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.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
It's just a really stupid interaction where, if the defenders were 1mm further back you could charge and if they were 1mm closer you could charge, but if they're in exactly the right place you're suddenly completely immune to close combat.

How is this different from situations where +/- 1mm makes you completely immune to shooting? Or +/- 1mm is the difference between a movement path being blocked or not. Or a unit being 12.000000001" away completely immune to being charged no matter how many charge range buffs you have. You can call it "gaming the system" if you like but that's a huge part of 40k in general and I don't see how this one specific thing is any worse than the others, especially when the only reason it comes up at all is that "breachable" lets you magically teleport through solid walls without even slowing down.

Because it's trivially easy to pull off and results in weird uninteractive situations. This isn't a case of just being out of range, it's a massive "nope" button available in almost every game due to the way GW's terrain rules work. There's nothing particularly gamey about being out of range with a weapon, or too far away to charge, or not being able to get LoS. Being unable to charge a unit because they are a very specific distance from a ruin wall is clearly seen as gamey by GW (and a lot of the community). The rule doesn't really represent anything in the way those other situations do - it's gamey because there's no good plausible in-universe reason why a unit standing exactly in one very narrow region is suddenly immune to being charged. Just missing out on LoS, or weapon range, doesn't fall into the same category.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
It's just a really stupid interaction where, if the defenders were 1mm further back you could charge and if they were 1mm closer you could charge, but if they're in exactly the right place you're suddenly completely immune to close combat.

How is this different from situations where +/- 1mm makes you completely immune to shooting?

Care to enlighten us as to such a hypothetical situation?

You are 12.000001" with 12" range gun?

tneva82 wrote:
You are 12.000001" with 12" range gun?

That's not "completely immune to shooting", that's just "immune to 12" guns".

 Jidmah wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
You are 12.000001" with 12" range gun?

That's not "completely immune to shooting", that's just "immune to 12" guns".

and the charging thing isnt "completely immune to charges", if a squad charges them from behind, theyre still reachable.

Still, GW should make it where terrain is "embarkable" so if youre in it, you benefit from cover BUT it allows your opponent to charge the terrain piece instead of your unit

 Jidmah wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
You are 12.000001" with 12" range gun?

That's not "completely immune to shooting", that's just "immune to 12" guns".

Ok rephrase: 0.00001" further than longest gun.

There. "but akshully" crowd satisfiea.

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
You are 12.000001" with 12" range gun?

That's not "completely immune to shooting", that's just "immune to 12" guns".

Ok rephrase: 0.00001" further than longest gun.

There. "but akshully" crowd satisfiea.

Not at all, tneva.

CanadianCorporalBob was comparing the melee situation with a shooting one where the target unit is somehow in a spot where moving them 1mm closer or further away would render them vulnerable to shooting, especially thanks to an odd terrain interaction. This mirrors the Engagement Range situation for melee where by sitting just the right distance from a wall, a melee unit can't engage their target through the wall, nor is there enough room for them to fit between the target unit and the wall.

No-one (to my knowledge) has an issue with a unit not being able to be charged because they are further away than a possible charge distance, which would be the mirror to saying "but what if the unit is 1mm over the maximum shooting range?!?!", which is what your "Well, akshully" response tried to cover in error.

 Dysartes wrote:
Care to enlighten us as to such a hypothetical situation?

True line of sight, remember? A model can be hidden behind terrain or other models but only from one specific position. You don't get to say "well, if I were 1mm farther over here I could shoot it so I get bonus LOS tolerance to make it work". So why should melee units get bonus engagement range to compensate for being unable to reach a target?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
This isn't a case of just being out of range, it's a massive "nope" button available in almost every game due to the way GW's terrain rules work.

So charge from a different direction. Or bring some guns and kill a single model so there's a space to move into engagement range. We already have a massive "nope" button to shooting when ever piece of terrain on the table blocks LOS even when you can see the models through it, why is it a problem that a unit can be difficult to charge?

There's nothing particularly gamey about being out of range with a weapon, or too far away to charge, or not being able to get LoS.

Of course there is. Do real weapons magically end at a specific distance? No. Accuracy or damage may start to fall off beyond a certain point but you can't be standing exactly 0.0001" beyond the maximum range of a gun (a range which is already laughably short for a 28mm game) and be completely immune to attack. And you certainly can't be immune to a tank just because you're sitting behind a wall, the tank can shoot through the wall to kill you and/or shoot the building itself to collapse it onto you. It's all completely gaming the system and playing 40k the dice game instead of 40k the war simulation.

