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.

I'm just looking for confirmation on they way we have been playing the terrain rules.

Following examples seen in batreps online we have played it that a unit can touch the wall of an obscuring ruin to see through it. Now I think this works well but it was challenged last week by someone asking if touching terrain should be considered being in it.

The terrain in question was some of the newer GW ruins and my tank touched the wall to see through. The wall it touched is vertical and it wasn't overlapping anywhere else.

In this case can we say that the tank is even partially in the area terrain? (We played that it was). Ideally I'm looking for some evidence or at least precedence that we are playing correctly.

Cheers
Sprugly

It depends how the terrain has been defined pregame.

sprugly wrote:
I'm just looking for confirmation on they way we have been playing the terrain rules.

Following examples seen in batreps online we have played it that a unit can touch the wall of an obscuring ruin to see through it. Now I think this works well but it was challenged last week by someone asking if touching terrain should be considered being in it.

The terrain in question was some of the newer GW ruins and my tank touched the wall to see through. The wall it touched is vertical and it wasn't overlapping anywhere else.

In this case can we say that the tank is even partially in the area terrain? (We played that it was). Ideally I'm looking for some evidence or at least precedence that we are playing correctly.

Cheers
Sprugly

Core Book, Page 261 wrote:INFANTRY, BEAST and SWARM models receive the benefits of cover from Area Terrain features while they are within it.

Touching the edge of area terrain, IMO, is not being "within" the terrain. Now, if you define the footprint of the terrain to extend 1mm out from all the walls pre-game, then you would be "within" the Area Terrain's footprint.

So it all comes down to how you define the footprint of the terrain.

Core Book, Page 260 wrote:For some Area Terrain features, their footprint will be obvious, especially if the terrain feature has a base or some other well defined boundary, but if not, then agree with your opponent what the footprint is.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

sprugly wrote:
I'm just looking for confirmation on they way we have been playing the terrain rules.

Following examples seen in batreps online we have played it that a unit can touch the wall of an obscuring ruin to see through it. Now I think this works well but it was challenged last week by someone asking if touching terrain should be considered being in it.

The terrain in question was some of the newer GW ruins and my tank touched the wall to see through. The wall it touched is vertical and it wasn't overlapping anywhere else.

In this case can we say that the tank is even partially in the area terrain? (We played that it was). Ideally I'm looking for some evidence or at least precedence that we are playing correctly.

Cheers
Sprugly

Core Book, Page 261 wrote:INFANTRY, BEAST and SWARM models receive the benefits of cover from Area Terrain features while they are within it.

Touching the edge of area terrain, IMO, is not being "within" the terrain. Now, if you define the footprint of the terrain to extend 1mm out from all the walls pre-game, then you would be "within" the Area Terrain's footprint.

But it doesn't specify you need to be 'wholly within' though.

 skchsan wrote:
But it doesn't specify you need to be 'wholly within' though.

No, it doesn't. But touching the edge doesn't mean you're even partially "within" the footprint. These aren't ranges we're measuring, where exactly 1" is within a 1" range, we're talking about about a physical space.

Then again, you could define the infinitesimal border as being within the terrain, and we've once again come into conflict with GW's poor rules writing.

Then again again, I've probably missed something in the FAQs and/or appendices.

From the glossary:

In terrain: A model is in terrain if it is partially on or within a terrain feature. A unit is in terrain if any model in that unit is partially on or within a terrain feature.

Touching the very edge of the terrain's footprint is very clearly not "on" the feature, and I don't personally think it is "within" either. As an analogy, let's say you're touching the border between France and Spain, with your body on the French side of the border. Are you "within" Spain?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
As an analogy, let's say you're touching the border between France and Spain, with your body on the French side of the border. Are you "within" Spain?

Completely irrelevant. If the rules say that you are within terrain when your base, or hull, touches the terrain, then you are within terrain.

 p5freak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
As an analogy, let's say you're touching the border between France and Spain, with your body on the French side of the border. Are you "within" Spain?

Completely irrelevant. If the rules say that you are within terrain when your base, or hull, touches the terrain, then you are within terrain.

As I said, I probably missed something. Do you have a page reference for this? I don't see any mention of the word "touching" in the terrain rules, and I quoted the part where it says models only benefit from area terrain when they are "within" it.

