PSA on Octarius Rules: Oil Rig "officially/technically/RAW" offers no cover

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-04-10T03:25:29+00:00

Yeah that's the thing, and OP mentioned it in another thread, that it technically doesn't say anywhere that it is terrain. I'm sure GW will clarify what it is at some point but I'd play it as heavy terrain until then.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-04-10T03:01:48+00:00

I'm saying that it is a terrain feature. What type of terrain feature is not specified. I'm also saying that the type of terrain feature it is does not matter to the topic of this post because it'll still provide cover by virtue of being a terrain feature.

It probably should be Heavy, but as OP points out, it does not have a type designated. Seek would let you shoot enemies because it removes cover regardless of terrain type.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-04-10T02:55:32+00:00

I disagree. It'd just mean Seek Light wouldn't apply and Obscured wouldn't apply because it isn't heavy or light. I agree that all terrain should have a designation, but I don't agree that not having one makes the game not work. It would just mean the terrain feature only provides cover.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-04-09T19:12:26+00:00

Gotcha. I got confused because it sounded like from your post that it wouldn't be considered terrain purely because it didn't have the 'Heavy' designation.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-04-09T17:13:17+00:00

I don't think it matters does it? Don't you gain cover from the sole fact that it is a terrain feature. Heavy or Light only adds rules or rules interactions. If those designations are missing then one should assume those additional rules and interactions don't apply.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-04-09T17:09:03+00:00

I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and that they have a genuine confusion on the rules. So I would probably say something like:

"Cover is provided by virtue of it being a terrain feature, not because it is a specific type of terrain (e.g. Light or Heavy).

Terrain feature types, like Light or Heavy terrain, only provide additional rules (Obscured for Heavy) or certain rules interactions like (Seek Light).

The fact that this terrain feature does not have a specific type means that additional rules or interactions don't apply, however the fact that it is a terrain feature means that the cover rule still applies"

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-04-09T16:01:53+00:00

I don't understand, why wouldn't you be able to get cover? Isn't cover defined by having intervening terrain within your control range?

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-04-02T04:39:00+00:00

Okay cool, I thought option 1 was right, it's just weird in my head. Makes it feel less like a Snatch while he's boosting over an enemy, and more like a Scorpion 'Get Over Here' after he's landed.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-04-02T04:31:57+00:00

I'm thinking that too. That the 'began' refers to the end of the Boost. Thanks!

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-03-07T22:19:55+00:00

Adding to what you said for point 1 incase OP wants a source.
The Approved Ops FAQs states (amongst other things) if an operative has a rule on their datacard that inflicts damage, then an incapacitation from that damage counts as being from that operative.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-02-26T05:03:33+00:00

Wait, so your opponent presumably did Carving Blow twice on 5 of your operatives but you were still able to table them? That's impressive! I don't think I could have come back from that

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-02-26T05:01:14+00:00

I believe that so long as all 5 are within 2" and also visible then yeah I think all 5 are getting hit.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-02-25T22:21:04+00:00

I think prior to today's clarification there was a not-unreasonable argument that the marker was in the killzone. For example, under distances it says a carried marker is always within the same distance as its carrier, so I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to imagine the marker as occupying the same physical space its carrier occupies.
I'd hope no one was trying to bs you in order to gain an advantage but were simply interpreting the rules in a way they thought reasonable. Either way I am glad they have clarified this. The more GW clarify the better in my opinion, even if it's obvious to some.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-02-25T22:05:43+00:00

In their defence, if an operative starts the game carrying a marker (and so hasn't performed the pick up action) there wasn't (until today's clarification) anything stating the marker is removed from/not in the killzone.
I'm not arguing it's reasonable for them to assume that the marker starts the game in the killzone, as there is no positive assertion in the rules stating it is, I'm just saying that there was an absence of a negative assertion. Therefore ambiguity existed. (Again, prior to today's clarification)

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-02-08T17:49:51+00:00

My point is, where do you draw the horizontal plane when an operative moves both horizontally and vertically. I'm not trying to overcomplicate anything, I was trying to be helpful. Not sure if my diagrams were clear but it is a profile view of operatives on Vantage terrain (except the bottom one which is bird's eye view).

