how cover interacts with movement

[Madmonkeyman]

Ok guys hopefully some one can shed some light on how units interact with ruins in 8th as its really starting to confuse me.  The section on terrain in the rule book is very limited.

 

It says infantry can move through walls etc but doesn't mention that other units can't .  Can other units apart from infantry move onto the second floor or over walls as long as they don't end there movement on them?

 

Do you need to be on the same level in ruins to get into close combat as the top of a unit can easily be an inch away by being underneath a unit on the floor above or being a imperial knight etc standing next to a ruin.  

 

Not trying to find any sort of loop holes here.  I am just trying to understand how they work 

[Eddie Orlock]

Pg. 177 under the heading 'Moving' contains blanket prohibition against moving through terrain objects. The special permission for infantry is just that, special permission.

 

Other unit types can traverse over walls and what not as described in this same rule book reference barring specific prohibitions found in the terrain rules. e.g. the first rules paragraph under 'RUINS' on pg. 248 specifically bars non-flying vehicles, monsters, and bikes from the upper levels of ruins. Thus, a unit with neither traits, like Rough Riders can't walk through the walls, but can occupy upper layers.

 

There appears to be no special exemption for close combat ranges in the ruins rules, although there is one in the barricades rules. The 'tools of war' side bar on pg. 176 is fairly restrictive about measuring to and from only bases where available. In concert with the previously cited proscription on moving through objects it would appear possible to evade combat by taking up all the space. You may need to soften the enemy up with some shooting first to make a hole?

 

A more liberal interpretation of the 'Wobbley Model Syndrom' side bar on pg. 177 may allow you to claim your figures are clinging to the outsides of the assailed structure or taking up toe-holds on the extreme peripheries. As with any liberal interpretation of the rules you're best advised to hash it out with your opponents in a calm moment with the spirit of the game in mind, not during the heat of battle.

 

Curiously, the base measurement rules carry the implication that while your ruin astride model may start a charge phase nose to nose with a hostile knight she'd be required to drop down to the ground floor before attempting to bop it in the schnoze with a power fist to satisfy the <1" between bases requirement.

 

Finding out how the rules work is precisely what the OR forum is here for. We care not if the results of the discussions reveal loop holes or otherwise. Only that the logic is sound.

[MisterDutch]

This is an issue that bothers me very much (within the 40K hobby that is, I wouldn't claim to be seriously annoyed in life with a game) but the 40K ruleset has been, in my mind, notoriously bad at handling how multi-level ruins work, especially in relation to close combat. This is a sci-fi game set in a future world where we play battles on planets often littered with destroyed buildings. How can it be that there is no concensus on how battles in ruins are to be played? C'mon GW.

 

Since all distances are measured from the base of a model (p. 176, "Tools of War") and "Unless they can Fly, Vehicles, Monsters, Cavalry and Bikers can only be set up or end their move on the ground floor of ruins." (p.248/FAQ v. 1.0) does this mean that units standing on the 1st or higher floor of a ruin (assuming each floor measures 3" up) can never be charged by those mentioned units (even if such a unit, f.e. a monster or big vehicle, can be parked right next up to the building, with it's face/arms right next to the target unit)?

Also, when a unit occupies the 1st or higher floor of a ruin, how do charges against them work when there isn't enough place to put (some/all) of the charging models? Wobbly Model Syndrome implies that there must be at least some space for the models to be placed in a Wobbly fashion, but if the floor is simply not big enough to fit any enemy models, nothing could be placed. Are such units then immune to being charged?

 

Also, can objective markers be set up in higher levels of a ruin? If so, does that mean that a player can make objectives un-contestable by certain units that cannot reach them (such as bikers, monsters, vehicles...)

