Guest Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 If I have no visible targets, but my weapon doesn't require visable targets, and a CHARACTER is in range, can I target it? Does it really matter if a non-visible enemy unit is in between the targeted character and the shooter? No preference here. Was just thinking about rules and now I'm wondering if I should to ensure that my intervening units are very tall when the enemy shoots with indirect weapons... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 Doesn't change a thing. If there is another Unit* that's closer, the Character cannot be chosen as a Target. *Non-Character Unit, if using the beta-test Rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPaceORK Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 Yup, in order to target a character, it has to be the closest model. Only thing that gets around that is the sniper rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 Just now, paxmiles said: Thanks. Pax you playing in the winter league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 No plans. I don't like the ruin rules, which you know, so I kinda figured that you posting a mandatory requirements of ruins was a subtle hint that you didn't want me in the league. No feelings hurt, I liked how subtle it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, paxmiles said: No plans. I don't like the ruin rules, which you know, so I kinda figured that you posting a mandatory requirements of ruins was a subtle hint that you didn't want me in the league. No feelings hurt, I liked how subtle it was. Oh no! I’m just using what ITC uses. Ofcourse I want you in league lol. The ruins rules are an attempt to block LOS for armies. Helps make not getting turn 1 less of a blow. I understand your not in favor of it, but it is was is liked by most other players. But please don’t take that as not wanting you in league!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, happycamper said: Oh no! I’m just using what ITC uses. Ofcourse I want you in league lol. The ruins rules are an attempt to block LOS for armies. Helps make not getting turn 1 less of a blow. I understand your not in favor of it, but it is was is liked by most other players. But please don’t take that as not wanting you in league!! Go figure. I'll have to think about it. Still really don't like those ruin rules. Main issue is that they are basically impassible terrain for all non-infantry models, which I think really limits the game in a bad way. Don't mind having a few pieces of impassible, but having most of the table impassible really nerfs non-shooty armies in an unfair way - not an issue if was just the rare game like this, but every game would really limit the options for a non-shooty army that isn't entirely flyers or infantry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 37 minutes ago, paxmiles said: Go figure. I'll have to think about it. Still really don't like those ruin rules. Main issue is that they are basically impassible terrain for all non-infantry models, which I think really limits the game in a bad way. Don't mind having a few pieces of impassible, but having most of the table impassible really nerfs non-shooty armies in an unfair way - not an issue if was just the rare game like this, but every game would really limit the options for a non-shooty army that isn't entirely flyers or infantry. 6 pieces of terrain is pretty standard. And no where is rules does it say it has to be impassible. It’s just ruins. also fail to see how having LoS blockage would be bad for an assault army. As someone who is running a gun line, I would love nothing more than an open field lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 20 minutes ago, happycamper said: 6 pieces of terrain is pretty standard. And no where is rules does it say it has to be impassible. It’s just ruins. also fail to see how having LoS blockage would be bad for an assault army. As someone who is running a gun line, I would love nothing more than an open field lol. Well, not quite impassible, you just are required to measure verticle distance up and down in order to move "through" ruins if you are not INFANTRY or FLY, and you can't end your move anywhere but "ground" level. So with a lot of terrain a WOW and otherwise, the ruin lacks a ground level to stand on, so it requires about 9" of movement minimum to get past the terrain feature and makes it impossible to charge units on the upper levels if assaulting units aren't really tall and the assaulted unit isn't providing any space for them to be on top of the ruin with them. So effectively impassible, but not quite. So if I give up my shooting phase to advance, a Hellbrute can traverse over a ruin with lucky rolling....and I can't can't charge after advancing, so it it's hugely detrimental for an assault army which is not entirely INFANTRY or units with FLY. If looking for game balance, a requirement for LoS blocking terrain is entirely reasonable, but requirement to use the Ruin rules as written is rather unbalancing for certain armies. I suggest ignoring the "Advance rules" regaring ruins entirely, and just treat them as a genaric terrain feature which grants +1 cover to anything on it. They'd still block line of sight as per the model. So much easier and more balanced. Personal suggestion is about 2 or 3 big pieces of LoS block terrain in no-man's land. If players want LoS blocking stuff in their deployment, they can take a Fortification detachment (that's what it's for). Though regarding gunlines, I think ruins are particularly favorable for AM. The abundant cover for infantry boosts the defense for stationary units and provides vantage points, while the LoS blocks direct fire on your fragile indirect weapons. Although an open field would have it's own advantages and disadvantages, it is not worse for AM gunlines than ruins in 8e. Try a few games where instead of camping, you actually move to the enemy at point blank to engage. You'll see the issues, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 29 minutes ago, paxmiles said: Well, not quite impassible, you just are required to measure verticle distance up and down in order to move "through" ruins if you are not INFANTRY or FLY, and you can't end your move anywhere but "ground" level. So with a lot of terrain a WOW and otherwise, the ruin lacks a ground level to stand on, so it requires about 9" of movement minimum to get past the terrain feature and makes it impossible to charge units on the upper levels if assaulting units aren't really tall and the assaulted unit isn't providing any space for them to be on top of the ruin with them. So effectively impassible, but not quite. So if I give up my shooting phase to advance, a Hellbrute can traverse over a ruin with lucky rolling....and I can't can't charge after advancing, so it it's hugely detrimental for an assault army which is not entirely INFANTRY or units with FLY. If looking for game balance, a requirement for LoS blocking terrain is entirely reasonable, but requirement to use the Ruin rules as written is rather unbalancing for certain armies. I suggest ignoring the "Advance rules" regaring ruins entirely, and just treat them as a genaric terrain feature which grants +1 cover to anything on it. They'd still block line of sight as per the model. So much easier and more balanced. Personal suggestion is about 2 or 3 big pieces of LoS block terrain in no-man's land. If players want LoS blocking stuff in their deployment, they can take a Fortification detachment (that's what it's for). Though regarding gunlines, I think ruins are particularly favorable for AM. The abundant cover for infantry boosts the defense for stationary units and provides vantage points, while the LoS blocks direct fire on your fragile indirect weapons. Although an open field would have it's own advantages and disadvantages, it is not worse for AM gunlines than ruins in 8e. Try a few games where instead of camping, you actually move to the enemy at point blank to engage. You'll see the issues, then. For the record I have play about 20-25 games of 8th across AM, BA, and Primaris Sallys. Never once have I ran into an issue as you are describing. (Not saying it’s invalid but rather rare). Most assault units you are either transporting or deep striking with. If your walking then across the board your doing it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter.cosgrove Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 We changed the rule to be "counts as" scratch built terrain giving eligibility for a cover save instead of ruins. The key remains to communicate before the game. If the terrain model is obviously ruins then the ruins rule applies, otherwise, if it doesn't look like ruins then it's scratch built terrain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter.cosgrove Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 Understrength Units as defined in the main rulebook on Pg.242 may only be included within Auxiliary Support Detachments (Pg.245). Scratch Built Terrain: For this event there will be a minimum amount of terrain required on the field. At least 6 large scratch built terrain models giving eligibility for a cover save bonus need to be placed on field. First Turn: When both players finish deploying, they roll off. The player that finished deploying first gains a +1 to this roll. The winner of this roll gets to choose if they will go first or second. If the winner of this roll off decides to go first, the other player may attempt to seize the initiative, and on a roll of a 6+ they go first instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPaceORK Posted December 31, 2017 Report Share Posted December 31, 2017 I've played a bunch of games of 8th and have no problem with the ITC terrain rules. But I guess it could be if your playing nothing but dreds or daemon engines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2017 Report Share Posted December 31, 2017 15 hours ago, SPaceORK said: I've played a bunch of games of 8th and have no problem with the ITC terrain rules. But I guess it could be if your playing nothing but dreds or daemon engines? It probably could be avoided if my list were more ruins-compatible. But that's not a solution, more an avoidance of the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted December 31, 2017 Report Share Posted December 31, 2017 26 minutes ago, paxmiles said: It probably could be avoided if my list were more ruins-compatible. But that's not a solution, more an avoidance of the problem. Well technically no, rather than adjust to the standard rules of the game, you want the game to adjust to you 😝 no hate just pointing out 😜 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 On December 31, 2017 at 12:06 PM, happycamper said: Well technically no, rather than adjust to the standard rules of the game, you want the game to adjust to you 😝 no hate just pointing out 😜 Well, there's no need to adjust the game's rules, but terrain selection doesn't have to include any ruins via the game rules. But if the League Organizer makes a special rule that insists on lots of ruins, then it's the League Organizer that's the source of the problem, not the game's rules. And as per the Game rules, use of the Ruins "advanced rules" is entirely optional. So, again, insisting we use a certain set of rules is League Organizer issue, not an issue I have with the game itself. And you could shift blame to terrain availibility, also. Given GW has several types of terrain, it is downright odd that ruins seem to be the most common type. If LoS blocking is all that's needed, a Hill should be the most common terrain type, since hills provide only LoS blockage. So there's no "standard rules of the game" that isn't being followed. Spamming ruins is not suggested in the game without the use of the City Fight rules, which have their own unique rules/stratagems to handle the overuse of ruin terrain features. But yeah, you could set up your own special rules to 40k and then demand that players adjust, but don't pretend that these aren't your own special rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapel Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 This isn't just the way people from the Portland area play, it's how we play in Eugene. Monsters, Vehicles, and Bikes simply go around ruins terrain, or use them for cover and then move around them for assault etc. My Carnifex just hit them like a speed bump and go around. So it's not really like these are out of line, super uncommon special