Ruins?

[fluger]

 

 

In example, ruins have rather specific rules which players choose to ignore, instead using area terrain rules from prior editions. 

 

 

I'm confused as to what you're talking about here.  Can you elaborate?  

[Cortland]

I think in the rule book the entry for ruins take up a whoping 2 sentences

[WestRider]

He's brought up before things like the fact that, as written in the Ruins Rules themselves, they only provide a 4+ Cover Save to Models that are in the Ruins Terrain, not those that are outside the Terrain piece, but Obscured by it. The example, however, indicates strongly that the intention was for Obscurement by Ruins to provide 4+ Cover, regardless of whether or not the Target is actually in the Terrain piece. Or that it's common to house rule Blasts and Templates to interact with multi-level Ruins the same way they did in previous editions, rather than the current RAW, which has them hit all levels.

[fluger]

I was wondering if it's the levels thing, because that is a crazy change IMO. 

[Guest]

He's brought up before things like the fact that, as written in the Ruins Rules themselves, they only provide a 4+ Cover Save to Models that are in the Ruins Terrain, not those that are outside the Terrain piece, but Obscured by it. The example, however, indicates strongly that the intention was for Obscurement by Ruins to provide 4+ Cover, regardless of whether or not the Target is actually in the Terrain piece. Or that it's common to house rule Blasts and Templates to interact with multi-level Ruins the same way they did in previous editions, rather than the current RAW, which has them hit all levels.

The photo regarding ruins for vehicles is copied and pasted from the previous edition BRB and should be disregarded as it references rules not included. The pictured example for vehicles doesn't show if the vehicle is within a ruin or outside the ruin, as the distinction does matter with the current rules. A real poor editing job, or intentionally confusing...

 

As for the multi-level targeting, those are gone and were only present for an edition or two.

 

As for the BRB rules for blasts, technically the BRB says to look from above at models wholly or partially visible under the blast marker. This means that models completely concealed from above by, in example, a ceiling, cannot be hit by blast weapons. It's a ridiculous argument, but it is what the rules say.

[Guest]

I think in the rule book the entry for ruins take up a whoping 2 sentences

Yes and no.

 

Terrain rules are page 108.

 

We have the bold paragraph on the top left which defines being "in" vs being "in cover behind"

 

Then another 5 paragraphs regarding "difficult terrrain"

 

Ruins are defined as "difficult terrain" where models which are "in" the ruin receive a 4+ cover regardless of being 25% concealed or not.

 

So, there are closer to 6 or 7 paragraphs regarding ruins.

[Guest]

I will also note that 7th did away with "terrain pieces" as a term. Technically, the terrain is based on what the model is physically standing in, not what the entire terrain piece is classified as. This a good change, as it allows for terrain pieces with multiple types of terrain within the single piece. 

 

This goes back to ruins, as the ruin references the portions of the terrain not already defined (walls, ceilings, and floors), while rubble is defined as just difficult terrain - which is 5+ cover for models "in cover behind."

 

I believe the intention of this was to make the GW tables which come with terrain built into the table, to be better reflected by the rules. They were somewhat problematic in prior editions, to have the terrain not be a terrain piece of it's own.

[WestRider]

The photo regarding ruins for vehicles is copied and pasted from the previous edition BRB and should be disregarded as it references rules not included. The pictured example for vehicles doesn't show if the vehicle is within a ruin or outside the ruin, as the distinction does matter with the current rules. A real poor editing job, or intentionally confusing...

Or possibly GW failed to realize that they had actually changed how Ruins worked, and the picture was left in because it accurately represented their intention. 

As for the multi-level targeting, those are gone and were only present for an edition or two.

 Two and a half, they were introduced in Cities of Death halfway through 4th Ed. RT and 2nd Ed are kind of sketchy to count in either category, as a lot of their Rules were sloppy and incomplete, even by GW standards.

As for the BRB rules for blasts, technically the BRB says to look from above at models wholly or partially visible under the blast marker. This means that models completely concealed from above by, in example, a ceiling, cannot be hit by blast weapons. It's a ridiculous argument, but it is what the rules say.

