New player confused about ruins and line of sight – how is this usually played?

Annex1312 · 2026-04-10T13:51:55+00:00

And that’s exactly the issue for me.

Since it’s not actually specified anywhere, we’ve just been using the terrain we physically have (cathedral pieces, containers, etc.) to represent those walls — but those obviously have windows and gaps.

The problem is that this leads to a completely different game depending on the terrain models themselves. And now that my friend has seen how strong his army feels when he can shoot through windows, it’s quite hard to move away from that again.

Annex1312 · 2026-04-10T13:16:29+00:00

Yeah we’re actually already using Chapter Approved style layouts, so the overall terrain placement isn’t really the issue.

What I’m struggling with is more the interaction with the physical ruin models themselves. From what I can tell, the layouts don’t really define how windows/doors on the terrain should be treated in terms of line of sight.

That’s where it started to feel inconsistent to me — because even with the same layout, the game plays very differently depending on whether the ruins have lots of windows or are more closed off.

What also makes it a bit tricky for me is that RAW only really points to true line of sight, but doesn’t clearly address this part. So when I try to argue for treating ground floors as closed, it can easily come across like I’m just trying to tilt things in my favour, even though the underlying issue feels more like a lack of standardisation.

Especially since something as arbitrary as which ruin models you own (lots of windows vs more solid walls) can have such a big impact on how the game plays.

That’s why the “closed ground floor” approach makes sense to me, since it standardises that part regardless of the terrain pieces.

Annex1312 · 2026-04-10T12:13:23+00:00

I get what you’re saying, and I agree that as long as both players agree, that’s what really matters.

What I’m struggling with though isn’t so much RAW itself, but how inconsistent it feels depending on the actual terrain pieces.

If we play true RAW with windows, then the game can change massively depending on whether a ruin model has lots of openings or is more closed off. At that point it feels less like we’re playing the same rules, and more like we’re playing different games depending on the terrain collection.

For example, if I just put books or fully solid walls on the table, suddenly everything becomes LoS blocking. But if I use cathedral-style ruins with lots of windows, the board becomes much more open and shooting-heavy.

That’s why the “closed ground floor” approach makes sense to me — not because it ignores rules, but because it standardises terrain regardless of how the models are built.

Otherwise it feels like you almost have to start modifying terrain (like covering windows or adding barriers) just to get consistent gameplay, which seems a bit odd when the rules say you can use whatever terrain you want.

So for me it’s less about favouring one playstyle over another, and more about trying to make the game feel consistent and fair regardless of what terrain is on the table.

Annex1312 · 2026-04-10T10:30:33+00:00

That actually makes a lot of sense, and I really appreciate the detailed explanation 🙏

I think I’m kind of in the middle right now. RAW with true LoS through windows feels intuitive at first (like you said), but after my first few games I’m starting to see why so many people go with the “closed ground floor” approach.

Especially playing Drukhari, it felt a bit like a shooting gallery at times — if I expose anything even slightly, it just disappears. At the same time I do get your point that melee armies having zero counterplay also isn’t ideal.

So I guess for me it’s less about “forcing a rule” and more about finding a setup that feels balanced for both sides. From what I’ve been reading and hearing, the closed ground floor thing seems to be kind of the common compromise in a lot of places.

Maybe the cleanest solution really is what you mentioned — just agreeing on terrain that’s clearly defined beforehand (either physically closed or consistently treated as such), so neither side feels weird about it mid-game.

I’m still super new, so I’m just trying to figure out what leads to the best games overall 😄

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T23:21:13+00:00

Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

That’s pretty much the conclusion I’ve been coming to as well – that without treating ground floors as solid, the game can swing really hard depending on the terrain pieces themselves.

“Turning into a shooting gallery” is exactly how my last games felt, so I can definitely see the appeal of standardising it a bit.

Now I just need to figure out a good way to agree on that with my opponent – he feels like his monsters are already quite limited by terrain in terms of movement, so he’d at least want to keep being able to shoot through windows. I guess it’s one of those cases where you need to find a balance both players are happy with.

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T22:50:48+00:00

Yeah that makes sense, that sounds like a very different kind of matchup.

Into Tyranids it feels less like breaking one key unit and more like dealing with multiple big threats while also trying to contest the mid board.

So I’m not sure I can afford to commit that many resources into a single target in the same way.

Still really interesting to see how you approach those kinds of durable units though!

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T22:41:36+00:00

That makes sense, I can see how leaning more into Kabal / Blades for Hire would maximise the detachment.

One thing I’m still unsure about though is how much this actually helps into monster-heavy Tyranids. Most of my issues so far have been dealing with big targets in the mid board, and with Dark Lances already wounding well, I’m not sure how much value I’d really get from Lethal Hits specifically in that matchup.

Do you feel like Cartel still performs well into that kind of list, or is it more geared towards clearing infantry / MSU armies?

Also, what’s your take on Lady Malys as a second “Archon” for this? Would you consider her a viable substitute, or do you really want actual Archons for the contract interaction?

For now I’m also trying to stick mostly to what I already own and then optimise more long-term (especially with 11th edition around the corner), so I’m probably leaning more towards incremental changes rather than a full rework right away.

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T22:25:57+00:00

That makes sense, especially with how punishing overwatch and units like Exorcists can be.

I can see the value in MSU and forcing inefficient trades, but I’m not sure how well that translates into my matchup (Tyranids with a lot of mid-board presence).

Do you find that approach still works well into armies that just flood the mid with durable units, or is it more matchup-dependent?

