Did they Ruin Ruins with this Change to Warhammer? #shorts

The latest FAQ presents some pretty baffling changes to the game. How are you approaching them?

=================

Join our community:

[xiphias_]

there just so many bolted on rules ive just strait up abandoned 9th ed, feels like its been made by complete novice game designers.

[Undoing]

GW: We will be discontinuing the use of external playtesters
Everyone: Oh, so your barely functioning game will no longer function at all? Sweet bro.

[DonCurrywurst]

Why solve an issue with common sense, when you can have this kind of a mess. "Count the model as if they are directly in front of the other model" There, problem solved.

[FairlySadPanda]

As far as I can see this was never actually an issue anyway and GW have failed to read their own rules (or TOs have done).

"Wobbly Models
Sometimes you may find that a particular terrain feature makes it hard for you to place a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance a model in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as someone nudges the table, leaving your painted model damaged or even broken. In cases like this, provided it is still physically possible to place the model in the desired location, you may find it helps to leave a model in a safer position, so long as both players agree and know its ‘actual’ location. If, later on, an enemy model is shooting the model, you will have to hold it back in place so they can check visibility."

Breachable
INFANTRY, BEASTS and SWARM units can move through the walls, girders, chains and foliage of this terrain feature without impediment."

Whilst Wobbly Models is a recommendation rather than a rule, it's clear that the best interpretation of this situation is that if an INFANTRY, BEAST or SWARM cannot be placed where it wants to be due to Breachable terrain not actually being breachable IRL, the solution is to leave the model in a safe position and get both players to agree on its actual location.

There is literally no reason this rule needs to exist and it's cheering to hear that the WTC event has ruled to ignore the errata.

If GW would like to solve this issue, they need to address the wonkyness of Breachable, not of Obscuring.

[tecgoblin]

At this point I start thinking that the way AoS went with garrisons (abstract placement in buildings) solves all those problems. Combine it with rules for breachable and you have something that would work.

[zoxxzy]

There's also the issue of it allowing players to create setups where a charging unit can force their target out of engagement range via consolidation movement before their turn to fight. This is done by using the 3" consolidate movement to remain greater than 1" away but without leaving space for a line to be drawn between any model of the two units that crosses over the terrain feature.

[jittersgeyser]

With my friends we always played it, anything within an inch can shoot out, but be engaged with anything an inch outside the building.

[xerathgaming]

GW said it wont affect charges, u still need 9" from DS

[larryking]

Abit wacky, but if that means gsc can do 7" charges from underground

[emocelot]

I don't think it was an issue at all in the first place. It was an interaction of several rules that worked out in certain thing's favour... but now you can consolidate out of combat if you move out of a ruin, you have a huge 2 inch off the wall move block if you press against it, the deep strike charges became shorter like you mentioned, as well as other exploits people will surely find using this, as opposed to what can barely be called an exploit they were trying to remove.

[bGRmn]

Nobody in my playgroup is as crunchy as this so I never even realized that this was (or wasn’t) a problem at all.

[Krosfiyah]

Hey, this is great! Hoping for more shorts.

[keldor]

This is a prime example of high levels of play having a ripple effect on the game as a whole. The ONLY place that the 1" engagement range really caused an issue was in official tournaments. Where they use the "boarded up" rule with obscuring terrain (specifically ruins). If you can't shoot into the first floor of obscuring terrain. Making it so the enemy also can't charge in. Means you get uncontested board control around a terrain piece. That's too valuable not to abuse in a tournament. Especially with weaker infantry in a setting with escalating damage output.

This needed to only be a tournament ruling. As leagues and casual play typically don't use the "boarded up" rule with buildings and ruins. So, you can just shoot the unit to remove models, most of the time.

[ShotgunSparten]

I’m glad they are addressing the issue as it’s one of those wierd interactions I’ve never liked. But the implementation could use some sort of clause that makes charging need to have make it within 1 inch. Turn it into a similiar thing as the wobbley model rule.

[cawsking]

1.5 faq for imperial armor compendium was a draft on the July 4th upload

[mutehowl]

What do I think about? What colors I should paint my next knight. If I should make an amaciated nurgle army or a gluttony slannesh cult army or if I am over thinking it and make an undead mechanicus army. I also think I bit more then I could chew when I offered to paint an army for a friend and he gave me 7 full armies at once.

[greggoss]

RAI it's fine. But RAW it creates a problem with unintended consequences. Yay for GW rules writers thinking more about the game as casual between friends then the ultra competitive game that will abuse this :(.

[Just_Kenneth_]

yep broke it, but easier fix you measure to the target model just like you did to deep strike you minis and place you models up against the building if they do not fit. Still have a 9 inch charge, consolidate your minis after combat into the buildings, or we need to make the buildings to have removable wall sections.

[crawbag]

Creates some problems for sure. Especially playing a WAAC player who will exploit the hell out of this. Happened to me at a small tournament. Dude had plenty of space to place models in between the wall and my guys. It was a hell of a time arguing.

[Solais]

I always thought that using something like the Open Topped Rule for Buildings would make sense... The 'Unit' Becomes the Building.