Movement and positioning is supposed to be important; right?

I really do not see why it was an issue, but if that's not what the designers intended then the change is perfectly fine.

On topic... There is nothing positive about community rules. They fragment play groups and promote cliques. The last thing I want anyone telling me is "This is how we play it here." The rules are the rules whether you agree with them or not.

 oni wrote:
Movement and positioning is supposed to be important; right?

I really do not see why it was an issue, but if that's not what the designers intended then the change is perfectly fine.

On topic... There is nothing positive about community rules. They fragment play groups and promote cliques. The last thing I want anyone telling me is "This is how we play it here." The rules are the rules whether you agree with them or not.

Yes, agreed. Move and positioning should matter, very much.

But… community rules? Some communities are bigger than others and it already happens. So…

Wow, but… no.

tneva82 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Actually, according to an article he wrote in White Dwarf, Jervis Johnson's intent with the AoS rules was that models CAN float in the air part way up terrain.
He was then baffled that people didn't understand this...

(Ref: 'Rules of Engagement' in January 2019 issue)

Well aos and 40k different rules and it's even specifically said you can float. Gets rid of impossible to attack top of ruin situation.

Yup. It just represents a model climbing that surface and they are only a certain distance up, while also fixing a lot of potential exploits. Granted it leads to some 'interesting' situations, but as an abstraction wargaming always will and sometimes realism is sacrificed for streamlining. At least in theory, the quality of the execution is... inconsistent.

 jeff white wrote:
I was listening to an established and popular podcast, yo dog, when one commentator suggested that, with recent changes to engagement ranges given certain terrain features, and with event organizers rejecting the rule, the era of treating GW rules and updates as gospel, the one and only best way to play, is over. In this case, the context was competitive, but I figure that the point holds for more casual settings, and more hobby centric settings too.

My question is how many here agree with the commentator’s assessment. Is the mood out there such that people are ready to make house or local are flexible rules arrangements or … something besides chasing the corporate meta?

Back to the original topic...wasn't the ITC formed because of a rejection of GW's mission scenarios? We just may be moving back in that direction, where the tournament scene isn't happy with GW's rulings and incorporates their own.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
There's nothing particularly gamey about being out of range with a weapon, or too far away to charge, or not being able to get LoS.

Of course there is. Do real weapons magically end at a specific distance? No. Accuracy or damage may start to fall off beyond a certain point but you can't be standing exactly 0.0001" beyond the maximum range of a gun (a range which is already laughably short for a 28mm game) and be completely immune to attack. And you certainly can't be immune to a tank just because you're sitting behind a wall, the tank can shoot through the wall to kill you and/or shoot the building itself to collapse it onto you. It's all completely gaming the system and playing 40k the dice game instead of 40k the war simulation.

I've always felt that the listed range for shooting weapons should just be an increment which penalizes BS by one for each increment after the first. So a BS 4+ shooting a 24" gun at a target 25" away goes to BS 5+, and so on with the shot only becoming impossible once it would put BS to 7+. BUT such a change would also need to go hand in hand with a rework of LoS/targeting rules (imo absolutely ridiculous right now).

 oni wrote:


On topic... There is nothing positive about community rules. They fragment play groups and promote cliques. The last thing I want anyone telling me is "This is how we play it here." The rules are the rules whether you agree with them or not.

Do you play in tourneys?
Do you accept that TOs can decide what can be used, etc?
If so, then you've already accepted "This is how we play it here".

I find it rather strange that people are rejecting this rule change:

Page 263 – Obscuring
Change the first sentence of the second paragraph to read: ‘Models that are on or within this terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally.’
Add the following to the end of this terrain trait:
‘While a model is within 1" of an Area Terrain feature with this trait (e.g. Ruins) and the shortest line between it and an enemy model crosses over or through this terrain feature, then while those models are within 2" horizontally and 5" vertically of each other, they are within Engagement Range of each other.’

Why you might ask? It's pretty much the rules for Defense Line added to Obscuring Area Terrain to avoid shenanigans. What is there to hate?

 alextroy wrote:
It's pretty much the rules for Defense Line added to Obscuring Area Terrain to avoid shenanigans.