rules. Only new interesting bit I see with the ITC, is they are classifying the lower level to block LOS entirely regardless if there are windows or cracks to see through. That isn't the way we have played, although I wouldn't mind seeing it implemented. Too often armies get shot to pieces 1st turn and it's game over by turn 2. By requiring 6 pieces of custom/LOS blocking terrain, I think the organizers are attempting to introduce a level of tactical movement being required to accomplish certain objectives. It'll bottle neck certain areas for ambush, and reduce firing lanes to promote movement instead of castling up in a corner and just blasting everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 2 hours ago, Chapel said: This isn't just the way people from the Portland area play, it's how we play in Eugene. Monsters, Vehicles, and Bikes simply go around ruins terrain, or use them for cover and then move around them for assault etc. My Carnifex just hit them like a speed bump and go around. So it's not really like these are out of line, super uncommon special rules. Only new interesting bit I see with the ITC, is they are classifying the lower level to block LOS entirely regardless if there are windows or cracks to see through. That isn't the way we have played, although I wouldn't mind seeing it implemented. Too often armies get shot to pieces 1st turn and it's game over by turn 2. By requiring 6 pieces of custom/LOS blocking terrain, I think the organizers are attempting to introduce a level of tactical movement being required to accomplish certain objectives. It'll bottle neck certain areas for ambush, and reduce firing lanes to promote movement instead of castling up in a corner and just blasting everything. I didn't mean to suggest that Happy is using ruins in an unusual way. Just that the requirement for ruins within his event is a rule that he is imposing, and not, as he was suggesting, an issue of me wanting the game to adjust to my whims. He was suggesting that my army not being ruins-compatible was an issue of me not wanting to play by the rules of the Game, which is not the case. That's like telling players that play X army that if they want to win they should sell their X army and by Y army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 20 minutes ago, paxmiles said: I didn't mean to suggest that Happy is using ruins in an unusual way. Just that the requirement for ruins within his event is a rule that he is imposing, and not, as he was suggesting, an issue of me wanting the game to adjust to my whims. He was suggesting that my army not being ruins-compatible was an issue of me not wanting to play by the rules of the Game, which is not the case. That's like telling players that play X army that if they want to win they should sell their X army and by Y army. I’m not suggesting you change your army to “win” or be “WAC” merely stating that if you find something difficult, find a way to solve it. It’s not an unusual amount of terrain. I can’t think of a single game I’ve played that didn’t have atleast 6 counts as ruins. Wether I set it up or my opponent. I get what your trying to say man, I do. But in the end this is really only effective a very specify build of a list. 97% of lists won’t have an issue with it. any ways I’m glad you signed up to play man. I didn’t want you to think I was trying to single you out to not join. It was fun playing you and I would play you again any time 😎👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 1 hour ago, happycamper said: I’m not suggesting you change your army to “win” or be “WAC” merely stating that if you find something difficult, find a way to solve it. It’s not an unusual amount of terrain. I can’t think of a single game I’ve played that didn’t have atleast 6 counts as ruins. Wether I set it up or my opponent. I get what your trying to say man, I do. But in the end this is really only effective a very specify build of a list. 97% of lists won’t have an issue with it. any ways I’m glad you signed up to play man. I didn’t want you to think I was trying to single you out to not join. It was fun playing you and I would play you again any time 😎👍 Thanks for the clarity. And sorry I'm grumbling so much. Was thinking about how unreasonably angry I was getting and then started trying to remember my last meal....yeah, once again, I ate some food and the anger subsided. I hate how easily that one sneaks up on me. I think I mentioned it before, if I'm reacting too strongly to posts, chances are high that I haven't been eating lately. Not that it should be your job, but mentioning it to me is a decent idea. Really wish I could see my health bar... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 40 minutes ago, paxmiles said: Really wish I could see my health bar... Oh, man, that would be so handy. Especially if it also listed specific status effects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 57 minutes ago, paxmiles said: Thanks for the clarity. And sorry I'm grumbling so much. Was thinking about how unreasonably angry I was getting and then started trying to remember my last meal....yeah, once again, I ate some food and the anger subsided. I hate how easily that one sneaks up on me. I think I mentioned it before, if I'm reacting too strongly to posts, chances are high that I haven't been eating lately. Not that it should be your job, but mentioning it to me is a decent idea. Really wish I could see my health bar... So you need to include a unit of snicker bars in your lists then 😜 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 48 minutes ago, happycamper said: So you need to include a unit of snicker bars in your lists then 😜 It's more an issue online, or rather when I'm at home on the internet, since I tend to default to a fasting state when I'm not moving around much for long periods of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 7 minutes ago, paxmiles said: It's more an issue online, or rather when I'm at home on the internet, since I tend to default to a fasting state when I'm not moving around much for long periods of time. Keep a bowl of nuts, candy, whatever right next to your computer. And just casually snack, keep that blood sugar higher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.