Terrain rules schools of thought in 7th edition

[Guest]

Okay, so GW book has two sections for terrain rules, plus there are the Out Of Print area terrain rules.

 

So the three schools of thought:

 

As terrain rules are more or less up to the players at the start of the game, knowing your terminology can help expedite shared understanding of terrain.

 

GW standard terrain rules on page 108.

These are extrerely simple rules which are rarely understood. Terrain is as such:

 

Open ground (no movement penalties, no cover)

Difficult terrain (5+ cover for models concealed 25% by the terrain)

-ruins (4+ cover for models on the predesignated ruin, models not in the ruin default to the difficult terrain)

-dangerous terrain (as difficult terrain, but with danger)

Impassible terrain. (cannot enter, models must go around, as written, they do not provide cover)

 

Now, people often think of terrain as the entire based terrain. This is not in the rules anymore. A based piece of terrain is whatever the model is presently standing on. So a ruined building with a rubbled base is ruins for the building itself, but only difficult terrain for the rubbled base. Some even consider the sidewalk lip to be open ground.

 

A techmarine reinforcing a piece of terrain with +1 cover would apply to any cover on the entire piece of terrain, not to a specific cover save. So the ruin with the rubbled base has 3+ cover for those in the ruin itself and 4+ cover for those only concealed by the rubble.

 

It is notable that blast weapons no longer fire at multiple levels of buildings, as buildings no longer use the level system. Rules as written, hit are calculated by counting hits of visible models underneath a blast template via looking down from the blast template. This does mean that a model concealed from the "eyesight" of the blast template, cannot actually be hit by blast weapons.

 

GW named terrain on pages 109, 184-191.

These are specific terrain pieces which follow a preset system of rules which modifies or replaces the above. Each of these represents an actual GW kit or model bit.

 

OOP Area terrain rules

All terrain pieces follow the difficult terrain rules for movement. Saves are decided per terrain piece. (fortifications 3+, ruins/forests 4+, almost everything else is 5+, with things like thin fences or tall grass providing 6+.) Models touching terrain pieces have the predetermined cover save, as do models concealed at least 25% by the terrain which they are not in. Vehicles and MCs (and super heavies and GCs) require 25% concealment to obtain a cover save. Blast weapons must declare which level they target for terrain with multiple levels. Barrage blast weapons always hit the level their center dot lands on.

 

____________________

 

In all honesty, I think the OOP area terrain rules are by far the easiest to use. They require the least pre-game explaining. That said, they do allow an over abundance of good cover saves and are inflexible if a terrain piece has multiple cover types within. These rules don't work well with extremely large terrain pieces, or with tables which include pre-built terrain (like the realm of battle boards from GW)

 

 

[Guest]

Rather than derailing that other thread, It's on topic here.

Where in the GC rules does it say they get cover saves differently than MCs?

 

MCs get cover in the same way as infantry, for example, being in ruins or rubble only requires your model be partially standing on the terrain piece to get a 4+ cover save. The GC rules state that a GC is an MC but with the changes listed in that section. I do not see anything in that section that refers to cover saves.

 

As much as Reece, the guy who all but runs the ITC, complains about InControl's barbed heirodule with it's toe on some rubble and in a shrouded bubble getting 2+ cover saves. I'm very certain that if you could point him in the direction of the rules that say GCs don't get that he'd greatly appreciate it.

GC rules are the same as MCs.

 

Rubble as per the battlefield terrain rules on page 109 and ruins as per the ruin rules on page 108, require a model to be in the terrain. "In" is defined as "the model, or some part of it, is actually standing on the piece of scenery, whether it is obscured from view or not."

 

That said, terrain must still be defined by both players at the start of the game.

 

Defining rubble as only difficult terrain is specifically permissible as per the example types of difficult terrain. In this case, the model would require 25% concealment by the terrain to obtain a 5+ cover save.

 

This goes back to my original topic of terrain schools of thought. Rubble is the second group, while ruins are the first group.

 

It is notable that if playing with "area terrain" rules rather than any actual 7th rules, trying argue that MCs or GCs get cover becomes much more murky.

[VonVilkee]

Yep it is almost like GW tried to fix it and we ignored them :) stupid MC!

[Guest]

Yep it is almost like GW tried to fix it and we ignored them :) stupid MC!

I think GW started releasing those realm of battle "pre-terrained" tables, which created massive issues with the previous area terrain rules. The current rules are better for tables where terrain is built into the table.

 

I am considering to writing my own 40k rulebook for a much more simplified ruleset. I enjoy the complication of 40k, but there are certain rules which drain playing time, or are unreasonably complicated.

[galahad911]

How it again that the terrain types on 108 are cool to use, but the battlefield debris on 109 isn't? I don't see anything written on either of these pages that makes either of them more important than the other. To take a stance that there is literally no terrain types in the game aside from ruins and generic "difficult terrain" is silly at best. Can you show me some piece of text somewhere in this terrain section that says to ignore the entirety of page 109 for "reasons"?

