Terrain rules schools of thought in 7th edition

[Guest]

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

I can wait. I love the idea of consistent terrain rules that don't create complications. I have not found much in my games regarding consistent interpretations of the rules regarding cover saves. 

 

My opponents are consistently using rules not in the book regarding terrain. I can find the pages and show them, but I shouldn't need to do this every, or almost every, game.

 

 

My snap is:

Difficult

Difficult

Ruins/difficult depending on model

Los blocker

Los blocker (ie open ground)

And how are cover saves being allotted for these?

[pretre]

By the rules in the rulebook? I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to say.

[pretre]

You already quoted page 108...

[pretre]

Oh, I missed minefields. Those would be dangerous.

[Guest]

By the rules in the rulebook? I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to say.

It doesn't have to be you. Anyone can respond.

 

I'm curious what the dubbed, "Everyone else seems to have a different clear understanding," looks like.

 

I am not baiting you, I am genuinely curious. I would love to play games where the terrain rules are simple again. They have not been simple for me, of late. I have noticed that the terrain rules seem to be very simple in other people's heads, but they don't seem to be simply or consistently explained.

[pretre]

I think you're manufacturing a dispute.

 

I just haven't seen what you have. Of course, you play more than I do...

[pretre]

And the rules are really simple. You quoted mos of them on te first page. I really don't see the problem.

[Guest]

I just haven't seen what you have. Of course, you play more than I do...

Do I really?

 

I think you're manufacturing a dispute.

Perhaps with you, but the issue I face in-game with the above is very real. I consistently play against players which insist that rules are not as they appear in the BRB, especially with regard to terrain. I can find the page and show them and we might use the rule another way, but even there, I shouldn't need to explain these every game.

 

Here, for my opponents:

 

Trees

Twisted Copse or Difficult terrain.

 

Rocky ground with debre

This is, more or less, the description for both rubble and craters. It could also be difficult terrain or a moonscape datasheet. Opponents which desire cover saves tend to call it rubble, while those that want less cover saves on the table, call it difficult terrain.

 

Broken buildings (with and without bases)

Ruins, some argument if ruined base is part of the ruin or not. Outer lip is sometimes consider open ground and sometimes insisted upon being part of the ruin. No one suggests using ruin datasheets.

 

Statues

Almost always played as impassible terrain, though sometimes considered ruins. Never as statues, even if the actual GW model is on the table.

 

Hills

Normally treated as difficult terrain. Sometimes they gain the cover save as if area terrain, despite no rules for this. A few games they were open ground too.

 

Minefields or otherwise questionably safe terrain, but passable terrain

Consistently considered either rubble or difficult terrain. Never had opponents insist that a minefield or other questionably safe terrain piece would be dangerous terrain. They'd prefer impassable terrain before they made it dangerous.

 

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

Almost always insisted to have the cover save of the concealing terrain, despite this approach not being anywhere in the BRB and being exclusively in the area terrain rules of previous editions.

[galahad911]

Do I really?

 

Perhaps with you, but the issue I face in-game with the above is very real. I consistently play against players which insist that rules are not as they appear in the BRB, especially with regard to terrain. I can find the page and show them and we might use the rule another way, but even there, I shouldn't need to explain these every game.

 

Here, for my opponents:

 

Trees

Twisted Copse or Difficult terrain.

 

Rocky ground with debre

This is, more or less, the description for both rubble and craters. It could also be difficult terrain or a moonscape datasheet. Opponents which desire cover saves tend to call it rubble, while those that want less cover saves on the table, call it difficult terrain.

 

Broken buildings (with and without bases)

Ruins, some argument if ruined base is part of the ruin or not. Outer lip is sometimes consider open ground and sometimes insisted upon being part of the ruin. No one suggests using ruin datasheets.

 

Statues

Almost always played as impassible terrain, though sometimes considered ruins. Never as statues, even if the actual GW model is on the table.

 

Hills

Normally treated as difficult terrain. Sometimes they gain the cover save as if area terrain, despite no rules for this. A few games they were open ground too.

 

Minefields or otherwise questionably safe terrain, but passable terrain

Consistently considered either rubble or difficult terrain. Never had opponents insist that a minefield or other questionably safe terrain piece would be dangerous terrain. They'd prefer impassable terrain before they made it dangerous.

 

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

Almost always insisted to have the cover save of the concealing terrain, despite this approach not being anywhere in the BRB and being exclusively in the area terrain rules of previous editions.

 

_

 

Last game I wanted to use the terrain rules as your "snap" list. Opponent was very opposed to this and insisted on rubble for rocky debre, difficult terrain for the citadel battlescape in my deployment zone, walls for some of the ruins, and ruins for the other ruins. Even there, it was pulling teeth to get him to commit to any specific terrain rules prior to deployment. I deployed and one of the walls I was podding into got re-remembered as "one way ruins". So they became difficult terrain without cover saves for shots coming from one direction.

