I realized something last game, I don't know how to exit terrain. Yeah I know if you march it is back edge touching and shift side/front, but do you actually march or shift after, or is exiting the march/shift alone?

So I dial a march, I exit back touching, do I then actually march off the initial March command (ignoring bonus actions).

6 minutes ago, Darthain said:

I realized something last game, I don't know how to exit terrain. Yeah I know if you march it is back edge touching and shift side/front, but do you actually march or shift after, or is exiting the march/shift alone?

So I dial a march, I exit back touching, do I then actually march off the initial March command (ignoring bonus actions).

Well I'll be...I've always played it that the March or Shift action was the act of placing the unit outside the terrain, and touching it. It never occurred to me that you would then perform said action. Have you already submitted this rules question?

I'm trying to remember if there were any official demo videos that demonstrated exiting terrain.

Aha! In the Learn to Play Guide, it says on page 16,

Quote

If a unit performs a march (?) or shift (?) action while occupying terrain, the unit must exit the terrain and is no longer occupying it. To exit terrain, a unit does not use a movement template. Instead, the unit is removed from the terrain and placed on the play area such that one of its tray edges is touching the edge of the terrain it just exited

It's the bolded section that has given me the impression that you don't ever pick up a template for that march/shift, and that exiting = march/shift in this instance.

Thoughts?

I'd agree @Parakitor , I never really look back to the learn to play, but this might just be another case of FFGs terrible rules writing, perpetuated by the poorly executed 2 book system. Give me a freaking coherent, flowing rules document. Wargames that are much more complex have achieved that.

Thanks for the help.

If I am occupying terrain, can my mandatory march 1 of my flesh rippers get me on the outside of terrain and then my dialed march move me away? Or say I'm oathsworn can my dialed march put me outside and my separate march 2 on the modifier side move me away? These are the questions I have about terrain exiting. Can a group of berserkers with warsprinter march out and use the skill the move 4 straight?

9 minutes ago, Curlycross said:

If I am occupying terrain, can my mandatory march 1 of my flesh rippers get me on the outside of terrain and then my dialed march move me away? Or say I'm oathsworn can my dialed march put me outside and my separate march 2 on the modifier side move me away? These are the questions I have about terrain exiting. Can a group of berserkers with warsprinter march out and use the skill the move 4 straight?

The mandatory move for the flesh ripper should let you exit, then give you your full dial after.

would the mandatory move REQUIRE you to leave terrain?

I read it that way, unless you are engaged in said terrain.

1 hour ago, Curlycross said:

would the mandatory move REQUIRE you to leave terrain?

I do believe so, you are marching and it is mandatory. So yes, unless engaged, to echo Aetheriac

Interesting... I love the craziness of Uthuk!

The speed of them is insane.

To me terrain is a free reform. You leave and can be facing any direction with any part of your back edge touching the terrain.

On 1/12/2018 at 9:39 AM, Sirdrasco said:

To me terrain is a free reform. You leave and can be facing any direction with any part of your back edge touching the terrain.

At the cost of the turn entering, and the action leaving (back edge for March, side or front for shift)

On 12/18/2017 at 11:42 PM, Darthain said:

I'd agree @Parakitor , I never really look back to the learn to play, but this might just be another case of FFGs terrible rules writing, perpetuated by the poorly executed 2 book system. Give me a freaking coherent, flowing rules document. Wargames that are much more complex have achieved that.

Thanks for the help.

I find this sentiment utterly baffling.

Having played nearly every major wargame to release in the last 20 years, I have what I consider to be a decent cross-sectional understanding of good vs bad game rules.

FFG rules and the RRG system are some of the clearest, easiest to understand and simplest to parse rules I've ever used. They have less than a handful of REAL issues (rules appearing in L2P but not in RRG) that are consistently clarified and worked out via regular FAQ and Errata, and their terminology and symbology follows a very logical flow of precedence that makes most rule interactions (even contentious ones) fairly easy to work out a definitive answer on.

Compared to most other major game companies, FFG is fantastic at creating forward-compatible rule systems built on good sense and precedent rather than the fiddly wording and unclear, recycled terminology issues that plague most other manufacturers.

Most of those "more complex" wargames lack anything like the elegant simplicity of FFG rule systems, substituting the illusion of depth through granular and ultimately meaningless choice, endless charts, and supplement books.

There's nothing particularly confusing about the rules for exiting terrain. It's always seemed fairly obvious that the exit IS the move. Yes, it could have been written more clearly, but let's not hyperbolically declare the rule "terrible" because it isn't perfectly ironclad right out of the gate. If this is the standard for a rule being "terrible" then there hasn't been a rule system that isn't terrible in the history of wargaming.