[galahad911]

Rather than derailing that other thread, It's on topic here.

GC rules are the same as MCs.

 

Rubble as per the battlefield terrain rules on page 109 and ruins as per the ruin rules on page 108, require a model to be in the terrain. "In" is defined as "the model, or some part of it, is actually standing on the piece of scenery, whether it is obscured from view or not."

 

That said, terrain must still be defined by both players at the start of the game.

 

Defining rubble as only difficult terrain is specifically permissible as per the example types of difficult terrain. In this case, the model would require 25% concealment by the terrain to obtain a 5+ cover save.

 

This goes back to my original topic of terrain schools of thought. Rubble is the second group, while ruins are the first group.

 

It is notable that if playing with "area terrain" rules rather than any actual 7th rules, trying argue that MCs or GCs get cover becomes much more murky.

 

 

 

Again, how is it that you just ignore an entire page of rules on pg. 109?

[Guest]

How it again that the terrain types on 108 are cool to use, but the battlefield debris on 109 isn't? I don't see anything written on either of these pages that makes either of them more important than the other. To take a stance that there is literally no terrain types in the game aside from ruins and generic "difficult terrain" is silly at best. Can you show me some piece of text somewhere in this terrain section that says to ignore the entirety of page 109 for "reasons"?

All of it is "cool" to use.

 

The "schools of thought" relate to how I've noticed player using terrain rules in 7th.

 

As for defining terrain, that is up to both players prior to the start of the game, or up to the TO if playing an event which has a preference.

[galahad911]

Rather than derailing that other thread, It's on topic here.

GC rules are the same as MCs.

 

Rubble as per the battlefield terrain rules on page 109 and ruins as per the ruin rules on page 108, require a model to be in the terrain. "In" is defined as "the model, or some part of it, is actually standing on the piece of scenery, whether it is obscured from view or not."

 

That said, terrain must still be defined by both players at the start of the game.

 

Defining rubble as only difficult terrain is specifically permissible as per the example types of difficult terrain. In this case, the model would require 25% concealment by the terrain to obtain a 5+ cover save.

 

This goes back to my original topic of terrain schools of thought. Rubble is the second group, while ruins are the first group.

 

It is notable that if playing with "area terrain" rules rather than any actual 7th rules, trying argue that MCs or GCs get cover becomes much more murky.

 

In response to defining rubble as only difficult.... Why would you do that when they give you clearly written rules for rubble right there on the next page. Just last Wednesday you told me rubble doesn't do what it says it does on that page. You really seem to think that all of the stuff on 109 is somehow less valid than what's on 108 and I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

[Guest]

Again, how is it that you just ignore an entire page of rules on pg. 109?

When defining terrain, you see that pile of rubble and I delcare it to be difficult terrain. You agree. That is not rubble, just difficult terrain. Rubble is listed as one of the example types of difficult terrain. It is only rubble if declared as such. Like seeing a square and declaring it a rectangle.

 

If insisting that rubble is the rubble on page 109, are you also going to insist that models in a ruined "shrine of the aquila" are in that, or are they just in ruins?

[Guest]

Just last Wednesday you told me rubble doesn't do what it says it does on that page.

On that day, I was actually wrong. I looked it up later. Keep forgetting the online aliases, was going to say it to you on wednesday, if I remembered. It was 5+ cover in the edition prior (or maybe the one before that...). Mixed them up.

[galahad911]

When defining terrain, you see that pile of rubble and I delcare it to be difficult terrain. You agree. That is not rubble, just difficult terrain. Rubble is listed as one of the example types of difficult terrain. It is only rubble if declared as such. Like seeing a square and declaring it a rectangle.

 

If insisting that rubble is the rubble on page 109, are you also going to insist that models in a ruined "shrine of the aquila" are in that, or are they just in ruins?

 

There is no "shrine of the aquila" on page 109.

 

I just don't understand why you would elect to not use rules for rubble, but at the same time, use the rules for a crater and the rules for walls and barricades. Hell, there's no rules for an Aegis Defense Line giving cover saves without the defense line rules on pg.109.

[Guest]

The schools of thought is in regards to play styles.

 

Some players want terrain really simple, so they like the First group which has only a few types of terrain. Just ruins and difficult terrain.

 

The Second group is very abundant with terrain types, and requires lots of prior knowledge of the different terrain options. You say why can't we use the rubble on page 109? The answer is certainly that you can. But if you insist that difficult terrain is rubble, then should I insist that the column of impassible terrain is an Imperial Statuary? Is that crate in the ruin an ammo dump, or is it just a decoration on the ruin? Is the forest just difficult terrain or a twisted copse?

 

My point is that when you start adding the terrain types on page 109 and pages 184-191, the game gets a lot more complicated. How do you allow some, but not others?

 

As for why you wouldn't want to use all the terrain rules, answer would be balance and complication. Same reasons some players opt to not roll mysterious objectives at all.