Because "pretty much" is not "the same", and it's the nuances that matter. The defense line rule doesn't expand engagement range in the movement phase and make units in ruins more capable movement blockers, and it doesn't allow the fight phase exploits where you consolidate and turn off the crossing line so models you just hit can't hit back. If they had just added the defense line rule it would have been a much better (though still unnecessary) change.

 alextroy wrote:
I find it rather strange that people are rejecting this rule change:

Page 263 – Obscuring
Change the first sentence of the second paragraph to read: ‘Models that are on or within this terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally.’
Add the following to the end of this terrain trait:
‘While a model is within 1" of an Area Terrain feature with this trait (e.g. Ruins) and the shortest line between it and an enemy model crosses over or through this terrain feature, then while those models are within 2" horizontally and 5" vertically of each other, they are within Engagement Range of each other.’

Why you might ask? It's pretty much the rules for Defense Line added to Obscuring Area Terrain to avoid shenanigans. What is there to hate?

Well for one makes silly easy to make ds charges. It also allows charge, attack, consolidiate, be immune to return attack shenigans. Do you really think it's good for game you can attack enemy without exposing yourself to counter melee　using this?

Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?

You don't. You consolidate closer to the enemy, but by doing so you change the way engagement range is defined. You fight at 1.9", end your consolidation move at 1.7", and now because the line between models no longer crosses the terrain engagement range drops back down to 1".

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?

Thanks to the new errata you can consolidiate so that the engagement range goes from 2" to 1". So when you are 1.9" from enemy and then engagement range goes down to 1" what happens? You aren't engaged anymore...

It would work better if there wasnt' consolidiate move but thanks to that you can manipulate the engagement range itself before opponent gets to activate.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
This isn't a case of just being out of range, it's a massive "nope" button available in almost every game due to the way GW's terrain rules work.

So charge from a different direction. Or bring some guns and kill a single model so there's a space to move into engagement range. We already have a massive "nope" button to shooting when ever piece of terrain on the table blocks LOS even when you can see the models through it, why is it a problem that a unit can be difficult to charge?.

It's mainly about verisimilitude. Having terrain block LoS fits with how we imagine real life would work. Having units be magically unchargeable because they're a very specific distance from the edge of a ruin wall is not how we imagine real life to work.

This specific trick has been in use for a very long time and the counters you're calling out rarely work. This is probably partially down to the prevalent style of terrain at many stores and tournaments. That said, in practical terms, your solutions often simply don't work for other reasons. It's very easy to string out your units in such a way that charging from a different direction isn't possible because you've effectively blocked the entire approach using relatively few models. It's not difficult to do, and that ease of setting up this particular trick is likely one of the reasons the rule was changed. It's not like you have to block out a full 360-degree circle around your units, since 40k battles tend to have armies line up and face each other, making approach angles highly predictable. Similarly, shooting stuff only works if you actually have LoS and you often need to be able to remove a significant portion of the unit to free up the space to charge because by the time you're shooting the opponent knows which models they can remove while still maintaining this blockade.

All your solutions have already been tried. This has been a known problem for a while. It's not like this is some new thing that GW are making a kneejerk reaction to. You can argue all the other solutions you want, but we have the proof of literally years of examples of this being problematic.

Slipspace wrote:
It's mainly about verisimilitude. Having terrain block LoS fits with how we imagine real life would work. Having units be magically unchargeable because they're a very specific distance from the edge of a ruin wall is not how we imagine real life to work.

But this problem only happened in the first place because of a lack of verisimilitude in the breachable keyword. If we had terrain work like it does in real life then the charging unit couldn't charge at all, regardless of the exact position of the models on the other side. You can't charge through a solid wall, and you certainly can't get through the wall without slowing down. But apparently in 40k walls are all holographic projections that block line of sight without having any physical presence.

If you want an easy fix to keep verisimilitude get rid of the breachable keyword and clearly define the obscuring and impassible part of ruins to be only the wall elements (with the base, if any, only giving the +1 save bonus).

It's very easy to string out your units in such a way that charging from a different direction isn't possible because you've effectively blocked the entire approach using relatively few models.