@Tvayumat be baffled, as I said I want a complete rulebook 1 place, you list 3-4 places. I want the rules, in flow, in the context of the game, ala GMT and such. Those are superb rulebooks.

6 minutes ago, Darthain said:

@Tvayumat be baffled, as I said I want a complete rulebook 1 place, you list 3-4 places. I want the rules, in flow, in the context of the game, ala GMT and such. Those are superb rulebooks.

What places did I list?

There's the L2P guide, which doesn't really count, because it's only referenced for one niche rule specific that isn't totally covered in the RRG. It is now irrelevant, as this rule interaction is covered by the FAQ. The L2P isn't *really* a rules document at all, it's just to help you play your first game.

In fact, the L2P guide is a wonderful supplementary document that most wargames lack COMPLETELY.

The sole official rules document is the RRG, supplemented by Errata, which is regularly updated. Errata is a good thing. Errata means the rules are adaptive and the creators are constantly trying to improve them. Show me a rule system that doesn't get an errata at some point.

Then there's the FAQ, which isn't a source of rules, but a clarification of some uncommon pocket interactions that confuse some people, explained nicely so as to prevent arguments.

I've literally NEVER encountered a rules document like you describe. Please, prove me wrong. Point to the perfect rulebook that involves no errata, no supplemental books, no FAQ. I'd like to see it.

The l2p still has a few rules that don't exist elsewhere, like this one. Rrg/faq are 2 and 3 respectively, 4 if you count tourny regs.

Sekigahara, Twilight struggle? 2 off the cuff that need no clarification. If you want to step out of wargames altogether I can find many more. FFG writes poor rulebooks, this isn't exactly news.

3 minutes ago, Darthain said:

FFG writes poor rulebooks, this isn't exactly news.

Yeah. I really hate having my rules nicely organized into a glossary. What a bunch of hacks.

Just now, Tvayumat said:

Yeah. I really hate having my rules nicely organized into a glossary. What a bunch of hacks.

I honestly do, it involves flipping to multiple places for quite a few things. Instead of a good flow for each phase which incorporates everything in a nice legalese 1,1.1,1.1.1, etc.

5 minutes ago, Darthain said:

I honestly do, it involves flipping to multiple places for quite a few things. Instead of a good flow for each phase which incorporates everything in a nice legalese 1,1.1,1.1.1, etc.

It really is just such a hassle. 23 whole pages of booklet gives me such a headache.

Alphabetized rule entries make it SO hard to find what I'm looking for.

If only the rules were shotgunned together in a "good flow" (which already exists in the L2P guide), rather than a reference guide following simple, common, universal principles of organization.

Snark aside, I really think you're setting an impossible standard Darthain.

I'm sorry you find the rules to be difficult or frustrating.

I find FFG rules to be clear, concise, simple, and generally quickly addressed if they fall short.

2 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

Snark aside, I really think you're setting an impossible standard Darthain.

I'm sorry you find the rules to be difficult or frustrating.

I find FFG rules to be clear, concise, simple, and generally quickly addressed if they fall short.

If it were impossible, it wouldn't have been met already. We've some folks in the industry now, for example Paul Grogan, who literally take commission to write or clean up rulebooks (he also does pretty fantastic overview videos). The external eyes would help a lot, at least with oversight issues.

It could always get worse though, it could be a Vlaada rulebook.

Not a wargame, but Runewars (boardgame) had all the rules in the flow of the game. If you wanted to find something specific, you could use the index. However, I heard a lot of people saying they didn't know where to find certain rules. It took a lot of familiarity with the rules to be able to find certain rules you thought would be in one place, but actually appeared in another.

Thr L2P/RR double-book method isn't foolproof, but it does solve a lot of problems with the old system. Now you can read the L2P to get the basic flow of the game without dedicating a whole evening to reading it. With Runewars, you had 40 pages to read. With Runewars Miniatures Game, the actual rules layout of the L2P is less than half ths you read the flow of the game in the L2P, you can look up specific questions or clarifications you need in the RR.

I am the kind of person that enjoys reading rules from time to time. I was fine with the old system, but not everyone was. It was a system that resulted in a few rules-masters while everyone else had to ask for clarification. I feel that the barrier to becoming proficient with the rules from just reading has decreased.

Now, I do get your point about wanting to read how all the technical details flow together. I, too, would like that. However, I feel it would only serve a very niche audience.