Updated WTC Terrain Rules for Charging Through Ruins
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лют 2024
- DICE
baronofdice.com/products/offi...
baronofdice.com/products/offi...
Use discount code BFTBG for additional 5% off
WEBSITE
www.BlogForTheBloodGod.com
PATREON
/ blogforthebloodgod
APPAREL
blogforthebloodgod.creator-sp...
GAMING MATS
arenainnovations.com.au/produ...
OBJECTIVE MARKERS
3d6wargaming.com?aff=13
TERRAIN
miniaturescenery.com/index.ph...
Put in discount code BlogGod123 for an additional 10% off! - Ігри
Absolutely fantastic and informative video!!!!!!!!
Thanks mate! I appreciate the enthusiasm!
Love the demo example format you've implemented in recent videos! Keep it up.
Thanks, will do!
Why not just have a 2" engagement range near ruin walls but it also give benefits of cover since units are essentially stabbing through windows. +1 to the save for being in cover in this case would be a better solution in my opinion.
No windows first floor
Thank you for posting this.
Hope you find it helpful
Woot woooot
Good vid. We need more of these.
Thanks mate, always open to recommendations or suggestions
an what about those large bases, like 40mmones,or 19mm? how does it interact with this rule?
If your base is over 2" then people can deploy just over 2" from the wall and you will be un chargeable (sorry abaddon)
Thanks for content!
My pleasure mate
Love this and definitely prevents feels bads with terrain
Yeah absolutely
Pretty great solution! Makes sense
I'm a huge fan
Charging could be 2d6 + half movement characteristic rounded up.
I like the idea of D3 + movement. But that would require some balancing as fast unit would become much much faster. Lowers the variability a lot tho
So the pipeline rule. the defender, using tactics and plans their moves and uses the terrain to their advantage, has all their plans nullified by the attacking player. The attacking player, that didn't have to plan at all, just charge across the field gets to ignore terrain and attack. Ya...that sounds fare. So way have the terrain then? Oh right...to the non shooting army has something to hide behind as they march across the board to they can get in melee, in the middle of a wall. Same wall the shooting army can shoot through...OK got it.
So this still applies to ground floor windows are closed?, shooting is punished being in cover and cant shoot out yet you can charge along as if its planet bowling ball with nothing in the way of the charge?
What WE list would you bring if you knew you were playing a death guard army? 🤔
DG are a tricky matchup. Angron and Lords of Skulls would be the best bet I reckon
why i dont play WTC events. the wall blocking has been around for 3 editions now. it helps armies that just fall over in melee.
And i think overwatching is oppressive for melee armies (or just in general. Hate the 10th ed overwatch rules)
I think melee needs the support TBH otherwise we just get blasted away
If melee and range are equally strong, ranged wins every time. Applying your damage at range is an advantage and unfair to melee.
GW themselves tried to fix the wall blocking in 9th. They know it's a problem, they struggle because the average player is an idiot who doesn't read rules, so they couldn't implement a rule that requires reading and thought like this.
@@sweetboygreeny3855that's why you play with no first floor windows
@@BlogForTheBloodGod All of the tournament set up I’ve seen except for GW favour shooting armies.
I still don't understand why meele based armies dont have better movement in meele.
It's a hard balancing act
Some of the strats we have for WE suck.
@@michaelrossell5581 Oh boy gory massacre
Id say this is a garbage rule for the sole reason that it does not solve the problem.
It might solve some situationes depending on the models but say you are using 3mm mdf walls and you place your models 49mm from the wall.
2" is 50.8 mm.
A 50mm base cant fit between the wall and the enemy models. And if they stand on the other side of the wall they are outside of 2" from them.
So this rule means that models with a bigger base are at a disedvantage when charging enemys behind a wall.
If you increase the thickness of the wall you increase the problem just as it was before this rule was implemented.
Now that I think about it, why dont they just implement a rule where the models being charged is forced to move back enough for one line of models to fit btween the walls if they think this is such a big deal?
Thanks for the informative video! Really like the example!
Stupid Questions:
1) Does it also work for vehicles or any other non-infantery?
2) What if i only put a token on one eightborn, can the others fight in second row via base contact?
1) no, only infantry and beasts
2) no. You need to decide what is using the pipeline rules via a token before moving
@@jmck9478
Thanks a lot for the clarification!
Thanks for the question and Jmck thanks for the answer
yee
Lol I've been using the fuel pipe and barricade rule for ruins since 9th edition for casual games
It is good
is this new rule only for infantry units or for mounted units too?
Infantry and beasts
It would be great if these rules were written down officially
A-fucking-men... so annoying.
