40K FAQ: Did Walls Just Become OP?


Did ruin walls just become the most powerful thing in 40k? Depending on whom you ask they just did. Come see the issue now!

The new 40k FAQ first draft is here, (checkout this easy PDF download of it) and there is one little line of text that seems to universally have folks in a tizzy.

Q: A ruin (e.g. a Shrine of the Aquila) is treated as difficult terrain, but does this mean that models can move through the walls?
A: No.

99120199014_ShrineoftheAquilaNEW01You shall not PASS!

Most folks out there tend to agree you can’t assault though a building’s wall (Buildings as defined on page 107/108 of the BRB), however when it comes to ruins everyone just seemed to ignore them altogether.


Most players would just assault through ruins by making a difficult terrain check, no questions asked. Until the FAQ dropped that is….

So if this line in the new FAQ become the new law of the land, let’s take a look at how it can affect our normal table top play.

Striking Scorpion WallWho’s got two pointy ears and and has to go around this wall now?

First off it should go without saying that maneuvering around ruins and funneling though doors for infantry will definitely affect play right?

Ork WallsDurrrr how do I assault ‘dem now boss?

But what about assaulting? From a Rules as Written (RAW) standpoint, it appears that you can no longer even get into assault with a unit if they are just that 1/8 of an inch (12mm) behind a ruined wall or window.


“..Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model…”

Per the BRB you have to base your initial charger with the enemy to make assault, so it appears that the days of going though walls and windows to assault is over now, too.


In fact some people argue that it has always been this way because if you thoroughly read the rule for Walls and Barricades it seems to indicate that THIS was the only was to assault “across” terrain in the first place?

However when you read the rules for moving though terrain, this FAQ may seems to contradict itself:



The implications of this for the game as a whole can be pretty far reaching, from folks that already have existing terrain built to just the fact that so much area must not be covered by models “going around” walls to do anything effective.

The counterpoint to this is: In a game of now numerous alpha strikes and first turn assaults, perhaps this is why Games Workshop has been writing more and more of those rules into the game as of late.

What about psychic powers? Teleporting terrain around the battlefield suddenly became a much bigger deal if the rules correspond with this new FAQ right? You can’t just run out of the walls and such to assault, or even be assaulted back now depending on the particular piece of terrain and how it is positioned!

So in conclusion, this new FAQ may shake up the way everyone plays the game, not just a specific faction!


Walls??? Where we’re going we don’t need any walls!

Did GW Fix 40k? New FAQ – Long War Podcast Episode 50

  • nurglitch

    There’s a reason assault Marines and whatnot have jump packs. Besides, the block line of sight. Can’t charge without LOS.

    • Duncan Parker Newton-Gaines

      except that the big FAQ said that you can’t ignore verticals during a charge with Jump Packs =/

      • krisbrowne42

        I thought that was only if you’d already used your Jump Packs in the move…

        • Duncan Parker Newton-Gaines

          From the FAQ: Q: Do Jump units ignore height distances when charging and using jump packs? If a Jump unit uses its jump pack for the Assault phase, does it jump over difficult terrain?
          A: No.

          • Christopher Saldaña

            No I’m pretty sure that means if a unit is 13 inches above them they can’t charge them, or if it’s 7 inches above they have to roll a 7. but the sky borne rule specially allows them to jump over terrain for movement and charges, and the same FAQ says vertical height is not measured for jump pack movement. It’s hard to say what they mean here in the ruling you showed, but at the very least if there is a 100 foot wall in the way, a jump pack can jump over or on top of it if it’s within 12″ horizontally.

          • jonathon

            Jump pack movement has always been a bit iffy in GW’s rules – if you assume a parabolic trajectory, you have infinite height allowable in that parabola, as long as the model ends its move within 12″ from its starting point (measured in any straight vector). As such, you can jump OVER a building which is 10″ x 10″ x 24″ to land on the opposite side, but you can’t land on TOP of the same building. This is because the horizontal movement would allow you to be wholely within 12″ of your starting location, but the vertical movement would not.

            Yet another bit of ambiguity in GW’s rules that they seem to cherish…

          • Christopher Saldaña

            They clarified it in this FAQ in another ruling, vertical height does not matter for jump pack movement. You could land on top of a 100′ tall building if it’s within 12″ horizontally.