 

EDIT: On a side note, the aegis defense line is bought terrain. I am exclusively talking about terrain that isn't bought. You can also purchase tank traps, tanglewire, and barricades/walls, but I'm talking about ones that are just on the table prior to deployment.

[pretre]

So confused...

[Guest]

Okay, example:

 

So I've got a SM army and am up against a tyranid player. Let's say we've got a table without GW specific terrain pieces. We have destroyed buildings with a few decorative statures, rocky flat areas, and trees.

 

Now the tyranid player is going to want to maximize his cover saves, so he'll insist on ruins and rubble and twisted copse because all of these really benefit the huge tyranid models.

 

I, the SM player, also picking terrain for advantage, would prefer to considered the ruins to be Shrines of the Aquilla, the rubble to be craters, and any statures built into terrain to be imperial statuaries.

 

Both of these are perfectly reasonable interpretations of the terrain. According to the BRB, on page 183, we have the rules for scratch built terrain (aka, non-GW terrain) which allow declaring of terrain as we want. They even allow terrain to include multiple terrain datasheets of effects.

 

So, question is, do we roll off for the terrain, since we disagree? Or do we just simplify the terrain to use only the most basic rules on page 108? Or do we ditch both and use the area terrain rules from last edition?

 

Hence the schools of thought regarding the current terrain rules.

[galahad911]

The schools of thought is in regards to play styles.

 

Some players want terrain really simple, so they like the First group which has only a few types of terrain. Just ruins and difficult terrain.

 

The Second group is very abundant with terrain types, and requires lots of prior knowledge of the different terrain options. You say why can't we use the rubble on page 109? The answer is certainly that you can. But if you insist that difficult terrain is rubble, then should I insist that the column of impassible terrain is an Imperial Statuary? Is that crate in the ruin an ammo dump, or is it just a decoration on the ruin? Is the forest just difficult terrain or a twisted copse?

 

My point is that when you start adding the terrain types on page 109 and pages 184-191, the game gets a lot more complicated. How do you allow some, but not others?

 

As for why you wouldn't want to use all the terrain rules, answer would be balance and complication. Same reasons some players opt to not roll mysterious objectives at all.

 

EDIT: On a side note, the aegis defense line is bought terrain. I am exclusively talking about terrain that isn't bought. You can also purchase tank traps, tanglewire, and barricades/walls, but I'm talking about ones that are just on the table prior to deployment.

 

 

I should've known better than to say anything about this here.

 

There is no schools of thought on terrain outside of your own mind. I don't think I've ever had any real disagreement on terrain pregame other than the 2 times I've played you. People outside of a tournament aren't, generally, going to be so worried about winning that they're going to argue that terrain should be something based solely on their own advantage. And any event you go to, it's either going to be predefined or you can have a judge tell you what is what if you simply cannot agree.

[pretre]

I don't think I've ever seen someone declare a datasheet unless it was the actual model. Rubble, barricades, etc from 109? All te time.

[Guest]

I don't think I've ever seen someone declare a datasheet unless it was the actual model. Rubble, barricades, etc from 109? All te time.

How about an Imperial Statuary. Also page 109. Are those kosher?

 

Also, what rules do you use for trees?

[Guest]

There is no schools of thought on terrain outside of your own mind. I don't think I've ever had any real disagreement on terrain pregame other than the 2 times I've played you. People outside of a tournament aren't, generally, going to be so worried about winning that they're going to argue that terrain should be something based solely on their own advantage. And any event you go to, it's either going to be predefined or you can have a judge tell you what is what if you simply cannot agree.

You know I really don't care about winning. I do care about having fun, which for me, requires clear definitions of terrain pieces and consistent following of terrain rules.

[pretre]

Everyone else seems to have a different clear understanding than you though.

[Guest]

There is no schools of thought on terrain outside of your own mind.

 

The "schools of thought" relate to how I've noticed player using terrain rules in 7th.

 

I thought I made it pretty clear that they are in my mind, and by extension, posted on this thread.

[Guest]

Everyone else seems to have a different clear understanding than you though.

I've noticed. Though that clear understanding doesn't seem to be in the rule book. It's like pulling teeth to get clear and concise rules regarding the terrain we're using in game.

 

You try it, define the following types as per how you'd use them in game:

 

Trees

 

Rocky ground with debre

 

Broken buildings (with and without bases)

 

Statues

 

Hills

 

Minefields or otherwise questionably safe terrain, but passable terrain

 

And models behind the above, but not in, with 25% concealment

[pretre]

I'd check the rulebook if there was a question and define it as one of the ones clearly listed.

[Guest]

I'd check the rulebook if there was a question and define it as one of the ones clearly listed.

So, go ahead. Define them as you'd do in game.

[pretre]

I don't have my book in front of me.

[pretre]

My snap is:

Difficult

Difficult

Ruins/difficult depending on model

Los blocker

Los blocker (ie open ground)