They are. worldteamchampionship.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/WTC2024-10th-FAQ-Charging_v1-1.pdf
If only GW didn't hate melee
Most players don't need wtc rules actually
WTC may not be "official" but it is the highest standard of competitive play and most tournaments defer to their FAQ and Code of Conduct documents
Great explanation. I still think this rule is garbage. "Just pretend the ruins arent there." Bad
Thanks mate, it's a tricky one to balance
Bad solution!!! Mining rules up (in this case Ruins with barricades) make the game more difficult. Previous rule (be in 1" to the wall if enemy is also in 1") is good as it was!!! See it as blocking Cracks or Else... but I think cobining rules just to make things Happen weich shouldnt isn't good for good and fair gameplay
Exactly. Looks like all the WTC fanboys spam happy comments, in the meantime critical thinking individuals can see this is a terrible decision
Even GW themselves tried to Errata this as it is clearly not intended for people to be able to place models in such a way that charges become impossible. Is this the best solution, maybe, maybe not, but unless you have a batter one?
@@BlogForTheBloodGod then pls let GW find a solution or do something else... mixing up different terrain rules is bad in my opinion
@@peterpeer5610 it's not mixing terrain rules. It's modifying the ruins terrain rules. The reference to pipeline rules makes it easier because people are familiar with it now. The game isn't perfect and a lot of these issues come up during extensive gameplay. We could wait for GW find a solution... or being sentient beings we could find a solution in the meantime.
I think it's a elegant solution, that's relatively fair.
As it is I think the ruins terrain rule in 10th ed doesn;t work with traditional terrain. Hence the need for windowless terrain.
MORE SIMPLE
Agreed
hello i find this solution bit more complicate , the pile in who don't give the "rule" like during the charge is a bit disapointing , you use trick the game give you to make the difference with the gameplay but you are stop by an another ruling who cancel it , a bit strange for me :x
In all case thanks for content !
I'm sure when people get a few reps in they will get used to it
That’s a horrible rule. Correct solution would be to… actually use pipes and barricade terrain. Diversity in terrain is critical. Having all those ruins is awful.
This I actually somewhat agree with. One of my gripes with 10th is that every cunt just floods the board with MDF Ruins, it is uninspired
loving new intro
New? This Intro has been in use for a while now
Kinda defeats the purpose of the ruins then…
I don't think it does. Ruins still block Line of Sight and non infantry based combat units. Makes sense that if infantry can walk through walls that they could do it in the charge phase too
I play a melee army and this benefits me. With that being said, I gotta say that I think this is a bad rule. It completely eliminates a legitimate tactic for dealing with large melee threats. This makes terrain significantly less meaningful, IMO.
Not to mention that “you can’t fit in here so you can’t get me” makes a lot more sense than “I can’t fit in here so these guys become Mr Fantastic and can punch you from outside city limits”
I dunno, I think it was weirder that a unit could walk and shoot through something but that same something made charges or fighting suddenly impossible. It's always a strange balance between making sense in different situations and having rules that make sense, let alone trying to also balance the rules so that different kinds of armies work.
I agree with teemipiippo, if you can walk through and shoot through walls, why would we make it that you can't charge and fight through them
Shame to see this continues the infantry privilege trend. Monsters, mounted and vehicles should be able to use this too.
I guess it is to represent that vehicles can't go through doors and windows
@@BlogForTheBloodGod The arm of my knight can reach pretty far into a building. Can probably fit the arm through a window with a bit of scraping...
I'm torn on it, honestly. I don't hate the differentiation with infantry but the edition has left a pretty sour taste in my mouth, as someone who tries to run too many melee monsters and vehicles.
I think this is another unnecessary simplification of the rules, which once again detracts from the importance of terrain in this game. It's always been a good way to protect yourself from a charge and gave meaning to being in the terain. Well, and the solution only favors the charging side.
If already solve it this way , then the charging party should have a penalty to HIT -1 . Which would reflect the effect of braking the momentum of the charge through the terrain. The same principle should apply when charging the enemy behind the pipes .
That would be stupid. Why would you punish melee armies for entering melee?
Well also , maybe let the firing troops, shoot through the ruins. Because now they limit visibility. It's certainly not an easy thing to balance the difference between shooting and melee units. Maybe it would be enough to increase movement in units that are designed for melee and, for example, let them charge under advance to reduce the time of contact with the enemy. That's why there are characters like Demon Prince , who protects units with his aura by giving them an invu save , although they also messed up this rule recently with an inaccurate provision that opened up the possibility of invu saves to units that don't have them at all. Just use GO TO GROUND. GW is desperately patching the rules of this game and the subsequent patches are either not adjusted or cause more holes.@@JordanR
I think terrain is a notoriously hard thing to balance and I respect the WTC lads for having a go and responding to cumminity feedback with an attitude of continuous improvement
This rule only exists because competitive sweats are playing every angle they can to get an advantage over their opponent.
It’s creation shows the bad Sportmanship that exists at the core of the competitive 40K scene.
WTC are now being forced to over complicate a rule because of sad sweaty players ruining it for everyone else.
That is one way to look at it, another is that competitive players enjoy developing unique and complex strategies and tactics, sometimes resulting in awkward rules interactions that require solutions
@@BlogForTheBloodGod If you’re selling gaming the rules for a competitive edge as “unique strategies”…
That's... harsh to say the least.