    • Zingbaby

      True – but I’m quite sure this was always the rule intent, even if it wasn’t clarified well until now. And his assumption that the ‘moving through terrain’ rule somehow contradicts makes no sense at all. …pretty much everywhere else – if your models’ base cannot fit through, then you can’t go that way.

      I’ve been to tournaments that allowed moving/assaulting through walls and I never liked it or thought it was truly legal, I’m glad we have an official clarification now.

      • jonathon

        in past rules editions it explicitly stated you could move through any ruin walls – I believe that in 5th there was a blurb in the BRB that explained that it was assumed that all units carried a sufficient quantity of breaching charges / cutting tools to allow them to blow through any standing walls that they encountered.

        This was again, just a bit of ambiguous ruling from GW that didn’t reconcile well with their true line of site (when my daemon prince charges through that wall, how come he doesn’t leave a hole big enough for my obliterators to shoot through on subsequent turns?)

        • Zingbaby

          Hmm really? I don’t think I played like that in 5th but then I don’t entirely remember. I’ll have to pull out the book.

          • Azrell

            The difference in the current edition is that you need LoS to charge a unit. In 5th edition you did not, so you could charge a unit hiding behind a wall. In the current edition you could only charge a unit behind a wall if you could see it.

          • Muninwing

            you can jump through a window. because you know something is on the other side to fight. but you can’t just jump to fight if nothing is there.

            “the readiness is all” isn’t true here.

  • Badtucker

    i welcome this clarification.

    • jonathon

      Do you play an army that isn’t Tau or Eldar? Assault based armies are already hampered enough without relying upon silly gimmicks or abusive rules combos in an era of massed S6 & S7 & SD firepower…

      • Badtucker

        I play ork and daemonkin.

        • Chris. K Cook

          Yeah means we can hide behind walls and charge when we want to and we also can’t be shot at behind ruins

  • Commissar Ahmad

    This is dumb. I like it’s most likely whoever was writing the FAQ was thinking of SOLID walls that the models can’t draw LOS through. I’m certainly not going to tell somebody that their unit can’t assault me because of a waist high wall, or one with a big hole in it.

    • HiveFleet Charybdis

      It says “through” not “over”. As with all terrain, agree with your opponent before the game what each terrain piece is and how it works.

      My stance: if you can physically climb over the wall you can roll for difficult and assault. If it’s a solid wall, like the shrine of the acquilla then clearly you can’t walk through it.

      As for Windows…

      • Shawn

        Maybe not walk through it, but bust through it, especially if it’s a ruin? Sure. Breacher charges, meltabombs, grenades, etc. should do the trick. This is the only ruling I am having an issue with. Now every faction and their brother’s sister’s cousin’s ex-xeno roomate will hide behind terrain and ensure that somehow these ruins all have solid walls on the bottom.

    • Alpharius

      Pretty much this. As with all of the answers, GW assumes you will use a modicum of common sense.

      • Deathmage

        Clearly most of the BOLS community lack that

        • Eagle50

          Not the community, just the article writers ;p

          • Shawn

            I wish that were true Eagle 50. Two of the players in my local area are, I’d say, are pretty happy about this ruling, saying it makes sense and is logical. However, It’s not lost on me that both of them happen to play Tau.

          • Skathrex

            Here is a tip for you if they want to screw you with this.
            I play Tau myself (next do Daemonkin) and did you know, that most Tau Fire Warriors cant even look out of the Window of typical GW-Building Windows.
            If your opponent starts to get to rules lawery with movement and assault, then just start beeing REALLY thourough when it comes to line of sight

        • Alpharius

          That should go without saying. But in reality most keyboard warriors spend far less time actually playing the game than they claim. They don’t realize how ridiculous most of their arguments seem when the dice are actually hitting the table. “You want to do what with that clearly impassable terrain now?”

      • JJ

        Ha ha ha.. GW “you know nothing” about your fanbase.

        • Alpharius

          Jon Snow knew enough to get into some firebush, and GW knows enough to get into our wallets.

    • Zingbaby

      Yeah but in the example (the shrine of aquila), it makes sense that the answer is no.

      That’s how I’ve always played it.

      • Shawn

        The shrine of aquila looks liek it’s got pretty solid walls, but it’s still a ruin and ruins are easily breached with explosives.
        Space Marine Scout: “Sarge we need to bust a hole in the wall there or the Tau gunline will have more than enough time shooting to wipe us out before we can reach the cover they provide.”
        Space Marine Sgt.: “Sorry brother-scout, for some reason our meltabombs, powerfist, and grenades can’t bust a hole open. Will have to find the door.” Now tell me that makes a lot of sense.