If they block the approach from a different direction you charge and kill the blocking models. Blocking with suicide screens is part of the normal game, should charging units be able to bypass them in other situations?

since 40k battles tend to have armies line up and face each other

So don't do this? Use deep strike, outflanking, fast units, etc. "Line up and roll dice" should result in losing a lot of games.

Same thing with shooting. Get into position to get LOS, don't just set up your gunline and expect to do anything useful with it.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Spoiler:

Slipspace wrote:
It's mainly about verisimilitude. Having terrain block LoS fits with how we imagine real life would work. Having units be magically unchargeable because they're a very specific distance from the edge of a ruin wall is not how we imagine real life to work.

But this problem only happened in the first place because of a lack of verisimilitude in the breachable keyword. If we had terrain work like it does in real life then the charging unit couldn't charge at all, regardless of the exact position of the models on the other side. You can't charge through a solid wall, and you certainly can't get through the wall without slowing down. But apparently in 40k walls are all holographic projections that block line of sight without having any physical presence.

If you want an easy fix to keep verisimilitude get rid of the breachable keyword and clearly define the obscuring and impassible part of ruins to be only the wall elements (with the base, if any, only giving the +1 save bonus).

It's very easy to string out your units in such a way that charging from a different direction isn't possible because you've effectively blocked the entire approach using relatively few models.

If they block the approach from a different direction you charge and kill the blocking models. Blocking with suicide screens is part of the normal game, should charging units be able to bypass them in other situations?

since 40k battles tend to have armies line up and face each other

So don't do this? Use deep strike, outflanking, fast units, etc. "Line up and roll dice" should result in losing a lot of games.

Same thing with shooting. Get into position to get LOS, don't just set up your gunline and expect to do anything useful with it.

Slipspace wrote:
You can set them up in such a way that the unit itself is doing the blocking and is not chargeable. This is because many ruins are 2 or 3-sided and you can just spread out 1.1" inside the walls, which can add enough distance to a charge to make it literally impossible, or at least virtually impossible.

How exactly does that work? A unit can be more difficult to charge but it can't be impossible. You can always charge from the open side of the ruin, which means there is always a finite movement + charge distance required to get into engagement range. It may be more than you want it to be but it's not impossible.

And people really need to stop using 3-4 sided ruins. They were a stupid concept in 7th when you have invulnerable units inside of sealed boxes and they're a stupid concept in 9th. Solid walls should never be more than two sides.

Using Deep Strike, outflank and fast units is the sort of thing that sounds like a good idea, but - once again - you quickly realise isn't that practical in actual games. Deep Strike is really easy to screen out, and is something any competent player will do as a matter of course. Fast units often can't assault into ruins due to their unit type, so they're not much use here. Outflanking often puts you too far away from the units using this trick for most of the same reasons Deep Strike doesn't work.

It sure sounds like you're dismissing these options for counters because they aren't straightforward "spend 2 CP to kill the target unit" win buttons. If your opponent screens out your deep strike threats you kill the screens before bringing them in. If fast units can't assault into ruins you use them to shoot a hole in the unit and open up a spot to charge into. Etc. Or, TBH, you ignore the unit hiding in the ruin and go win the game elsewhere while it sits there being useless.

Have you actually played a game against someone using this tactic effectively?

Yes. Hitting them from the other side of the ruin works, and if you have any indirect fire you can clear spots to get into engagement range.

The presence of other things that may also feel equally unrealistic doesn't give this tactic a free pass.

It does when the only reason it exists at all is a lack of realism, and the current solution makes the realism problem even worse.

nevermind, please delete

Tyel wrote:
https://www.goonhammer.com/ruleshammer-the-charge-phase/#Charging_Through_Walls

If you look at the 3 figures - GW are trying to solve the issues of figure 2. Because in rules, its a bit weird that you can charge through breachable walls - and fight through breachable walls - but if your opponent keeps back sufficiently far that you can't get into engagement range, but also leaves insufficient space that you can't place a model, then you can't. Its not an intended mechanic.

But their solution causes loads of presumably unintended interactions and is therefore considerably worse.

The answer is probably something like "use your imagination". If you make a successful charge roll (or heroic intervention etc) to get through the terrain and into engagement range, but can't place the model, mark up where you'd have got to, resolve the combat, then place the models as close as you are able to where they should be. If the defenders survive, place the charging unit on the other side of the wall, this represents them being pushed back. If the defenders are cleared sufficiently, it should now be possible to place attacking models on the other side of the wall.