 

My gaming club has beautiful terrain, and a lot of it is multi-level ruins and some of them quite tall - it makes for gorgeous looking cities but opens up abuse. What it boils down to, is that I am forced to make agreements on multi level ruins with each opponent that I play every. single. time. I play a game. It's tedious, and sometimes opens up arguments I wish weren't necessary - like when I play some guy who WANTS to set up his snipers on top of the scyscraper conveniently placed in his deployment zone. I fear that it might reach a point where I'd be very hesitant to even use such terrain pieces at all, despite the fact that they look amazing. Just to avoid arguments. The game is about having fun, but starting each game with a request for debate on rules spoils the fun. I understand that if a person is difficult in this matter, it might be better not to play with them - but even the nicest persons can get stubborn in a discussion leading to hurt feelings without intent. It would be better if such debates weren't necessary to begin with. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by MisterDutch

[Feral_80]

Follow-up question: how do traversing obstacles and measuring distance interact?

 

Example: my infantry walks through a 1" tall and 1" wide barricade. Does it cost 3" to cross it? 1" for climbing up, 1" for traversing it, and 1" for climbing down?

 

I was 90% sure I read this somewhere in the FAQs, and I can recall an expression like 'all movement is three-dimensional', but it seems I cannot locate it anymore.

 

 

 

EDIT: found it, it is in the "stepping into a new edition" pdf.

 

We now have 3 different pdfs (faq, stepping into, and designers note) to take into account. We REALLY need to incorporate these into the rules pdf, and I hope GW does it for us. Otherwise, the new ruleset is already becoming a mess.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Feral_80

[Eddie Orlock]

... How can it be that there is no concensus on how battles in ruins are to be played? C'mon GW.

You don't truly need a global consensus, just one within your club. For the most part I find the rules pretty clear in their operation if occasionally slightly challenging to align with the mental narrative of the game.

Since all distances are measured from the base of a model ... does this mean that units standing on the 1st or higher floor of a ruin ... can never be charged by those mentioned units ...?

Essentially, yes. There is a slightly perverse exception for baseless models in the side bar that has you measure from a near point on the hull leaving us with the implication that a land raider could clip and ram a squad in such an elevated position with the top of its hull while a near by furioso would flail its tiny t-rex arms helplessly.

Also, when a unit occupies the 1st or higher floor of a ruin, how do charges against them work when there isn't enough place to put (some/all) of the charging models?

If you've space for any dudes you fit the dudes you can fit while the rest wait patiently on an adjacent floor and take advantage of the relaxation in vertical coherency afforded by the paragraph under the heading 'UNITS' on pg. 176

Wobbly Model Syndrome implies that there must be at least some space for the models to be placed in a Wobbly fashion, but if the floor is simply not big enough to fit any enemy models, nothing could be placed. Are such units then immune to being charged?

They could well be so immune, things like this have happened in the game in the past. To raise an example a friends collection though, he happens to own a couple units of genestealers. These blighters have the most marvelous claws with an extraordinary propensity to hook themselves on to things, the transport foam, each other, passing shirt sleeves, enemy models, trees, foliage, the table cloth. He has in the past used this trait to hang them off the exteriors of ruins he's assailed with them and found it to look quite cinematic. Given that I can imagine fanatical combatants taking such risks to get at their cowering foes I generally don't have much of a problem with it, even if the rules support is a bit thin.

Also, can objective markers be set up in higher levels of a ruin? If so, does that mean that a player can make objectives un-contestable by certain units that cannot reach them (such as bikers, monsters, vehicles...)

I don't see why you couldn't. There is conceptual precedent for this in prior editions of the game. I guess this is just another thing to factor in during army design and why you'll want some infantry to support you tanks when you're pushing into an urban environment. Hurray for combined arms.

My gaming club has beautiful terrain, and ...

... with such an intelligence advantage you've no good excuse to not bring forces capable of contending with it. With regard to negotiating in front of every single game I'd have to ask, just how dang big is your gaming group? My experience with these things is that a consensus is usually hashed out after the first half dozen games and people just get on with it. Of course this last paragraph is veering off topic fast. The OR forum is a place to codify and compare understandings of the rules, not a place to lament about the human condition and related challenges in negotiating.