        • Zingbaby

          Well, if you’re willing to spend a turn assaulting/grenading the ruin, like you would a building, then sure.

          Or like… “Sarge can we magically teleport through this wall because some of the building is destroyed?”

          Bottom line is, common sense is needed, which I realize entirely rules out tournament play, but in either case, at least the rule is dead clear now. Good for GW making the clarification.

          • Shawn

            Yeah. Although, magically teleport can happen: “Brother-scout, go get Epistolary I’magonn and we’ll Gate our way through the wall.”

          • Zingbaby

            Very true… heck Epistolary I’magonn can just move the entire Shrine of Aquila into the enemy deployment zone now.

        • Morgrim

          It makes perfect sense to me. Go blow a hole in the side of an abandoned factory and see how much of the place comes down on your head. They’re not refusing because they lack the power, they’re refusing because they’re not engineers with sufficient time to figure out if the solid object they’re blasting through is load bearing.

    • Christopher Saldaña

      Yeah I’m all for this ruling but I agree with you obviously waist high walls and windows can be moved over and through. Solid walls however can’t be.

    • Valeli

      I think here, as in many places, the best way to work with the rules is simply as a reasonable human being (surprise).

      If it really is just a waist high wall, or has huge openings in it…. then don’t be terrible, and let your opponent assault.

      If it’s a tall wall with slit-like window openings, then yeah. It makes sense. A squad can’t realistically jump through a window (or even narrower) slit in a glorious charge.

      Why people can’t just work with terrain (or other rules) reasonably both baffles and frustrates me.

      Whatever you do though, the best plan is probably just to clarify terrain with your opponent before the game. If everyone has the same understanding before things start, it’s pretty unlikely people will get upset.

      • Damien Coté

        I remember one edition they mentioned that everyone had a means to go through walls, such as shape charges or enough “naked ferocity”. That’s how I’ve always played it. Blow a hole in the wall (or knock it down if you are a MC).

        • Shawn

          It’s the way I’ve always played it and it’s never been an issue, until now. Tau and Eldar rejoice! Now can shoot your enemy more while they spend precious time searching the ruins for a working door.

    • Azrell

      Those “big holes” are called doorways and you can move models through them, hence assault through them as well.

  • If this turns out to be official, I’m good with it. I’ve only had one opponent who thought it was okay to do this anyway. I agreed, but I didn’t like it or see it that way.

    As someone who likes tactical play, I welcome terrain making more of an impact.

    • Crablezworth

      here here good sir

  • Marcus Cabeceira

    Good lord…

    Thankfully our gaming group has always had the Common Sense USR

    • Mr.Gold

      wow, how rare is that!

      • lorieth

        Yes, there’s more “S” than “U” in that USR.

  • Andrew Thomas

    But you assault Access Points on a Building. Common sense would say that if there’s a clear entrance and line of sight to an enemy, you can charge through a wall, provided you have enough Charge move to “round the corner.”

    • Andrew Thomas

      Also, if it’s tall enough to grant cover, but not to block LOS, then it should not block assault moves.

    • Zingbaby

      Common sense right… but just having LOS doesn’t add up – you can shoot out of tiny gun slits of a tank for example – you can’t move/assault through them.

      • Andrew Thomas

        Note that I also said that you needed an actual way into the terrain. A murder-hole does not count. A floor-to-ceiling Stained-Glass Window, on the other hand…

  • Viktor Julian

    Did people actually play that you could assault through a solid where there are no windows and no line of sight? Facepalm. This should be a part of people`s common sense that you cant burst through a solid wall like the Aquila, but have to go through the door opening, or around the corner.

    • Severius_Tolluck

      They did because every edition of this game prior was area terrain, and would state you could fire through walls or walk through walls as it was assumed you would dig or blow holes through the terrain to move. Which is factored into the difficult terrain roll for slowing you down.

    • Kaptin J

      If there was LOS, I don’t see any problem for a power- armoured super human, firing rocket propelled explosive rounds, to blow through a crumbling ruined wall…the game is abstract as it is already…or do you believe runined buildings are indestructible and never-changing.

