Is all dangerous terrain also difficult? My friend says that page 14 says that if it's dangerous it must also be difficult. My reading is 1 or the other (or both) but not automatically both... right?

No.

Usually is, but it is not required.

I just reread the rule as well, and I interpret it as both. You would have to roll for the difficulty and the damage.

The difficult terrain bullet point has dangerous terrain described as a version.

We have always read that as another (potentially 'stackable') terrain type regardless.

This makes another thing to my list of pre-game discussions for people that I do not discuss rules with regularly.

e.g. "This terrain is lava so dangerous and difficult, but that part is poison gas, so is only dangerous ok?"

Thanks for bringing this up.

Here is my interpretation:

I believe that the key is on page 14 of the 5th edition rules under Dangerous Terrain where description starts "As mentioned previously..." This phrase seems silly at first, but the authors use this phrase to make it clear that to understand dangerous terrain you need a pointer back to where it was first introduced (you cannot understand dangerous terrain unless you understand difficult terrain). Dangerous terrain was first introduced on page 13 under Difficult Terrain. This phrase links difficult terrain and dangerous terrain, and makes it clear that they do not operate in isolation. It is intended to make it clear that dangerous terrain is not a category of its own; it is a subcategory of difficult terrain. All dangerous terrain is difficult, but not all difficult terrain is dangerous.

If the phrase "As mentioned previously..." was omitted, the argument could be made that Dangerous Terrain stands distinct and apart from the rules for difficult terrain. Of course in the scenario where the two were not linked you could have dangerous terrain that was not also difficult, and this might be a bit of a conceptual problem.

See, I think the problem with that have here is the rulebook does not say to make both tests. If they were always both, it would say something along the lines of after passing a difficult terrain test, you must always... and give the rules for dangerous terrain. As no such double test is mentioned, you only take one test for dangerous terrain, they are thus two distinct types which may be - but are not required to be - used together. Speaking of things that go together - pepperoni and bacon on my pizza.

Actually I think the pizza guy has it right. If you look at the classification of terrain types on page 13 it breaks it down into clear, difficult and impassable. Under difficult it says difficult terrain may also sometimes be dangerous. It doesn't say that clear terrain can sometimes be dangerous too. That's what we're talking about; terrain that doesn't slow models down, but does pose a danger to them.

My feeling is that, as you say - terrain that doesn't slow models down, but does pose a danger to them - that covers things such as minefields.

Ouze wrote:My feeling is that, as you say - terrain that doesn't slow models down, but does pose a danger to them - that covers things such as minefields.

Why would that not also be difficult? The unit will have to slow down to navigate the minefield. I will re-read when I have the rulebook in front of me, but I don't see why a unit wouldn't move more slowly through any dangerous terrain.

So models under the benefit of a venomthropes spore cloud effect force assaulting units to make a dangerous terrain test. Does this mean they must also make a difficult test and possibly not meet their assault range, thus preventing the original reason for the rolls?

I'm in the school that dangerous is not always difficult. Multi wound models at full health will never be killed by dangerous terrain, why would they slow down? Orks and tyranids can suppress their survival instinct so why slow down in a minefield?

Lava and other muck is different as it would slow you down so there should be two distinctions.

Ouze wrote:My feeling is that, as you say - terrain that doesn't slow models down, but does pose a danger to them - that covers things such as minefields.

Minefields are difficult and dangerous terrain, page 256 of the BRB.

I'll look again, but AFAIK, everywhere dangerous terrain is mentioned, it says that it is difficult terrain that is also dangerous, including ruins on page 82.

I don't think you could have dangerous terain that is not also difficult, but that is only according to the rules.

In a game, you and your opponent could always decide that a terrain feature is dangerous but not difficult if you so chose.

Similar to razorwire that might be declared to be difficult and dangerous to infantry but can be ignored by vehicles.

The rules are clear that when a unit is given the order to enter dangerous terrain (woods) they immediately enter a "cautiously approaching" mode (page 14) and this is represented by movement being limited to the higher of 2D6. Even if the distance to the woods is 4 inches and you roll a :two: and a :three: , tough luck; your movement is limited to 3 even though you never touch the woods.

So what about giving the unit an order to enter a minefield?

