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.

Didn't want to derail the other thread so I have made a new one to get your collective opinions on whether touching terrain is an appropriate interpretation of the rules for on or within terrain.

The reason I bring up touching terrain is because it has become the source of disagreements between me and a couple of opponents for which I have given my grumbling discontented approval to play touching terrain as acceptable. I have been told it is widely recognised in competitive play (whatever that means) that is the way it should be played but I disagree, and it doesn't make or break a game but it should be noted that even though I disagree I am also able to make use of that interpretation of the rule.

However recently GW have released terrain datasheets for their new releases. One of note is the Storage Fane which has an image on the warhammer community article of its datasheet that clearly demarcates the outside wall as not qualifying for on or within. You can see that on the link below. I use this now as vindication for standing by the idea that touching does not qualify for area terrain because they've created a precedent now.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/jK0eATyScM2JnkV3.jpg

What are your thoughts on this?

That pic is very useful - is it a one-off, I wonder, or are there other similar pieces that exclude the outside wall?

As I alluded to in the other thread - strict RAW I'm with you, "within" doesn't mean touching, it means actually within the boundary whereas touching is directly next to. I'll use again the example of an apple on a table - the two are clearly touching, but because the hard surface of the table stops the apple in place, the apple is not "within" the table.
However, you need only overlap the edge of the boundary by the *tiniest* of visible slivers in order to be within, as that's then "any part" of the base, however small.
I've attempted to illustrate this below.

You could I suppose make the argument that "any part" of the base also covers microscopic atoms that might be overlapping the microscopic edge of the terrain when the base is touching - but I mean, come on, if you're having to resort to using detail that's invisible to the naked eye to make your point, that's getting into some fresh realms of silliness, no?

"Within or on" is not synonymous with "touching".

The rule regarding "within" range (e.g. a model exactly 1" from something is within 1") only applies to ranges.

I would be inclined to apply the demarcation in my matched play games, but some may argue that these rules are SSF FAQ's to be used specifically for the campaign book/game they belong in. So, YMMV.

 skchsan wrote:
I would be inclined to apply the demarcation in my matched play games, but some may argue that these rules are SSF FAQ's to be used specifically for the campaign book/game they belong in. So, YMMV.

Basically this. Lawyers gonna lawyer.

I think you have a strong argument OP, but it won't be cast iron enough to satisfy everyone.

Agree before the game. We play touching=in in our group’s games purely for speed, as it saves balancing models and practically doesn’t extend terrain area that much. But all are aware it’s a house rule for speed. I would never expect a pickup opponent to agree touching=in midgame.

Touching is not in terrain.

Much like when two models bases touch they are not in or on each other which would be a rules unallowed position.

If you play touching is in at least be consistent and disallow models which cannot be in or on specific terrain to not count as touching it either.

blaktoof wrote:
If you play touching is in at least be consistent and disallow models which cannot be in or on specific terrain to not count as touching it either.

Not entirely sure I've understood this correctly - are you saying some have tried arguing that a model that wouldn't normally get benefits of cover (eg a Vehicle in an area terrain crater), does get it if they're touching?
That's some wonky thinking right there.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
We play touching=in in our group’s games purely for speed, as it saves balancing models and practically doesn’t extend terrain area that much.

From what I have seen, the problem comes up more when the terrain involves some kind of vertical wall on the outside of a ruin with no base. People claim that touching the outside of the wall means that they are within the ruins

 Bilge Rat wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
We play touching=in in our group’s games purely for speed, as it saves balancing models and practically doesn’t extend terrain area that much.

From what I have seen, the problem comes up more when the terrain involves some kind of vertical wall on the outside of a ruin with no base. People claim that touching the outside of the wall means that they are within the ruins

Which is where the new terrain rules in that terrible expansion GW just released come in handy. Using the inside of the walls as the footprint works well in these situations. Sadly, GW declined to actually include those rules in the core rulebook so we're left having to agree with our opponent beforehand. On the one hand I get it - terrain is extremely varied so hard and fast rules are difficult but I think there's a happy medium between no guidance and an attempt to comprehensively cover every eventuality.

We went to agree to touching because otherwise you get silly interactions like a tank sticking a gun barrel through a window to get cover, while a based vehicle can't get cover in the same position no matter what.

 Jidmah wrote:
We went to agree to touching because otherwise you get silly interactions like a tank sticking a gun barrel through a window to get cover, while a based vehicle can't get cover in the same position no matter what.

