physically unable to place a model somewhere I'm not allowed to place it there, at least that's my understanding.

This isnt a "this model doesnt fit on the terrain without falling" scenario. The ruleset explicitly states that infantry can go through the sides of this thing. And that's precisely what happened. That your opponent needed to manipulate said terrain piece to make that happen is irrelevant.

So what would happen if the box in question had a bottom plate, would he be allowed to remove that? Just from a rules perspective, not considering the damage to the model or anything like that.
I still find it hard to believe you're ever allowed to move terrain pieces while the game is going on, considering I don't know any rule that allows you to do that outside of a psi power from 7th edition.

nekooni wrote:

And completely unhelpful if the other person is unreasonable. Sure, I can just go home or find someone else to play, but that doesn't answer the rules question.

Your opponent wasnt remotely being unreasonable. You didnt have a conversation with him about a stated part of the game, and as a result he took action according to the agreed upon parameters for the match.

I didn't say he was unreasonable. He did not take any action that I disagreed with since we didn't get into that situation during the game. I told him I wouldn't allow him to do that, and he accepted that for that game. I wasn't willing to reason this out with him, not the other way around. Discussing my opponent or the social contract or whatever doesn't answer the rules question, though. Can we just skip that part, please?

The rules for bastions are clear. If he wants to use it as something else - such as ruins - then that is by definition a house rule, and all house rules should be discussed and agreed upon with your opponent. One way or another, you will need to agree to a house rule.

There is no way I would agree to making a bastion a ruin. Any piece of terrain that makes a unit literally invincible has no place in a game.

Infantry inside a bastion, treated as a ruin, isnt invincible. It can be charged and hit by weapons which don't require LOS.

While true that the rules allow models to move through a ruins wall, the rules do NOT allow you to pick up a piece of terrain once placed. This is a permissive ruleset. You want to move a piece of terrain (even by picking it up and putting it back down), show me in the rules where it says you can.

If an opponent attempted to pick up a piece of terrain, I would stop the game ans ask him/her to show me in the rules where they're allowed to move terrain. I would further suggest that while the unit can move through the bastion/ruins wall, I don't think he's going to be able to place them as that area is absolutely inaccessible.

This is some pretty janky nonsense. On the other hand, it's not like the unit inside the bastion will have line of sight to anything. If they stay inside, they're not going to be contributing much to the game.

 p5freak wrote:
Infantry inside a bastion, treated as a ruin, isnt invincible. It can be charged and hit by weapons which don't require LOS.

Figuratively, then

 Kriswall wrote:

This is some pretty janky nonsense. On the other hand, it's not like the unit inside the bastion will have line of sight to anything. If they stay inside, they're not going to be contributing much to the game.

A unit inside the bastion can still hold an objective, or can hide from getting shot, if the other player doesn't have artillery.

Sterling191 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Yes, but I fail to see how that actually supports his argument of "I can just put them there by lifting the terrain piece up".

Because there's physically no other way for him to get them there. I want to again emphasize that by your own admission this thing was being played as a ruin, which adds particular rule quirks.

So? Just because you can move through something doesn't mean you can put there if you can't put model. Wobbly model syndrome rule doesn't allow anymore saying "it is there" if you literally cannot put model there so that's false arqument as well.

If you can't put models inside then because it's ruin(as agreed) you can move THROUGH but no rule allowance is given leaving models there if you physically cannot do.

WMS can be used if you physically CAN put model there but it's unstable prone to fall. So first put model there. If it stands there it's valid place and you can use WMS. If not you can't put it there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

This is some pretty janky nonsense. On the other hand, it's not like the unit inside the bastion will have line of sight to anything. If they stay inside, they're not going to be contributing much to the game.

Unless they have indirect fire weapon. Then they can shoot but without no LOS weapons can't be shot and if you position them 0.99" from wall can't be assaulted either. That's what ITC house rules cause.

There is also the whole problem of a unit inside a magic box blocking shooting to characters behind them. An invisible unit of gretchin can easily protects three SAGs from shooting.

Enclosed buildings as ruins are not covered by the base 40k rules and should be treated as impassible instead.

If the TO changes this that is their problem for creating a problem that doesn't exist normally.

And yes 'Magic Boxes' are stupid but Frontline Gaming sells enclosed buildings so they made up a rule that allowed them to be used like that, with the many examples of the issues that creates as a result.

Tournament rules are being tailored to cater to the commercial interests of of interested parties?! My god, what new spore of madness is this?

The above statement is being sarcastic. I thought I'd make that unequivocally clear.

Far better to use Ruin rules but define it as impossible to move through, just around or over. Magic Boxes introduce too much stupidity. Just make it impassable “the doors are all locked on this one and it’s too unstable/dangerous to blast through”. Problem solved. Go around or up and over. No arguments or lifting terrain about (seriously there’s absolutely no rules permission to start picking terrain up!).

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Far better to use Ruin rules but define it as impossible to move through, just around or over. Magic Boxes introduce too much stupidity. Just make it impassable “the doors are all locked on this one and it’s too unstable/dangerous to blast through”. Problem solved. Go around or up and over. No arguments or lifting terrain about (seriously there’s absolutely no rules permission to start picking terrain up!).

Yeah, I think I'm going to suggest using the new rules in CA for sealed frontier something something terrain next time, I think that's going to work just fine and removes the need of lifting terrain up

Sealed frontier rules are probably the best terrain rules we have now - more often than not we declare everything that's not clearly a ruin as sealed frontier. Works pretty well for most self-built terrain.