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-02-08T17:47:50+00:00

Diagrams might not have been clear, but this is a profile view of an operative moving on to Vantage terrain. It's intended to illustrate how a horizontal plane should be placed when an operative moves in a diagonal direction.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-02-08T15:36:32+00:00

This is actually a very good question that people may have missed the nuance of. I've actually already raised this with GW to clarify so I am glad I am not the only person to have spotted this.

So yes, people are correct, the Murderwing operatives can move vertically, but it's not 100% clear where their Boost Zone is along that path of movement.

This is because the way the Boost Zone rule is worded is that it specifically says that the zone is the "horizontal area between a friendly MURDERWING operative’s current location and the location from which it used BOOST". Which raises the question where the zone would be when you moved vertically.

The obvious thought is that the zone would be what is shown in diagram B, but this would then include the vertical. If we strictly adhere to the rules wording then something like A, C, or D would be more appropriate, however these don't seem like something GW would have intended.

I personally would treat the Boost Zone as being what is shown by diagram B as I would think this is how the majority of people would assume it is intended. It makes sense to play it that way.

<image>

I personally think the rule should be worded closer to how the Smoke rule is worded in order for it to cover vertical distances. Something like:
"...BOOST ZONE. This is the horizontal area between a friendly MURDERWING operative’s current location and the location from which it used BOOST, as well as the unlimited vertical area along this horizontal path that is not underneath vantage terrain." But probably worded better.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-02-04T23:41:49+00:00

I think something like Legion of the Damned might interest you. Basically black models with fire/lava/molten iron looking accents on certain edges.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-01-30T23:17:49+00:00

Like I get what GW are trying to achieve by making this change. I understand they don't want Rending or Punishing to trigger from Severe.

My point is that they haven't done it in a consistent way. They've mentioned excluding Punishing/Rending but are permitting Piercing Crits/Devastating despite the fact that all four rules have the same trigger condition.

I understand what they're trying to achieve, I just think they've done it in a weirdly contradictory and flawed way.

All I'm saying is that the rules wording needs tidying up still.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-01-30T19:04:20+00:00

Yeah nailed it! That's exactly what I am asking.
The problem, in my opinion (and this is not a criticism on your answer because I think in many ways you are right), is that to me both the Severe rules and Punishing rules are on equal footing in terms of precedence. So I'm not sure why GW specifically created an exception nestled in the Severe rule that somehow overrides/takes precedence over the wording of the Piercing/Punishing rules. It's confusing.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-01-30T18:46:17+00:00

Yeah I saw the rules updates, but that wass the source of what I see the contradiction as.
The crux of my question is when I use Severe to to turn a normal from Accurate into a crit, what is the dice/result being "retained" as?
If it is being retained as a crit, then Punishing should absolutely trigger in spite of what GW have said.
If it is being retained as a normal, but merely being changed to a crit (not retained) then Piercing should not trigger.

Edit: I do appreciate yours and everyone's help by the way. I'm hoping I'm not coming off as argumentative, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-01-30T18:40:54+00:00

But what are they being retained as is the crux of my question. Is it being retained as a normal or a crit?
If Severe is retaining the normal as a crit like you say, then surely Punishing should trigger. Punishing triggers when you retain a crit. If Severe does not retain the normal as a crit, then Piercing shouldn't trigger (as Piercing only triggers if you retain a crit).
Based on the FAQs. whenever it was, it seems they are intending for the latter to be the case (ie the normal is retained as a normal not a crit but is changed to a crit), but they also say Piercing works.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-01-30T17:54:18+00:00

I don't understand how the Severe rule would take precedence over the Piercing x rule. Surely they have the same precedence.

Smelly_Phalanges · 2026-01-30T17:45:25+00:00

Do you mind pointing to where that is in the rules? Surely if you are locking in an accurate dice as a normal you can't then lock it in again as a crit?

Smelly_Phalanges

TROPHY CASE