There’s a particular channel that’s been pushing the “touching a wall makes you within terrain” argument hard, and frankly it’s getting quite irritating. Especially as a good portion of their “coaching” is premised on that selective application of rules language. They’re effectively taking the position that the “area terrain” begins at some point outside the wall of a ruin, and it just makes things absolutely screwy.

Define your ruins as the area inside the walls, and the entire problem goes away.

Sterling191 wrote:
There’s a particular channel that’s been pushing the “touching a wall makes you within terrain” argument hard, and frankly it’s getting quite irritating. Especially as a good portion of their “coaching” is premised on that selective application of rules language. They’re effectively taking the position that the “area terrain” begins at some point outside the wall of a ruin, and it just makes things absolutely screwy.

Define your ruins as the area inside the walls, and the entire problem goes away.

In the first camp's defense, it is infinitesimally easier to 'measure' whether a model is 'touching' a terrain feature than it is to determine whether the said model is within an intangible designation of this 'area terrain which begins at some point outside the wall of a ruin' unless of course, you actually physically delineate the said 'area'.

Both sides of this argument - touching or not touching - have no basis in the rules. Period.
Core book page 260, area terrain:

Each time an Area Terrain feature is set up on the battlefield, both players must agree upon the footprint of that terrain feature (...) This is essential to define so that players know when a model is wholly on or within that terrain feature, and when it is not.

Do you and your opponent agree that touching the wall is counted as being fully within the footprint? Great, you're following the rules.
Do you and your opponent agree that touching the wall is not counted as being fully within the footprint? Fantastic - guess what - you're still following the rules.

As far as visibility is concerned, this is defined as the model being "on or behind" the terrain - so again, it comes down to what you've agreed.

I think defining exactly what is and isn't in area terrain is quite hard. I have attached some professionally produced images for you to consider. Which would you say are in the area terrain and which are not.

Keep in mind this could be an area of the table that is only marked out as a shape on the battlefield. It may not have walls or a base to make the edge.

How do we judge these?

Sprugly


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@super ready

Although the area terrain definition talks about being wholly within the area terrain the obscuring rule makes no mention of that. It only says a model has to be on the area terrain not wholly on.

Sprugly

 skchsan wrote:
In the first camp's defense, it is infinitesimally easier to 'measure' whether a model is 'touching' a terrain feature than it is to determine whether the said model is within an intangible designation of this 'area terrain which begins at some point outside the wall of a ruin' unless of course, you actually physically delineate the said 'area'.

9th does not allow models to exist partially within a wall of a ruin. Delineate your area terrain as being entirely inside said wall, and you suddenly have a very simple means by which to determine the status of said model: which side of the goddamn wall it is on.

@Sterling191

Not all area terrain has walls at its boundaries.

Sprugly

sprugly wrote:
@Sterling191

Not all area terrain has walls at its boundaries.

Sprugly

Area terrain has to meet very specific requirements to actually do anything with the Obscuring rule. The chief of which is being at least 5" tall . You're simply not going to have a piece of terrain that is somehow 5" tall yet magically doesnt have demarcated edges.

You could easily have a ruined building consisting of 2 L shape sections which are not touching each other. The other 2 corners are in this case marked out by an imaginary line. Just the first example off the top of my head.

Sprugly

sprugly wrote:
You could easily have a ruined building consisting of 2 L shape sections which are not touching each other. The other 2 corners are in this case marked out by an imaginary line. Just the first example off the top of my head.

Then you have two separate terrain features defined by the interior dimensions of each L. This isnt difficult.

So are you drawing and imaginary line from the ends of each L to make 2 triangular areas? You still then have a line with no physical boundary. Or are you counting the ruin model (defined in the rulebook as area terrain) as an obstacle? Bearing in mind that this could be a large L shape with multiple levels and floors.

Sprugly

sprugly wrote:
So are you drawing and imaginary line from the ends of each L to make 2 triangular areas? You still then have a line with no physical boundary. Or are you counting the ruin model (defined in the rulebook as area terrain) as an obstacle? Bearing in mind that this could be a large L shape with multiple levels and floors.