I maintain that giving a unit the order to enter a minefield will also cause the unit to go into the "cautiously approaching" mode. If not what we are saying is that the the troops treat the order to move into woods with a higher level of caution than the order to move into a minefield. This just does not sound right for me.

Dangerous terrain is it's own type of terrain, with it's own rules. It is actually more of a further terrain modifier(much like area terrain); and obviously can only be applied to Difficult or Clear terrain.

Unfortunately the BRB only talks about Difficult terrain as being possibly Dangerous as well; but this is not ever stated in the Dangerous terrain rules. If this were the case there would be a line in the Dangerous terrain rules on page 15 that said something to the effect of: "All dangerous terrain is also difficult" or the first sentence would say: "As mentioned previously, some difficult terrain features will be dangerous to move through."

zeshin wrote:

Ouze wrote:My feeling is that, as you say - terrain that doesn't slow models down, but does pose a danger to them - that covers things such as minefields.

Why would that not also be difficult? The unit will have to slow down to navigate the minefield. I will re-read when I have the rulebook in front of me, but I don't see why a unit wouldn't move more slowly through any dangerous terrain.

I agree

Well here is the problem. Ouze and I have $20 in pizza riding on this. Right now I have:

Is dangerous terrain ALWAYS difficult terrain according to the 5th edition rules:

Yes = 5
No = 4

I was kind of hoping for more of a clear victory, but when it comes to free pizza I will take what I can get.

Difficult may not always mean simultaneously dangerous, and dangerous terrain may not always mean simultaneously difficult.

It should be a pregame decision.

*Came off a bit short before*

It's covered fully on pages 13 & 14.
Dangerous is to Difficult as Ram is to Tank shock.
Difficult tests are taken before ones move. Dangerous test are taken after.

If dangerous is supposed to always be difficult (I'm not on one side or the other here) then why would they need to specify that dangerous terrain is also difficult (as with a wrecked vehicle)? If dangerous was also always supposed to difficult, would it then not be implied by just saying 'dangerous terrain'?

It's interesting and a point of consistency I wouldn't expect from GW writing. The language used on page 62 is consistent with page 13 "and can sometimes be dangerous to models passing through it." and "then it may be additionally categorised as both difficult and dangerous terrain."

It appears that terrain must be difficult to be dangerous - full stop - 'Dangerous terrain' as such doesn't exist and terrain must be classifed 'Dangerous' in addition to 'Difficult'. So the reason for the phrasing on page 62 you mentioned is because in the 40k universe thewre is not such thing as 'just dangerous terrain'

Page 13 of the rulebook:
under terrain types. "There are three general classes of terrain: Clear, Difficult and impassible."

"Clear Terrain can be moved across without any penalty and generally covers most of the battlefield"

"Difficult Terrain slows down models wishing to move through it, and CAN SOMETIMES BE DANGEROUS to models passing through it."

"Impassible Terrain cannot be moved across or into"

looking at this it is clear that the only type of dangerous terrain is Difficult terrain!

Square-rectangle according to RAW.

All dangerous terrain is difficult.

Not all difficult terrain is dangerous.

Edit: D'oh, see the dude who posted just before me. He said it best.

I shall have to play with Venomthropes now, at least once in a while it seems.

Thanks everyone for the input.

First I think it is interesting that there are still disagreements on basic rules like this. You would think that after a certain amount of time all of these types of issues would be resolved.

Second if anyone follows golf, as was seen on Sunday terrain interpretations similar to this come up all the time.
http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,2010839,00.html

kirsanth wrote:I shall have to play with Venomthropes now, at least once in a while it seems.

No, because they only force a dangerous test, IIRC.

Klawz wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I shall have to play with Venomthropes now, at least once in a while it seems.

No, because they only force a dangerous test, IIRC.

Good call, that's what I get for leaving my codex at home.
You are indeed correct.

kirsanth wrote:

Klawz wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I shall have to play with Venomthropes now, at least once in a while it seems.

No, because they only force a dangerous test, IIRC.

Good call, that's what I get for leaving my codex at home.
You are indeed correct.

Sure doesn't sound like you've read all of the codi many times, and don't have to refer to them during games.

LOL

I have never fielded Venomthropes, so I have never had to refer to the rules for them!

Fair enough!

I'm curious as to just how it is people can interpret dangerous terrain as not also being difficult.