And I don't dispute that that's the RAW. However, I do really wonder if that was GW's actual intention, or they just screwed up when they were trying to force all their Terrain into Datasheets that matched specific Terrain kits that they sell.

[Guest]

For a list of defined terrain types as per the BRB non-datasheet terrain examples:

 

Open Terrain (no save, no move penalty)

Dusty Plains

Rolling Hills

 

Difficult Terrain (5+ cover save for models "in cover behind")

Rubble

Woods

Ruins (notable exception for models "in" have a 4+ even if not 25% concealed)

Rocky Outcrops

Boggy Ground

Low Walls

Tanglewire

Barricades

Steep Hills

Streams

Shallow Water

 

Dangerous Terrain

(no examples given)

 

Impassable Terrain

(no examples given)

 

 

Or possibly GW failed to realize that they had actually changed how Ruins worked, and the picture was left in because it accurately represented their intention. 

 Two and a half, they were introduced in Cities of Death halfway through 4th Ed. RT and 2nd Ed are kind of sketchy to count in either category, as a lot of their Rules were sloppy and incomplete, even by GW standards.

And I don't dispute that that's the RAW. However, I do really wonder if that was GW's actual intention, or they just screwed up when they were trying to force all their Terrain into Datasheets that matched specific Terrain kits that they sell.

I don't count cities of death as it was an optional supplement, but yeah, the mutli-level terrain was in that too. Cities of death, though, suggested much more terrain than normal 40k supported, so limiting targeting by level made more sense.

 

It is entirely possible that GW didn't notice that their rules and pictures don't always match. I'm not really sure on the RAI in 40k, sometimes.

 

I think the point, this time around, was that a shorter, more condensed ruleset would create less need for FAQs, which would make them look better without actually having to put more effort in. I don't think they realized the confusion that the photo would create.

 

It is true that I've found less major rules issues in this edition than in prior ones. Most of the rules issues I encounter involve players using prior edition rules without realizing it.

[WestRider]

I think the point, this time around, was that a shorter, more condensed ruleset would create less need for FAQs, which would make them look better without actually having to put more effort in. I don't think they realized the confusion that the photo would create.

 

They need to get an order of magnitude more streamlined before they hit that point :P

 

 

 

It is entirely possible that GW didn't notice that their rules and pictures don't always match. I'm not really sure on the RAI in 40k, sometimes.

Given that they sometimes put out rules that contradict themselves, or do nothing whatsoever, it really wouldn't surprise me. I do know that at least once in the past (5th Ed Multiple Combats), they've errataed the rules to match the picture. But their current attitude seems to be much more "sort it out yourselves".

 

I would also note that playing Ruins and Blasts by RAW is a substantial buff for Blast Weapons compared to previous editions, but there are few, if any, Blasts that have gone up in Points Cost when 5th/6th Ed Dexes have been replaced by 7th Ed ones.

[Guest]

I would also note that playing Ruins and Blasts by RAW is a substantial buff for Blast Weapons compared to previous editions, but there are few, if any, Blasts that have gone up in Points Cost when 5th/6th Ed Dexes have been replaced by 7th Ed ones.

Depends if ruins are in play. RAW, models directly under the blast template, but entirely concealed from above via a ceiling or other overhang, cannot be hit by blast weapons. This is because, despite the note about being able to hit models outside the firers LOS, it says to check model visibility under the template from an above position. So if the ceiling blocks LOS from above, then the model cannot be hit by blast weapons, even if the firer has LOS.

 

Mind you, this one is so counter-intuitive it will likely create heated arguments and not result in an enjoyable game. RAW vs Fun....

[Guest]

Though as for points, I think your thinking of IG/Sisters. Marines have not increased costs on blast weapons from 5th, I don't think. We even gained frag grenades as a small blast (almost always a waste to throw). I think sisters/IG have increased their weapon upgrade costs to match the marine ones, where applicable. If anything, many of the Marine weapon/unit costs have gone down.

[WestRider]

The price increases you mention are from 6th Ed, before this change happened. I was referring to the 7th Ed books, from Orks on.