Doing the dangerous thing and replying before I finish reading the rest of the posts heh.

I REALLY like your solution. It's fluffy AND it solves the problem. (To be fair, I'm also okay with making the attacking squad walk it's way to somewhere it can charge through...less fluffy, but tactically very interesting. I suppose you could say the squad is reinforcing the walls or some such silliness)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now that I've caught up with the rest of the posts, I'll also add:

First off, not a tourney player and almost certainly never will be. I'm one of those filthy casuals (and a TTS-only filthy casual at that lol)

Maybe there should be more doors on 40k terrain.

In my mind, buildings should make it difficult to dig units out. In such a rules set, you'd generally want to keep these kind of buildings to a minimum (two, or maybe just one for a king of the hill style setup). Adding more would be an interesting tool to change the style of play. A map with a ton of buildings (e.g., a city fight) should be a slog of digging units out of the hidey holes.

The idea of a squad holed up in a building defending all the approaches and forcing the enemy to attack via a choke point (e.g. a door way) seems flavorful and makes holding the building tactically flavorful.

Obviously, the entrenched unit shouldn't be invincible, hence buildings should have no more than two intact walls for this purpose. Essentially, holding the building means the opponent has to either charge through the doorway (where they might only get a couple models in range to melee) or slogging it around to the open side of the building, which might cost them a turn.

But like I said before,Tyel's solution seems like a good one in that it keeps the changes to a minimum and fixes the problem effectively.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?

You don't. You consolidate closer to the enemy, but by doing so you change the way engagement range is defined. You fight at 1.9", end your consolidation move at 1.7", and now because the line between models no longer crosses the terrain engagement range drops back down to 1".

Must just be me, but I’m finding it hard to visualize a circumstance when this can actually happen. Theory is fine, but on the table?

 alextroy wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?

You don't. You consolidate closer to the enemy, but by doing so you change the way engagement range is defined. You fight at 1.9", end your consolidation move at 1.7", and now because the line between models no longer crosses the terrain engagement range drops back down to 1".

Must just be me, but I’m finding it hard to visualize a circumstance when this can actually happen. Theory is fine, but on the table?

Imagine a unit just on the edge of the ruin, 1.9" from an enemy outside the ruin that they just charged. According to the new rule that unit can attack. After it attacks it can then consolidate towards the enemy and move so the front edge of its bases are all outside the terrain at, say, 1.7" away. As the shortest distance between the two units no longer goes through the ruin, engagement range is now 1" and the targeted unit cannot attack back.

 jeff white wrote:

 oni wrote:
Movement and positioning is supposed to be important; right?

I really do not see why it was an issue, but if that's not what the designers intended then the change is perfectly fine.

On topic... There is nothing positive about community rules. They fragment play groups and promote cliques. The last thing I want anyone telling me is "This is how we play it here." The rules are the rules whether you agree with them or not.

Yes, agreed. Move and positioning should matter, very much.

But… community rules? Some communities are bigger than others and it already happens. So…

Wow, but… no.

Let's say, by chance, you and I meet at a convention at an open table for a game of W40K. Who's community rules do we use? Yours? Mine? Do we ask what the locals do? Or do we simply play by the games rules; GW's rules?

There is only one reasonable answer and that is to play by the games rules; GW's rules.

So why then should anyone play using 'community rules'? Seems a lot like being told "conform to the group think or be excluded".

Slipspace wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?

You don't. You consolidate closer to the enemy, but by doing so you change the way engagement range is defined. You fight at 1.9", end your consolidation move at 1.7", and now because the line between models no longer crosses the terrain engagement range drops back down to 1".

Must just be me, but I’m finding it hard to visualize a circumstance when this can actually happen. Theory is fine, but on the table?

Imagine a unit just on the edge of the ruin, 1.9" from an enemy outside the ruin that they just charged. According to the new rule that unit can attack. After it attacks it can then consolidate towards the enemy and move so the front edge of its bases are all outside the terrain at, say, 1.7" away. As the shortest distance between the two units no longer goes through the ruin, engagement range is now 1" and the targeted unit cannot attack back.

Again, nice theory. Show me a magic terrain piece where this can actually happen for an entire unit.