P13, Difficult Terrain bulletpoint. "If the terrain feature includes hazards such as [examples] then it may be additionally classified as both difficult and dangerous"

This is the only mention of classifying terrain as dangerous.

... until you go to the very next page, which has a heading titled "Dangerous Terrain", mentioning some terrain details will be dangerous to move through (not difficult AND dangerous). It then gives the rules for a dangerous terrain test. It does not mention a difficult terrain test must then also be taken.

In situations when both tests must be taken, such as wrecks (pg 62), artillery movement (pg 55), and destroyed buildings (pg 79) it is explicit. If all dangerous terrain were also difficult terrain, there would be no need to explicitly state double testing is required in those examples.

While I disagree that all dangerous terrain MUST also be difficult (and require double-testing) is RAW, I certainly won't pretend that argument has no merit, and think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise for either argument.

Yes, it starts "as previously mentioned". The only previous mention is the one that I referenced.

Then why the 3 different mentions of when something is simultaneously difficult and dangerous? There are numerous mentions of something being difficult, and something being dangerous, but the numerous mentions of something being both difficult AND dangerous rather then simply dangerous rather implies they can operate independently or together.

time wizard wrote:
I don't think you could have dangerous terain that is not also difficult, but that is only according to the rules.

What about units like a Venomthrope? His rules require you to take a Dangerous Terrain test. This says nothing of Difficult terrain. So, when assaulting a Venomthrope, you don't roll 2D6 to reach him (and therefore, don't lower your intiative), but you do take a Dangerous Terrain test.

They are two different tests. And yes, one may constitute the other (rolling 2D6 to move over a wreck, then rolling a Dangerous Terrain test), but they are not required of one another.

puma713 wrote:

time wizard wrote:
I don't think you could have dangerous terain that is not also difficult, but that is only according to the rules.

What about units like a Venomthrope? His rules require you to take a Dangerous Terrain test. This says nothing of Difficult terrain. So, when assaulting a Venomthrope, you don't roll 2D6 to reach him (and therefore, don't lower your intiative), but you do take a Dangerous Terrain test.

They are two different tests. And yes, one may constitute the other (rolling 2D6 to move over a wreck, then rolling a Dangerous Terrain test), but they are not required of one another.

I think the Venomthrope is seperate from this issue as he doesn't create an area of dangerous terrain, he simply forces a test to be taken.

Taking *either* a Difficult or Dangerous Terrain check lowers your Init, if memory serves....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Taking *either* a Difficult or Dangerous Terrain check lowers your Init, if memory serves....

I was under the impression that what lowered your initiative was the act of assaulting through difficult terrain. In other words, taking the difficult terrain test limits your movement (the movement portion being the key), but dangerous terrain does not (if it operates independently), therefore dangerous terrain on its own would not lower your initiative on the charge, only difficult terrain.

Nope, see "Assaulting through Cover", taking EITHER lowers your I.

Interesting, I stand corrected, thank you.

It's ok, it comes up quite a few times locally hence knowing it - non-grenade bikers charging into terrain,e tc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nope, see "Assaulting through Cover", taking EITHER lowers your I.

Yep. Now, is that in there just for units like bikes which do not take difficult tests and always get their full movement or is it in there because the two types of terrain can be completely separate?

puma713 wrote:

time wizard wrote:
I don't think you could have dangerous terain that is not also difficult, but that is only according to the rules.

What about units like a Venomthrope? His rules require you to take a Dangerous Terrain test. This says nothing of Difficult terrain. So, when assaulting a Venomthrope, you don't roll 2D6 to reach him (and therefore, don't lower your intiative), but you do take a Dangerous Terrain test.

They are two different tests. And yes, one may constitute the other (rolling 2D6 to move over a wreck, then rolling a Dangerous Terrain test), but they are not required of one another.

Reading comprehension fail.
I just answered this same thing, one page earlier. But zeshin does a good job of explaining it too.

Klawz wrote:

puma713 wrote:

time wizard wrote:
I don't think you could have dangerous terain that is not also difficult, but that is only according to the rules.

What about units like a Venomthrope? His rules require you to take a Dangerous Terrain test. This says nothing of Difficult terrain. So, when assaulting a Venomthrope, you don't roll 2D6 to reach him (and therefore, don't lower your intiative), but you do take a Dangerous Terrain test.