      • An_Enemy

        There are rules for destroying buildings. No rules for destroying ruins though to my knowledge. Do you honestly believe it’d improve the game if one type of terrain magically remained intact when you’re shooting rockets into it, but the rockets manage to damage the unit inside somehow. That’s not abstract at all!

        That said, if there’s LOS what’s your problem? You can shoot the unit.

        • Kaptin J

          I think you completely missed my point.
          As long as charger can see a model it’s charging, a bit of rubbled wall should not stop a 8′ tall super soldier (slowdown yes), Especially when said super soldiers can Literally punch a tank to death.

          • Zingbaby

            A bit of rubbled wall sure, but a wall wall, like in the example of the Shrine of Aquila… no.

          • An_Enemy

            That’s great. You should approach every problem from one point of view and ignore the wider implications in favor of a straw man argument that cherry picks what’s “realistic or not.”

            How about th other armies in the game? You know, the ones that AREN’T Marines. You’re showing some huge bias there. So because they aren’t 8′ tall super soldiers they shouldn’t get to literally ignore the walls right in front of them? I was also not aware that every grimdark building was made out of the same materials and operated under the same dilapidated conditions. If I have a solid steel manufactorum for terrain should it be ignored just like if it were wood house?

            Where’s the cut off here in your “realism”? An Eldar or guardsman can’t punch through a wall because S3? Why…why…why….do you possibly think Marines should have MORE advantages? They already get the most models of any range, more new content than every other range, they have the best basic statline in the game and ignore the morale phase almost completely. They’re already ignoring the initiative penalty for charging into terrain with their nearly army wide free grenades. You think it’s perfectly reasonable that they punch and kick a huge hole into a wall AND swing their weapons again at their actual target all at initiative 4? Sounds like you just added another assault subphase for the three(?) S4 base armies in the game.

            You can’t argue for realism and then ignore everything else that’s unrealistic, but beneficial to your army. That’s horrible game design.

          • Kaptin J

            I am not actually arguing realism, I am was arguing for abstract, the idea is that in the battlefields of the 40k universe, crumbling ruins aren’t going to keep it’s shape as the battle progresses the buildings and structures may look very different as the game progresses, Eldar can use their innate acrobatics, and even the lowly guardsmen can throw a couple of grenades to throw to mitigate it.

            Yes I took a literal example but that is one of many ways you could simply “Forge the narrative” for something that is conducive to a game…considering there is more creatures in the game that could feasibly rip through a wall than than not…(In my mind anything S4+)

            Lastly they don’t simply ignore these walls, it costs them their initiative as well as 2 inches to get through those walls… keep in mind if they have LOS there are probably cracks and weak points in the wall as it is windows that are widened, etc…If they can’t see they can’t charge.

          • Drpx

            Guard and Eldar carry weapons that shoot industrial-strength cutting lasers and diamond-edged projectiles. There are plenty of explanations for other armies if you stop bawling about teh Mareenz and think.

          • Shawn

            Um even if a space marine can’t punch through a wall, such as the Shrine of the Aquila, a basic tactical marine Sgt with a meltabomb and/or powerfist easily wrecks a wall. No line of sight, no assault, but breach the wall and run through? Hell yeah, they should.

          • Zingbaby

            I mean I agree you should be able to do that, like you do with buildings, spending a turn – to do that.

            But just float through magically, nah…

          • Shawn


        • Andrew Thomas


          • An_Enemy

            I guess I wasn’t clear enough. Yeah wrecker let’s you reroll on the building damage table or add +1 right?

            But you can’t just pick a piece of terrain and destroy it right?

            Wrecker is a USR pertaining to player owned buildings like a Bastion or a Void Shield generator.

        • Zingbaby

          You shoot out of a rhino’s tiny gun slits – you cannot move through them or assault through them. Bad argument.

          • An_Enemy

            I think you’re having an argument with yourself because your example has nothing to do with what I said from what I’m seeing. I never said anything about moving or assaulting so I’m a bit confused.

          • Zingbaby

            Ahh yeah, looks like I was mistaken…

    • Heinz Fiction

      Well, most assault pieces in 40k don’t really look to me as they would bother using doors…

      “We’re save in this ruins guys, that Carnifex won’t fit through the doorarrrgh”

  • G Ullrich

    You say days of going through “…walls and windows..” are over…but it is just talking about walls, not Windows….however if left as is, it means TO’s (tournaments) and players (pick up games and so on) will have to have that ruins terrain conversation before the games now.