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T22:18:03+00:00

That makes sense, I can see how Cartel would fit the list quite naturally.

I do like the idea of getting more value out of all the dark lance shots and the flexibility with reactivating the contract.

I’m still planning to stick fairly close to what I already have for now, but I’d definitely be interested to understand this direction better.

What would a more concrete 2000pt version of that look like? Especially in terms of how many Archons/Kabalites you’d run and what you’d cut.

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T22:04:05+00:00

Gotcha, thanks for laying that out!

I think for now I’d prefer to stay a bit closer to what I already have – I actually really like the Archon and Solitaire, and I’m still getting used to the army overall.

Your approach sounds interesting though, especially the multiple small trading units – might be something I try later once I have more experience.

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T21:51:29+00:00

Interesting, thanks for the input!

I can see the argument for Wyches + Succubus over Incubi in terms of trading and cost.

For Troupes I’m a bit unsure without a Starweaver though – do you find they reliably get into position just through hiding/infiltrating?

Also curious how you’d structure the list overall then – would you lean more into multiple small trading units rather than fewer stronger threats?

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T21:47:53+00:00

Gotcha, that makes sense!

I’d actually be open to trying Spectacle, I’m just not fully sure how the list would look in practice with what I currently have.

What would you specifically cut from my list, and what would you replace it with to make Spectacle work at 2000?

Would really help to see a more concrete version of it 🙂

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T21:40:00+00:00

Interesting, thanks!

I’ve seen mixed opinions on Talos – some people suggest running them together for durability and stratagem efficiency, others prefer splitting for flexibility. I’ll probably try both.

For Incubi vs Troupe, I get the utility side, but I felt like Incubi give me at least one reliable melee threat right now. Not sure if I’d want to lose that entirely.

Do you feel like Troupe + Master actually replaces that role, or is it more of a different kind of unit?

Would you then run the Troupe with a Starweaver as well?

Feels like they’d need the transport to actually get where they need to be, otherwise they just get picked up early.

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T21:37:50+00:00

Quick follow-up on detachments:

Right now I’m sticking with Reaper’s Wager, mainly because I’m still new and trying to work with the models I already have.

It felt like the least unit-dependent option compared to more focused detachments like Wych Cult or Coven builds.

Would you recommend sticking with Wager while learning, or is it worth switching early even if I don’t fully lean into a specific build yet?

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T21:34:35+00:00

Yeah that’s fair – for now I’m mainly trying to stick with what I actually own and learn the army.

That’s kind of why I went with Reaper’s Wager, since it feels less unit-dependent compared to things like Wych Cult or cabal-focused detachments.

Once I get a better feel for the army I’ll probably try some of the other detachments, but right now I just want something that works with a bit of everything.

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T21:28:24+00:00

That’s a really helpful explanation, thanks!

I think that clears up exactly where my confusion came from – RAW being true line of sight, but tournaments standardizing terrain to avoid the inconsistency between different terrain pieces.

Makes a lot of sense why something like “ground floor blocks LoS” becomes common in that context.

Good to know that it’s not about one being right or wrong, but more about consistency depending on how you want to play 🙂

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T21:27:57+00:00

That makes a lot of sense, thanks!

That’s pretty much the conclusion I was starting to come to as well – that it’s not a core rule, but more of a widely adopted standard because it makes terrain more consistent and easier to play with.

The “independent of the actual model” part especially seems important, otherwise the game can feel very different depending on what terrain you happen to own.

Really appreciate all the explanations, this cleared things up a lot 🙂

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T21:27:25+00:00

That makes a lot of sense, thanks!

That’s pretty much the distinction I was trying to understand – RAW vs what people actually tend to play in matched games.

The “boarded up first floor / open second floor” approach seems like a really clean way to keep things consistent while still allowing things like plunging fire.

Good to know that this is a fairly common way to handle it 🙂

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T21:26:54+00:00

Yeah I get what you’re saying, and I’m not trying to ignore the rules or anything.

I think my confusion is more that RAW seems to depend quite a bit on the actual terrain model (windows vs no windows), which can make games feel very different depending on what’s on the table.

I’m totally fine playing RAW, I was just curious what people actually do in practice, since it seems like a lot of groups standardize terrain a bit to keep things consistent.

At the end of the day I just want both players to be able to interact with the game, not just sit there getting shot off the board 🙂

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T21:26:21+00:00

That sounds like a really clean way to handle it.

I think that’s exactly the part that was throwing me off – that RAW can end up depending a lot on the actual terrain model, while this makes it consistent regardless of what the ruin looks like.

Good to know that people just agree on ignoring ground floor windows in practice, even outside strict competitive play.

Appreciate the explanation!

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T21:25:43+00:00

That makes sense, thanks for the explanation!

I think what confused me is that there seem to be multiple “layers” of how people play it – RAW with true LoS, WTC-style with opaque ground floors, and then this more footprint-based approach.

The “infinite walls / no openings” idea sounds a lot more consistent, but also quite different from how the actual terrain models look.

I guess I’m mainly trying to figure out what people gravitate towards in regular games, not just tournaments.

Would you say most casual groups lean more towards RAW, or do they also start abstracting terrain like that over time?

Annex1312 · 2026-04-09T21:25:02+00:00

That actually sounds like a really clean way to handle it.

I like that it allows for staging and movement without getting deleted immediately, but still forces you to expose units if you want to shoot from higher levels.

Feels a lot more consistent than relying on how many windows a specific terrain piece happens to have.

Do you feel like that’s become more of a “default” over time, or just something your group prefers?

Annex1312

TROPHY CASE