Being "in" terrain

[javaman21011]

Ok so I am rereading the book on cover saves, paying particular attention to ruins (which my Living Artillery was utilizing + Malanthrope for tasty 2+ saves last game). Now, the terrain piece basically looked like this  where it was comprised of a couple of physical pieces, with gaps and a rather obvious boundary. At one point I had one of my warriors from the formation standing between the pieces, in one of the gaps, but still within the 'boundary' of the terrain. My opponent (a bike spammer) argued that the warrior was on open ground because he wasn't "in" the terrain nor was he obscured by anything. I said "ok fine" and didn't want to argue anymore since I wanted to have fun. I am later reading the rule book at it clearly says "Models in ruins receive 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured". So then my question becomes, what is the definition of "in" terrain? Does the terrain piece need to be one solid mass? Can you discuss the terrain beforehand? What if your opponent is being a douche canoe and says any model touching the table is in open ground regardless?

I guess I am looking for a general consensus on what ruins are or what "in ruins" means, and how to discuss this politely with an opponent who has melta, 24" deploying moves and 3+ Jink >.< I needs all the cover shenanigans I can get against that.

[gigasnail]

the pic you sent has 4 separate pieces of terrain in it. there are 4 marines pictured. the marine all the way to the right is in terrain, as in, his base is on the terrain. the marine all the way to the left is in terrain for the same reason: his base is on the terrain. the marine at the top is not in terrain, but is obscured from our point of view, and would get a cover save for being obscured even if he's not in the terrain.

the marine in the middle is not in terrain in any way, nor is he obscured from our POV, and would not get a cover save.

does that help?

[coredump]

I don't see a pic....


"In" means being on any part of the base. If the ruins have no base, it is a bit trickier, I would say within the boundary of the pieces that exist.

[forteh]

The image was linked to text



Depending on the situation, size and layout of the ruins I would consider the 'base' of the footprint to confer a cover save. For single standing corners and walls you would need to be obscured or on the base to gain the save. I work this out as representing the fallen structure of the building.

Obviously I confirm with the opponent beforehand abd come to an agreement

[coredump]

Because there is no base....The 7E rules would not count the middle guy as 'in' the terrain, (but he may count as 'in cover behind' if obscured 25%). In previous editions, they 4 corners would dictate the 'ruins'.... and I still prefer to play that way. It seems silly to treat ruins so very differently just because one has a base and one doesn't. But... that would require a discussion before hand, otherwise they are considered 4 different, unrelated, pieces of terrain.

[beefythepug]

Yeah 7E terrain/cover rules don't necessarily play nice with GW terrain scenery. For this reason we've started playing by putting most 'L' Shaped buildings/walls on bases. You can pick the size, but it creates a clear line for what is in/not in cover. Forests don't have this problem since they are a solid base. As coredump mentioned you can just agree on whats 'in bounds' beforehand too, but my brother and I tend to argue so bases are better to prevent bad blood after the game.

I find the new rule actually makes shooting phase go faster and removes a lot of the scenarios where previously I was having to choose to focus fire or not.

Now essentially boils down to 2 steps:
How many of your terrain camping models can my unit see? Count any 99% obscured to completely visible. ok great I'm gonna shoot them.
Now take your cover saves as provided per terrain/modifiers/venoms.

[javaman21011]

Ahh now I understand his reasoning. So then that means it's better to play with larger pieces of terrain and/or construct some sort of cardboard base for the smaller ruins so that I can better illustrate what I want my side of the board to look like? I was just annoyed that he wanted to count the warrior (who was placed similar to the middle marine in that pic) and being neither obscurred nor "in" the terrain. It made sense in my mind that the pieces I set out formed a loose circle so anything inside the circle was "in" terrain.

I guess in the future I will have to keep a look out for large pieces of terrain that can fit all of Living Artillery and provide unequivocal cover saves!

[javaman21011]

Aug 28, 2014 17:03:40 GMT forteh said:

The image was linked to text



Depending on the situation, size and layout of the ruins I would consider the 'base' of the footprint to confer a cover save. For single standing corners and walls you would need to be obscured or on the base to gain the save. I work this out as representing the fallen structure of the building.

Obviously I confirm with the opponent beforehand abd come to an agreement

Thanks for the pic insert! 

On a side note... I ran into a weird Assault with the bike guy when he attacked my Exocrine. Basically picture the Exocrine as on the terrain piece, but behind a short wall section, like the marine in the right hand side of that image. Now the bike guy forced all his models to be within 1" but requiring some of them to "pop a wheelie" and put their front tire ON the wall, is that legal? I thought units/models had to attempt to get into base contact for an assault and maintain a mostly horizontal footing. The damned thing was nearly 45 degrees in the air propped up against the wall. Another contentious issue was that he claimed the bike behind that one was in combat, saying that any model within 2" of another model in b2b contact was essentially in the same assault. But the bikes are quite long and it didn't make sense that the guy in the rear would be able to reach across his buddy in front to pelt my Exocrine.

[coredump]

40K is a mix of precision and abstraction. You can only see the things you can precisely see, but you can walk through walls without a problem.

The bikes needed to have enough movement on the charge to reach the exocrine; not sure what you mean about "within 1" ". (They also take dangerous terrain tests going through difficult terrain) But assuming he rolled high enough for the bike to reach the exocrine, the wall is not a hindrance; if he needs to balance it weirdly, that is okay.

If the bike model is in base contact, then any other bike within 2" of that bike is also engaged. (Don't forget, he gets to charge, and then Pile In before determining who is engaged) Again, this is part of the abstraction, its not like models really run forward and then stop and each make an attack... they are constantly moving about and fighting. Sure the bike was farther away, but it also moves faster.... but its also bigger and clumsier... who knows... but those are the rules.

[Jabberwocky]

Realistically a biker isn't going to ram head first into an MC and start trying to punch over his handlebars. He's gonna be doing drive by shootings and taking pistol pot shots at it's head. Those are the kinds of things the 2" engagement are supposed to represent.

[Kwodd]

Need to base that.

[javaman21011]

Yea the store I go to surprised me last night when a lot of the ruins became based. They used cardboard or something and just glued the walls onto it.

[gigasnail]

those work a lot better. more meaty terrain makes for a more interesting game for everyone.

[Kwodd]

And more winny games for us.

[javaman21011]

Aug 30, 2014 1:56:37 GMT gigasnail said:

those work a lot better. more meaty terrain makes for a more interesting game for everyone.

I agree, it's annoying when some armies can just buy better movement, jink, armor and invuln saves, and then argue with US on what's good cover or not. Good cover is about the last thing keeping us relevant imo; that AND some kick ass hive tyrants .