  • IngenuityGap

    Also, if you read the rule book about assaulting through terrain AND the section on ruins it covers the fact that going through a ruin a model is assumed to either have a weapon that can break through the weakened structure, is small enough to find a hole, or is a friggin’ tank of a creature that can just burst through.

    Also, this does not refer to a solid wall but a ruin with windows as you still have to have LoS to assualt!

    Stop trying to make things harder than they need to be. Seriously. Also, this is just a first draft! Not even the final posting!

    • Alpharius

      People seem to think GW will change rulings from the first draft. They were pretty clear that they are only interested in clarity of the responses, not folks’ opinion on their content. They may rephrase or elaborate on some of these, but the rulings will undoubtedly stand.

    • Daniel Sundblad

      Does it though? Where? Can’t find it under assault, not under ruins… Last place I remember that wording is from the original cityfight book…

    • Azrell

      7th edition had a ruins section?

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    This really changes the game for some people, who loved parking their rhinos behind a solid ruin wall that blocked LOS, then driving it through said wall because “it was only area terrain”.

    • AstraWlad

      Rhinos? How about Eldar War Walkers going out of the ruin through the solid wall, shooting and than running back (with that running distance re-roll… because Eldar!) to hide behind the said wall? Enemy had zero chance to shoot back. It was so ridiculous that I even felt bad when tried it myself once.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        the Eldar example is certainly crazy, but I can imagine a tank busting through a wall. Difficult to represent the hole it would make in-game though.

        • Severius_Tolluck

          Abstract, usually in flames of war when you do it, they describe that the rubble you caused falls behind you and makes a slightly less stable wall of rubble.

    • Drpx

      Some schlub tried to pull that crap on me with a Vindicator. I was like, “hey, just because you’ve got a bulldozer plough on that armored vehicle doesn’t mean you can just drive through a half-collapsed wall.”

      I swear, some people.

      • Shawn

        Um, why not? A13 on the front, smashing through a ruined wall seems pretty easy, or does the space marine sgt with a powerfist now got to park his rhino and make a hole for it?

        • solax636


  • Cromer

    Im quite happy about this. I played a game with orks where the TFG on the other side hid a wagon behind a wall so I couldnt shoot at it and then drove straight through it like it was there. Total BS. Terrain is there for a reason. Walls are walls.

    As for assaulting, I think it depends on the wall, if its a small ruined wall that could be climbed over or one full of large windows or doorways then thats different than a solid wall or one with slits for windows. Having to move around a building for entry is a good thing and gives the game more realism. Im in favor.

    • Drpx

      Those OP Orks…

    • Shawn

      A solid whole building yes. A ruin? No. Although orks, with the ramshakle rule should role to see if the vehicle falls apart or loses hull points after smashing through a ruin wall.

  • AstraWlad

    There is a good rule in Infinity: If an obstacle is lower then the model itself — you can move over that obstacle. If it is higher than you need to climb or jump. It is simple and effective and it would be good if GW adopted it.

  • Edouard Decaen

    So you cannot assault a unit behind a wall… It might be because of the WALL.

    • Bran D

      Right, my group allows movement through walls with Windows, large cracks, etc…but the full concrete walls we’ve never allowed movement like that, because of…you know…common sense 🙂

      • Shawn

        Somehow I think power fists, conversion beamers, meltabombs, kind of trump walls becuase of..you know..common sense.

    • V10_Rob

      When you come to it
      And you can’t go through it
      And you can’t knock it down
      You know that you’ve found
      THE WALL

  • An_Enemy

    I’m just glad I have a document that I can hand deathstar losers that will shut them up. Tired of getting into arguments with them about models swinging swords through small cracks or expecting me to let them count models that are outside of a building or a level below their first line of models and still rolling their attacks.

  • MikeHollstrom

    Wait. Ppl have been going through walls up until now???

    • Jacob

      Right? This is some news to me, how wonky do people get with the rules….

    • Zingbaby

      I’ve only seen it at tournaments.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      its how a lot of people play, myself included, because previous editions explicitly allowed it and described how it could happen in fluff terms, and the current edition didn’t explicitly forbid it so we all carried on as we had for years. We just assumed the difficult terrain roll was to account for the time taken to bust through the wall.

  • Frank O’Donnell

    So if you play an army that likes to shoot & not get assaulted just build your ruin with no doorways brilliant LOL

    • Shawn

      Yes, which is why I said Tau and Eldar players rejoice in an earlier post.