Step 1: Get a ruler.
Step 2: Put one end of the ruler on one end of a wall.
Step 3: Orienting inside the ruin, connect to the other end of the wall
Step 4: Know that that is your demarcated line, handily given to you by the simple fact that walls are in fact walls.

Again, this isnt that difficult, and you're deliberately trying to complicate it. Stop trying to excuse a bad decision by a particular 40k channel and move on with your life.

In tournament play, we won't have the option of this gentlemanly agreement, and I suspect the competitive players in the group are really asking "how will this shake out in tournament play"

Something I forgot to mention before - "on" doesn't cover touching either, as in this context, it means "on top of". In other words, part of the base is over the terrain piece in question. Just touching doesn't cover this.
If we're going by literal dictionary definition, to be "on" something means to be both touching and supported by the subject. So I guess we could define it this way - if you were to move the terrain piece away, would your model visibly move, either moving with it or dropping to table level as a result?

sprugly wrote:

@super ready
Although the area terrain definition talks about being wholly within the area terrain the obscuring rule makes no mention of that. It only says a model has to be on the area terrain not wholly on.
Sprugly

This is true - but we have a definition for "within" already, per page 199, and it refers in every instance to being within "the specified distance". There's nothing there about whether something is touching or not touching. Therefore, you still fall back to defining it between you and your opponent per terrain piece.
...very nice illustrations, by the way.

Dukeofstuff wrote:

In tournament play, we won't have the option of this gentlemanly agreement, and I suspect the competitive players in the group are really asking "how will this shake out in tournament play"

Maybe not, I can see this not coming up pre-game in a tournament setting... but if you can't agree mid-match, TOs and referees can make that call for you.

I'm trying to simplify and define it. But there is an almost infinite amount of terrain models out there.

The fact exists that some area terrain is not marked by a physical line.

I understand what you are trying to do by simplifying the terrain but these definitions are not laid out in the rules. All we have left are opinions until an Faq appears. As the area terrain rule talks about being wholly within the terrain piece, that may have been the intention. Unfortunately they did not carry this through with the part regarding the obscuring rule. Hence the confusion.

In the end, unless its touching in, it could come down to infinitesimally small measurements to determine positioning, which can be countered by simply stating the intention of the move I guess.

Sprugly

sprugly wrote:
I'm just looking for confirmation on they way we have been playing the terrain rules.

Following examples seen in batreps online we have played it that a unit can touch the wall of an obscuring ruin to see through it. Now I think this works well but it was challenged last week by someone asking if touching terrain should be considered being in it.

The terrain in question was some of the newer GW ruins and my tank touched the wall to see through. The wall it touched is vertical and it wasn't overlapping anywhere else.

In this case can we say that the tank is even partially in the area terrain? (We played that it was). Ideally I'm looking for some evidence or at least precedence that we are playing correctly.

Cheers
Sprugly

All this talk and no one even mentions the important part.

Being inside a piece of terrain (or touching it or whatever) does not make walls disappear.

Some people mistakenly thought that standing inside Obscured terrain made you visible to the entire board, but that was quickly faq'ed.
All normal Line of Sight rules apply when your inside Obscured terrain.

Good point, and worth checking. I must admit I'd assumed from the description that the ruins had suitable windows and holes in them to provide actual line of sight.

Dukeofstuff wrote:


In tournament play, we won't have the option of this gentlemanly agreement, and I suspect the competitive players in the group are really asking "how will this shake out in tournament play"

In two other game systems with a "define the terrain on the table" step, I've seen weekend long events where the players have no problem being assigned to a table with pre-arranged terrain and then proceeding to agree on how to define each of the terrain pieces. What sort of terrible "tournament players" are you dealing with if you don't think 40k players can deal with that?

I agree with the general consensus that this is something you need to define pre-game but I think the way you do that is by defining where the boundary of the terrain is. So if a wall marks the boundary of terrain I don't think touching that wall with your base being outside the terrain counts as being within the terrain. This seems to be an extension of a convention that appeared during 8th but I think that stretches the definition of "within" beyond breaking point.

Of course, if you define a terrain piece as occupying a base (a ruin for example) then having any part of your model's base on the terrain's base would count as within. Just touching the terrain base with your own base wouldn't for the same reasons outlined above.

Make some boundaries out of paper, but them under your terrain to marks its area.