 

 

And having heard the other player's side of this particular story, you were just as unreasonable and combative from his perspective.

 

And that re-remembered comment... You claiming that the guy in question would cheat to win at 40k is, well, questionable at best.

[crono]

As much as this thread had certain amusement for me...  at some point all good things SHOULD come to an end... :D

 

Pax, in the difficult terrain runs, it's really clear:  "Unless otherwise specifically noted otherwise, a model in cover behind difficult terrain has a 5+ cover save.

 

At this point, the question is to determine how if a model can obtain this cover save, which takes us to the section:  "Cover Saves"!

 

"Often, you'll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover."

 

If anything, based on what you have described... it would appear you are the one that is manipulating the terrain rules.  I can't say if it is even in your favor though... lol :)

[Guest]

stuff

You keep bringing up stuff from last week. That game was a disaster and I shouldn't have used it as an example. There was not any one thing at fault in that game, as were were clearly both upset/tired about other things, as neither of our attitudes coming into the game were justified by the other's behavior. It did certainly escalate and I will certainly be apologizing to my opponent on wednesday, hopefully after some good rest tonight. It was a disaster of a game and not one I desire to repeat.

[galahad911]

You keep bringing up stuff from last week. That game was a disaster and I shouldn't have used it as an example. There was not any one thing at fault in that game, as were were clearly both upset/tired about other things, as neither of our attitudes coming into the game were justified by the other's behavior. It did certainly escalate and I will certainly be apologizing to my opponent on wednesday, hopefully after some good rest tonight. It was a disaster of a game and not one I desire to repeat.

 

What I said was in response to your own post bringing that game up, but you're right, you guys were both having a rough time of it. I only said what I said because that re-remembered comment was making it look like things went on that I'd have a hard time believing. In any case, that's between you and him, and I'll not bring it up again.

[generalripphook]

It does seem like posting this thread is a good way to just cause friction. As long as you reach a consensus with your opponent about what terrain is before each battle. Who gives? As long as you play it consistently in the battle does it matter if you are consistent in different battles? no.   

[Guest]

It does seem like posting this thread is a good way to just cause friction. As long as you reach a consensus with your opponent about what terrain is before each battle. Who gives? As long as you play it consistently in the battle does it matter if you are consistent in different battles? no.   

I agree with that approach, and my point is that I'm trying to do that, but it isn't working because the players disagree on the definition of terrain terms.

 

They look over the table and see ruins, hills, rubble, and forests, we agree that that's what they are. We deploy and I shoot at model not in, but 25% concealed by a ruin. Opponent is very troubled by me suggesting he get's a 5+ cover save. I shoot another model in a forest, but not concealed, opponent is certain that forests and twisted copse are the same thing in 7th, so demands a 5+ cover for being on the terrain piece, but not concealed by it. And then I'm driving a tank over a ruin and keep rolling dangerous terrain, while my opponent hasn't been because the "lip" of the ruin base is open ground in their eyes.

 

Any one of these could be overlooked in a game, but when they keep coming up I look like the rules lawyer, despite just wanting to use the terrain rules we agreed upon. I am big on rules, but this isn't where I should be conflicting, as these are extremely basic rules in the BRB.

 

The issue seems to be one of schools of thought, and not one of rules. Hence the OP.

 

EDIT: On a side note, I seem to be doing a lacking job of explaining my point in a non-combative manner. I am trying to fix this on my end and am sorry to any negatively affected. In theory, this is supposed to be a calm topic regarding the vocabulary of 40k players describing terrain in a manner that differs greatly from the 40k rulebook.

[pretre]

 

They look over the table and see ruins, hills, rubble, and forests, we agree that that's what they are. We deploy and I shoot at model not in, but 25% concealed by a ruin. Opponent is very troubled by me suggesting he get's a 5+ cover save. I shoot another model in a forest, but not concealed, opponent is certain that forests and twisted copse are the same thing in 7th, so demands a 5+ cover for being on the terrain piece, but not concealed by it. And then I'm driving a tank over a ruin and keep rolling dangerous terrain, while my opponent hasn't been because the "lip" of the ruin base is open ground in their eyes.

Make clear before the game what you are talking about. Explain and show the appropriate page in the rulebook, if necessary. All of this can be cleared up with pre-game communication. 

[generalripphook]

Sounds like you need to clarify before your games.

 

"so +5 cover save shooting through cover right?"

 

"Is this lip open ground or not?"

 

Bing bang boom done. I have never had a problem with terrain arguments or disputes. 

[pretre]

To be fair, Pax is right that some people still play old versions of the cover rules. I just don't think it's a problem because it can be cleared up in a two minute pre-game conversation.