  • Heinz Fiction

    I have always been a fan of abstract terrain rules. 4th edition had it best.

  • Crevab

    Not too surprising so many people didn’t know the rules. Nor that they think following them was TFG. I’ve seen vehicles plowing through ruins an such since at least 5th.

  • Dusty

    I think stock in heavy flamers will rise. Hide in that terrain? Better not leaving any part visible. Blood Angels rejoice!

    • Christopher Saldaña

      Yeah if you have line of sight you can get all those hits but you can only allocate wounds and kill things in line of sight, I don’t see how this ruling affects flamers.

      • An_Enemy

        I could be wrong, but they seemed to very clearly state in the FAQ that anything under the template is affected. Even models on different levels.

        • Christopher Saldaña

          I’ll look it up again but I believe it was talking about blast markers hits and wounds, and getting hits with templates, but the flamer template rules are very specific, you can’t wound or kill anything out of line of sight. You can get all the hits and really kill that one model you can see or whatever haha.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            That does not make sense either. As flame weapons purpose is to kill or dissuade those in deep cover that you can’t see or get at….

          • Christopher Saldaña

            But if there’s a wall in the way it’s not gonna curve around unless you’re in a really confined space. At least they represent that with open topped vehicles and building fire points with the no escape rule.

        • Christopher Saldaña

          I looked it up, they’re saying the templates and blasts are an infinitely tall aiming device that hits all models underneath, as opposed to previous editions where it only affected one level. But they didn’t change the template rules, for flamer templates you still follow normal wound allocation which prevents you from allocating anything out of line of sight.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            plus the template has to touch the gun of the firing model so although you could angle it up you won’t get many models under it (and it doesn’t work for models above the template). Good news for the Heldrake though.

          • Christopher Saldaña

            I don’t think that’s how it works even though it actually says touching the base of the model but most people seem to understand that it doesn’t have to be physically touching, rather the end of the template has to be at the edge of the base when looking from above. Of course this is GW being vague again but their recent clarification seems to hint that their intention is that flamers would hit units above them as easily as units below them, they explain it’s because they want it to be more three dimenional and flamers are good at killing in confined spaces.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            no I think it really has to touch thebase, hence the comment about angling the template.

          • Christopher Saldaña

            Where do they mention angling the template? And it would be awkward for models that are too close or much taller, I’ve never seen anybody actually play it where it has to physically touch the base.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            In the template weapons section in the BRB it says the template must touch the base of the firing model and that it affects models under it. Obviously this is only possible if you angle the template. Most people dont take this to extremes (it might in practice limit how many models you could hit if one was an inch in front of the firer for instance) but those are the ruled as written.

          • Christopher Saldaña

            Yeah but I think this is a case of rules as intended rather than rules as written, and rules as written in this case can be interpreted differently because of the implications. They never mention anything about angling templates, that’s an assumption if you’re strictly following the touching of the base. However there are too many instances where it wouldn’t be possible to touch the template to the base and figure out your hits, (Shooting through a window, shooting with a wall nearby, big models, too close, etc.) which leads most people to believe they mean touching from the top looking down. And in this latest FAQ the intent behind their rules becomes more clear when they say they want the template to be able to hit on all levels of ruins, but I agree this isn’t concrete because they’re still a little vague about all these details.

            But it’s gotten to the point where 3rd party tournament FAQs like the ITC make the way I’m talking about the official way (Not physically touching, just above it from the top down), but they also limit the damage to one level at a time.

      • Dusty

        Typo aside, that’s why I wrote, “Better not leave any part visible.”

        • Christopher Saldaña

          I know I’m just saying that’s always how it was.

  • JP

    As Rogal Dorn said in Text to Speech Device: “I am reinforcing this position. The best offense is a good defense.”

  • georgelabour

    Huh I suppose this would be a case of previous-editionitis.

    In previous eiditons the movement rules have said that models can ignore the walls of ruins and such when moving through areas of difficult terrain as it’s assume they’re just barged through or otherwise bypassed. Rules for buildings however made a point of saying this was not possible.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      and the confusion around ruins and buildings being different just added to the mix. The terrain rules really need an overhaul, too many categories and exceptions.

      • georgelabour

        I’ve always just treated ruins as difficult terrain with multiple level and varied cover based on LOS. Which seems to be how the book intended them.

