Random stuff Coredump finds interesting (20)

[coredump]

Because the phrase "treat the base as are terrain" is applicable to ALL area terrain.

Yes, all area terrain has a base. That does *not* mean that all bases are area terrain.
I can put a base on a bastion, that does not make the base, nor the bastion area terrain. Same for Aegis line, same for rocks, or anything else.

There is *no rule* that says *only* area terrain can have bases. There is *no rule* that says all bases are area terrain.

The rules let you put a base on ruins. The rules then say to treat the *base* as area terrain. If really is that straight forward.

There's nothing in the area terrain section that outlines how to treat a piece of area terrain as the standard base outline with additional WYSIWYG pieces grafted on top of it. It's either all area terrain, or all WYSIWYG terrain.

yes, the basic rules for area terrain say nothing about that.
The basic rules for shooting say nothing about blast weapons.... yet they exist.
The book is designed to have basic rules, then advanced rules that change some things.

And again, can you please... please... provide an actual rule that states "It's either all area terrain, or all WYSIWYG terrain." If you can't, then it isn't a rule.
If I go to a racetrack, and see that all jockeys are short, still does not prove that there is a rule saying all jockeys have to be short.

Assume for a minute that my interpretation is correct, and then try to imagine what they could have said in the ruins section other than "treat the base as area terrain". They needed to phrase is that way because if they didn't the first question would have been, "Ok, so ruins are area terrain, but how do you assess the size and shape of the footprint?

This is easy. They would say "treat the entire model as area terrain." Tada! And the foot print is also easy, since it *has a base*.

But they didn't, they said 'if it has a base, treat the base as area terrain." They even put it in BOLD to emphasize you are treating the base as area terrain.

Remember, this come in the section Ruins With Bases.

Out of curiosity, if you played a game against someone where there was a forest feature with large rocks in it, and a model moved to stand on top of a rock, would you treat it as no longer being in the forest?

I don't get the connection. Are there specific rules in the book dealing with WYSIWYG rocks and applied bases?

To me, the bottom line is that there are no rules for multi-type terrain.

Ah, but there are rules for it. Right on p. 98. It says that ruins are WYSIWYG, and says to treat the *base* as area terrain.

Please provide an exact rule that is being broken by following what the rules say on p.98.

The one chink in my interpretation was the possibility that all area terrain had to be 5+, all the time

No, the 'chink' is that the rules very specifically say to treat the base as area terrain, and you keep trying to apply that to the entire ruins. *that* is the problem with your argument.

Area terrain is a class of terrain with different subtypes. So you can have,

Area terrain --> Forest --> Ironbark Forest

as well as

Area terrain --> Ruins

I am noticing a pattern. When I say something is a rule, I provide an actual rule. You keep saying things are rules, but can't show any rules to back them up. Can you show me where the above quote is in the rules?


Look, it isn't just me. This is pretty common knowledge now. Pick any decent sized 40K website. Lets go there and see what people think.

[killme304]

I've been pouring over the rules for ruins since I started reading this thread, and I'm with Coredump on this one.

They did go out of the way to put it in bold text so you can find it easier.

Also:
"All ruins are difficult terrain and provide a 4+ cover save."

[guns]

Jul 9, 2012 22:20:39 GMT coredump said:

Look, it isn't just me. This is pretty common knowledge now. Pick any decent sized 40K website. Lets go there and see what people think.

I'd certainly be interested in reading any discussions about this issue that you've encountered on other boards. Feel free to provide links.

[coredump]

Pick a board, I will gladly start a thread there...

I don't recall seeing any, and honestly I think that is because for most people it is pretty clear how it operates. But I don't mind starting a thread if you would like.

[guns]

Warseer or Dakkadakke, I guess.

I may be proven wrong, but my guess is that most people will have shared in my assumption (although they may ultimately agree with your interpretation once it's all laid out, as people in this thread do), being familiar as they are with 4+ area terrain in 5th edition and inclined to carry that trend into 6th instinctually.

Edit: And FWIW, once a wider audience has their say on it on one of the bigger boards I will play it according to the majority interpretation, regardless of my personal feelings.

[nurglitch]

I'm with Sturgeon where the majority are concerned. Nuts to them, go with what's right.

[Deathnid]

Coredump, everybody knows all jockeys are short.
just kidding (most are though). you are absolutely right, the actual ruins count as being in ruins; whilst in the ruins you receive a 4+ save. if you are out of the boundaries of the ruin but still on the base, too bad. you arn't in the ruins anymore you ar in "area terrain" (5+ cover) because you are still on the base of the ruins, but not in the ruins.

[coredump]

But it is more insidious than that. If you are in 2+ floor of the ruins, but not obscured by 25%, you don't get any coversave...

[guns]

So you gonna get a thread going elsewhere?

I reread the relevant sections today, trying to convince myself to see what you guys see, but it just won't click. I came away even more convinced about my position, in equal regards to RAW and RAI.

I have my first game of 6th lined up for the weekend, against an Imperial Guard army, and there's a 99% chance that my opponent will spend a lot of time hunkering in the upper levels of ruins. So obviously I'd like to get this rule right (or at least as right as the clunky rules and fallible human interpretations permit).

[coredump]

www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?346251-Ruins-bases-cover-saves&p=6317476#post6317476

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/461517.page#4514132


I tried to present without any bias, if you would like any wording changed, please let me know.

[guns]

Awesome, I will be paying close attention as both threads develop. Ironically, the first three posts across both threads claim every possible interpretation we've gone over (your version, my version, and the ol' unhelpful "just discuss it with your opponent"). ;D

But we'll see where the eventual weight of opinion comes down.

And there's absolutely no need to change any of the wording -- you presented it in a very unbiased and general way. Perhaps even too unbiased and general, since now you're going to have to deal with people answering you curtly or with what they think are self-explanatory rules snippets, assuming you just haven't probed the issue yourself.

I hope you will argue your side there as the discussions take off; the more people you convince the more I feel like I might be incorrect.

[coredump]

Heh.... I will chime in. But I want to give it a chance to develop.


edit: Yakface showed up and linked to a thread he wrote about this earlier. Now that I see it; that was one of my sources for figuring this out in the first place. (I was reading a lot of sources in the early going, and couldn't remember what I read where.)

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/458369.page

[gloomfang]

Here is anouther odd fact for you. Banshees need to make 3 sperte rolls to see what their init is when charging someone with a lash whip. One to see if the Unwieldy of their axe makes them init 1 and one to see if the lash whip makes them init 1.

[Space is pretty big]

Dude, guns I really don't get your argument at all man.

Then again the whole conversation was spread over like 4 pages of forum posts to that makes things awkward.

Can you give me sorta the synopsis version because I really just don't get what it is about Core's rule read you don't agree with.

[coredump]

Basically, he feels that once you put it on a base, the entrei ruins become part of that 'area terrain'. Same as a tree or rock or the lip of a crater. IOW, the ruins become just decorations of the area terrain.