When I try to sell w40k to friends who play board games, one of their main concerns is how much is left to interpretation. Is this a 8" or 9" charge? How do you ensure there is proper line of sight between your models? And this comes from non-competitive players who just dislike the idea of edge cases not being clearly solved.
I believe this rule does tackle "gamey loopholes", but I also believe it just helps make the game tighter. If my opponent puts his unit 1" from a wall, I don't want to have to make assumptions on whether he tried to "trick" me or wanted to go to this position for another reason. I just want to continue playing the game, without that odd move having a disproportionate impact on my options as a player.
As this rule only exists for people playing WTC, why do you care? Pretty silly to be telling people they are playing the game in the wrong way and somehow ruining it for everyone else when in reality it's just a problem with the core rules that GW has never managed to address properly. This situation can come up entirely by accident in a casual game, and a casual player can find themselves unable to charge a unit because their opponent just happened to place models in a way that left no space whilst being an inch from the walls. Can't blame competitive players for that, it just happened. If you don't like the rules just don't use them, no need to whine about other people enjoying the game in a different way to you. Everyone at WTC is there for the same reasons, playing the game in the same way, and having a blast doing it. If that somehow ruins your enjoyment of playing the game casually I would suggest the problem is you, not them
@@dave-macleod because this rubbish bleeds through into the casual game scene and makes it confusing for new players. “Problematic” terrain rules have been tackled by third party organisations so many times just in tenth that people don’t know the core terrain rules.
Do you know how many times I have to get the core terrain rules out and explain them to my opponents because they’re confused about towing in/out, obscuring windows, line of sight vs. True line of sight, what benefit of cover grants, it’s unending. The competitive scene overly complicates the game because of bad faith players looking for a competitive edge.
This is arguably the dumbest thing I've ever seen WTC do. Why do you guys feel the need to modify rules. Is this a power trip? Because this does nothing to make the game simpler.
Ooosht, strong words
Wow, this is absurd. All it does is punish players that use strategy in their playstyle.
Its got too many inconsistencies, and truely creates imbalance.
Not sure I would go as far as saying absurd, I can see why people might not like it, it is better than GWs recent attempts to give all Ruins pipeline rules
@@BlogForTheBloodGod I say absurd because this is a war simulation tabletop game; in war, often the victor is who has the best tactics and strategies, not the army that has the most bodies (Russia ww2 for example).
Rules changes like this literally takes strategy out of a war game and replaces it with a participation award style boost to those who dont have much strategic ability. It is not a fun enhancer, and considering wtc is competition level, a rules change like this hinders competitive play way more than it helps those who dont know how to play.
Sitting in ruins and being invincible to melee units isn't much of a strategy. Adapt or quit.
@@JordanR forcing your opponent into a situation that doesn't favor them is strategy, pure and simple.
Just cause people dont know how to counter tactic is reason to screw over the tactical players seems to be reason enough for you, perhaps it is you that needs to learn to adapt there bud.
@danjones3012 walking into ruins and suddenly gaining massive advantages where the other player has to work harder to overcome those advantages than you did to gain/exploit them in thenfirst place is bad gameplay design and not strategic in the least. "Haha I have all the advantages, so I'm the superior commander" is also absolutely facile thinking. You're not good at a strategy game because the rules favor you. The rules have changed now to give your opponents more counterplay. You can either die mad, or adapt to the new rules, Mr. Master Tactician.
Dear WTC. Stick to clearing up ambiguous situations and rules by intent. Stop making the game more complicated by making completely unnecessary rules changes. Thanks.
I think they are trialling solutions for GW, we have seen plenty of WTC or ITC rules become official in the past
i wouldn't call this unnecessary. Perhaps it's not the best solution, but this issue is certainly a problem. I appreciate that this is a valid strategy within the rules text to protect yourself from melee, but it's not in the spirit of the game - why GW has tried to fix this, nor does it make much sense.
If you want to talk about rules, there are no official base size rules. Imagine people putting minis on smaller bases, it's within the rules or lack of, but is it in the spirit of the game to do so?
I would argue at the end of the day anyone who cares so much about base sizes isn't anyone you'd want to play with, likewise anyone who is trying to game the 1-2inch rule in this instance is also in the same boat. We are at the end of the day playing a game.
This rule is garbage. Using walls effectively is a key part of playing a shooting unit and managing that is a key part of a combat unit. Screening is important.
Depends on terrain density, WTC use LOTS of Ruins so it makes sense for them
Being able to sit in a ruin and force already slow, vulnerable melee units to walk around the ruins while you farm Rapid Fire for extra damage is a pretty shit way to die for melee armies.
There is no "managing" that. It's far easier for you to sit in ruins and shoot out of them than it is to assault them. It sure is a shame that melee will actually be able to hurt you. Oh no!
Let's agree to disagree. You can keep your garbage playstyle, while the rest of us have a game where melee infantry has something to do.
@@mortenbrandtjensen6470 agree to disagree? This is the internet bro! Argue till one of you compares the other to hitler or else you are doing it wrong
@@JordanRcant shoot if there are no windows...