Sticking a barrel through the window doesn't work anyway. When the model doesn't have a base you're told to use the hull instead.

Hull is any part of the model, including gun barrels.

Ugh... so it is, don't know how I missed that. Well ok, that *IS* silly then.

Can you shoot it? NOT IN THE BARREL, SAH! I don't care, shoot the hull, shoot that gigantic tread , shoot it anywhere! I ONLY SHOOT THEM IN THE BARREL, AND ITS CLEARLY STUCK ITS BARREL OUT OF SIGHT BY PUTTING IT TRHOUH THAT TINY WALL WITH THAT ONE WINDOW. So shoot it on the other side, we can see both sides from here. NO SAH, ITS CLEARLY IN COVER, AND I CAN"='t FIGURE OUT HOW TO AIM AT IT NOW. BIT OF A BOTHER! Bit of a .. its only 12 feet away, for gods sake, just shoot it! NOT IN COVER, SAH. DONT THINK THE MISSLE WILL WOUND IT. Just kill me that tank! YOU WANT ME TO CHARGE HIM, SAH? Call a commisar, I think I want to be shot! DO YOU WANT TO CHARGE HIM, SAH? WITH YOUR SWORD?

Serious 40k logic in play here.

Dukeofstuff wrote:
Can you shoot it? NOT IN THE BARREL, SAH! I don't care, shoot the hull, shoot that gigantic tread , shoot it anywhere! I ONLY SHOOT THEM IN THE BARREL, AND ITS CLEARLY STUCK ITS BARREL OUT OF SIGHT BY PUTTING IT TRHOUH THAT TINY WALL WITH THAT ONE WINDOW. So shoot it on the other side, we can see both sides from here. NO SAH, ITS CLEARLY IN COVER, AND I CAN"='t FIGURE OUT HOW TO AIM AT IT NOW. BIT OF A BOTHER! Bit of a .. its only 12 feet away, for gods sake, just shoot it! NOT IN COVER, SAH. DONT THINK THE MISSLE WILL WOUND IT. Just kill me that tank! YOU WANT ME TO CHARGE HIM, SAH? Call a commisar, I think I want to be shot! DO YOU WANT TO CHARGE HIM, SAH? WITH YOUR SWORD?

Serious 40k logic in play here.

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.

Bringing a scenario into it from the "Modern day real world" into it can confuse things, because that may or may not be how the rules are written. The only "Modern day real world" that needs to be applied is the definition of the words in the rulebook because we would not be able to understand the rules without language.

 Jidmah wrote:
Hull is any part of the model, including gun barrels.

Except a gun barrel is not a part of the hull of any vehicle. Since they do not define hull, we need to use the standard definition of Hull, which does not include the barrel of a gun. Hull is basically just the main body of the vehicle.

DeathReaper, hull *is* defined in 9th core rules.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
DeathReaper, hull *is* defined in 9th core rules.

Must have missed that then.

You did indeed. It’s now “any part of a model that does not have a base”.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You did indeed. It’s now “any part of a model that does not have a base”.

That is hilarious, because that is not at all what Hull means. GW is funny.

I know right?! That's *exactly* the same mistake that I made. Accursed old-edition knowledge infesting my head.

Slipspace wrote:

 Bilge Rat wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
We play touching=in in our group’s games purely for speed, as it saves balancing models and practically doesn’t extend terrain area that much.

From what I have seen, the problem comes up more when the terrain involves some kind of vertical wall on the outside of a ruin with no base. People claim that touching the outside of the wall means that they are within the ruins

Which is where the new terrain rules in that terrible expansion GW just released come in handy. Using the inside of the walls as the footprint works well in these situations. Sadly, GW declined to actually include those rules in the core rulebook so we're left having to agree with our opponent beforehand. On the one hand I get it - terrain is extremely varied so hard and fast rules are difficult but I think there's a happy medium between no guidance and an attempt to comprehensively cover every eventuality.

Agreed. GW should FAQ the definition of 'Area Terrain' so that you must define the interior that constitutes "within" portion of the rule as such:

-Area Terrain has a footprint.
-Footprint = interior region of boundary of terrain feature at ground level

Incidentally, I quite agree with the point about not "modern day logic" ... I was simply using humor to illustrate the underlying rules / logic flow that we would follow. Wasn't meant to be critical!

 Super Ready wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If you play touching is in at least be consistent and disallow models which cannot be in or on specific terrain to not count as touching it either.