        Honestly never used buildings outside of purchased foritifcations as almost all the ‘buildings’ sold by GW are in fact ruins.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          it is quite good fun to have the odd unoccupied bastion on the table, but I take your point. I think the building rules are there for people’s home made terrain. Would be nice if GW released some non military buildings.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Yeah, makes no sense that you couldn’t blow through a wall but the opposition can freely fire back at you… Which is kinda how the rules state it now. So why is it WAAC if I go through the terrain back at them?

            The problem we have here is that previous editions were area terrain, rules for area terrain mean the terrain is an abstract. Hence why you get a cover save even out in the open so long as you are within the boundaries of the terrain. Why is this so hard?

            Then you have GW saying its now both area and pure LOS, which makes no sense!

  • Ryan Freivalds

    So my last game we tried to do ruin walls as impassible. But then we had to agree that swarms could pass through the windows, since their body size is so small. Then we broadened it to models on the standard infantry base since their persons would (for the most part) could fit window gaps. Then we had say that super-heavies could pass through walls since, well, a knight in the Dawn of War 3 trailer burst through ruined pillar without even breaking stride and it’s not like this pitiful wall would stop them. And at that point I think we realized we were making too many exceptions and reverted back to the standard “we can assume all models are carrying some kind of breaching gear or power armored brute strength to force their way through.”
    So, as ever, just agree with your opponent about terrain before the game begins and you’ll be fine.
    I should point out though that the FAQ was very generous on wobbly model and for the most part (save for a completely full battlement, apparently) allowed chargers to charge even if there was some kind of barrier preventing actual base to base contact (exactly as with an aegis line), regardless of part of what this article was saying.

  • No Body

    Thats all we have always played it as it makes the most sense though…

  • usGrant7977

    I really couldn’t think of a rule that would screw orks harder than this.

  • Shawn

    Sure, it effects Tau. Gee, I get another turn of shooting you, since you have to walk around wall of the ruin to look for a working door. Why? Because the Chaos Gods won’t let you blow a hole through the wall, even if you have melta bombs and grendades. Imagine that.

  • Crablezworth

    One of the best things to come out of the faq.

  • Chris. K Cook

    Wait there were folks who thought you could attack/move through walls?

    Ugh every time I encounter a Rules Lawyering WAAC guy a little bit of my soul dies

    • Skathrex

      Has nothing to do with Rules Lawyering WAAC. Its just simplicity and a way to play.
      I could call you a Rules Lawyering WAAC guy to, because you dont move through because you dont like to be assaulted, but its just a was to play the game

      • Chris. K Cook

        You faze through walls?

        I’m Rules lawyering because I use logic to guide my way of thinking? Ok.

  • NagaBaboon

    Ah you see I play with a thing called ‘common sense’. I wouldn’t move through a wall unless it looked like I could realistically move over it.

  • Tothe

    I’d say that before the game starts, the players just need to agree on which walls are low enough to be difficult terrain, and which are too tall to vault over into combat.

  • vyrago

    “did GW fix 40k?” lol….no

  • BenTheMan

    NEEDING FAQs like this is the No1 reason that drove me away from 40K. This is just sooo absurd and the Discussion about this is sooooo wrong….

    • Muninwing

      really? not getting them is more of an issue.

      think of a big MMO… eventually, even with the best of playtesting efforts, some combos reveal to be way too big or way too small. then a patch nerfs/buffs them.

      if GW thought of FAQ/Errata as a patch for the game, and released them regularly, the game would be far more fair and playable.

  • Xavier Lusby

    You can still go through windows if your model fits, or if you and your opponent agree that the window is sufficiently bustable. If you have line of sight you can also assault across the walls of a ruin, meaning you count the vertical move distance and difficult terrain. Me and my friends have played this way, and it didn’t give my tau any particular advantage over their csm. Hell, often they used infiltrators and outflanking combined with ruins (I dream of stalingrad when setting up tables) to keep my line of sight minimized and their cover maximized while they approached. Infantry having to go through the door has never caused the fish in a barrel syndrome because I make realistically large windows, so a model can move across it, or don’t put any windows, completely protecting the assault unit. This can lead to some intense bottleneck moments, as a space marine horde assault some guard veterans trying to hold a ruin once, rolled snakes on the charge and discovered the fun that is a heavy flamer. Still lost the building, but dropped the unit down to a couple of marines.