Not entirely sure I've understood this correctly - are you saying some have tried arguing that a model that wouldn't normally get benefits of cover (eg a Vehicle in an area terrain crater), does get it if they're touching?
That's some wonky thinking right there.

Yes. Some people have argued they can touch terrain to get benefits of being in or on terrain, specifically for units which cannot be in or on that terrain. I.e. knight touches area terrain 5"+to shoot unit on otherwise claiming it is in the terrain so it's not shooting through terrain despite that it cannot be in that terrain. Touching =\=on or in. Just like models touching each other's base isn't the same as them being in the other model or on the other model.

Ahhhh, ok, I see the distinction. It's not QUITE as wonky as I thought, but it's still subject to needing that agreement of whether touching counts as "within" the terrain or not.
The thing is, there is absolutely nothing preventing certain types of models from being "within" terrain - it's just that they might not get the benefits of being in that terrain, as defined by the terrain traits. So in your example, if the Knight were to be stood on or in that area terrain, it's correct that it's no longer shooting "through" it. If you've determined with your opponent that touching terrain counts as "within"? Then that's all good too.

Note that it's important that the Knight still isn't gaining any benefit itself from the terrain - it's just that the other unit it's firing at, no longer meets all the requirements for their benefit based on what's attacking them, which is not the same thing.

 Super Ready wrote:
Ahhhh, ok, I see the distinction. It's not QUITE as wonky as I thought, but it's still subject to needing that agreement of whether touching counts as "within" the terrain or not.
The thing is, there is absolutely nothing preventing certain types of models from being "within" terrain - it's just that they might not get the benefits of being in that terrain, as defined by the terrain traits. So in your example, if the Knight were to be stood on or in that area terrain, it's correct that it's no longer shooting "through" it. If you've determined with your opponent that touching terrain counts as "within"? Then that's all good too.

Note that it's important that the Knight still isn't gaining any benefit itself from the terrain - it's just that the other unit it's firing at, no longer meets all the requirements for their benefit based on what's attacking them, which is not the same thing.

This is an important distinction. Should a knight be able to touch the terrain and thereby ignore the benefit its target is getting by being in the terrain. I obviously think not.

This debate is not a new issue either because it was a problem in 8th and before, my brain misremembers the foggy horror of 7th. This image is the closest they have come to defining it and I'm gonna use it with force in all my games. These terrain datasheets were intended for matched play. This is different from tournament play so there the TO is the rules god.

 Nithaniel wrote:
This is an important distinction. Should a knight be able to touch the terrain and thereby ignore the benefit its target is getting by being in the terrain. I obviously think not.

Using a Knight for this example is to take one egregious example that isn't representative of the game as a whole, though. It places too much focus on a "common sense" argument relating to the Knight's height, that has no basis in RAW.

What if instead of a Knight it's a unit of Termagants, or Gretchin, or Scouts? Suddenly it makes a lot more sense that a unit on the edge of that terrain is going to have a much easier time targeting and firing at the units in that cover.

 Super Ready wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
This is an important distinction. Should a knight be able to touch the terrain and thereby ignore the benefit its target is getting by being in the terrain. I obviously think not.

Using a Knight for this example is to take one egregious example that isn't representative of the game as a whole, though. It places too much focus on a "common sense" argument relating to the Knight's height, that has no basis in RAW.

What if instead of a Knight it's a unit of Termagants, or Gretchin, or Scouts? Suddenly it makes a lot more sense that a unit on the edge of that terrain is going to have a much easier time targeting and firing at the units in that cover.

Well, it's also fair to say that if a knight walks up to a ruin with enemies in it, and there's a window through which to poke his gun, what's he going to do? Politely ask if they can come out and play?

I think it fits very well that a unit saying "neenah you can't get me" and then the knight shoves the barrel of his gun through the wall and fires!

This is the point at which we have to concede that common sense has little place in a discussion on what is and isn't RAW. Which was the point I was trying to make, and obviously failed.

Another reason that a lot of tournaments tend to go with touching vrs ontop of /within is that it causes a lot of issues if the building is on a base as it's inherently almost always larger than the building walls but if you start playing the game of the base no longer defines the area of the area terrain the space for arguments explodes.

Also if you start saying a unit has to be in the building you get people setting up buildings with gaps just the size that their models can fit but their opponents can't.

Discuss with your opponent and don't terrain for advantage.