They are two different tests. And yes, one may constitute the other (rolling 2D6 to move over a wreck, then rolling a Dangerous Terrain test), but they are not required of one another.

Reading comprehension fail.
I just answered this same thing, one page earlier. But zeshin does a good job of explaining it too.

This doesn't indicate that I didn't understand what you were saying, hence "reading comprehension". The discussion is whether or not a dangerous terrain test includes a difficult terrain test.

If the venomthrope cause a dangerous terrain test, and it does happen to include a difficult terrain test, then the point is valid, whether or not there is actually terrain on the field or not. If a dangerous terrain test does -not- include a difficult terrain test, then the two tests are separate and can be mutually exclusive.

What does it matter if a rule on a model is forcing the check or a block of woods?

Edit: Also, maybe you misread my post. Inflection and tone doesn't carry well over the internet. My "What about venomthropes?" was a hypothetical question to set up the rest of my explanation why they don't cause a difficult terrain test. I assume you took it to mean I was literally asking, "Well what do you guys think of the venomthrope rule?" Which is not the case.

A Venomthrope forcing a dangerous terrain test has nothing to do with (difficult) terrain, in the same way a KFF has nothing to do with having 50% of a vehicle out of view.

Even if all dangerous terrain is difficult, there is no reason that a dangerous terrain check called for by something other than terrain to invoke difficult terrain rules.

kirsanth wrote:A Venomthrope forcing a dangerous terrain test has nothing to do with (difficult) terrain, in the same way a KFF has nothing to do with having 50% of a vehicle out of view.

Even if all dangerous terrain is difficult, there is no reason that a dangerous terrain check called for by something other than terrain to invoke difficult terrain rules.

Right. That was my point. Klawz took it to mean that I asked the same question he just answered on page 1, which wasn't the case.

OK, for the sake of this discussion, can we disregard the Venomthrope or any other single-codex specific peculiarities that may exist? Not that I don't appreciate the point you are trying to raise, but obviously many (if not every single) codex allows some units to have rules that supersede the main rulebook, and as such any such examples won't have any bearing on the general rule that applies to every army in absence of such special abilities. At best we'd be able to establish that the Venomthrope can cause dangerous but not difficult terrain which has no bearing on anything not involving Venomthropes.

As a side note, as we have gotten so many good rulings previously on many matters, we'd take whatever Noseferatu's take on it as how we're playing it from now on until there is an errata, FAQ or INAT entry indicating one way or the other... if you'd like to weigh in.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Dangerous terrain is it's own type of terrain, with it's own rules. It is actually more of a further terrain modifier(much like area terrain); and obviously can only be applied to Difficult or Clear terrain.

Just noticed this looking back through the thread. Dangerous terrain can also be applied to impassable terrain. This is in the rules for jump inffantry, jetbikes and skimmers.

My take on reading the rules would be:

The standard rules do not support non-difficult dangerous terrain, since only the general terrain type "Difficult terrain" is allowed to be dangerous. However, using rules supplements (Planet Strike, Apocalypse, codices, special missions etc) may include non-difficult dangerous terrain - simply by referencing the core rules.

time wizard wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Dangerous terrain is it's own type of terrain, with it's own rules. It is actually more of a further terrain modifier(much like area terrain); and obviously can only be applied to Difficult or Clear terrain.

Just noticed this looking back through the thread. Dangerous terrain can also be applied to impassable terrain. This is in the rules for jump inffantry, jetbikes and skimmers.

This is a classic example of logic being applied in the wrong fashion.

"but if it does so it must take a dangerous terrain test." Skimmers Pg. 71
"they treat the impassable terrain as dangerous terrain." Jump-I Pg. 52
"they treat the impassable terrain as dangerous terrain." J-Bikes Pg. 53

"then it may be additionally categorised as both difficult and dangerous terrain." Terrain Pg. 13
This is where we are given permission to apply the Danger-T lable to Difficult-T.
We are never told that we are allowed to put this classification on Impassable-T, the same goes for Clear-T too.

I've stayed silent as this is one of those annoyingly grey areas.

The number of "causes difficult and dangerous terrain" COULD imply that you can have separate Difficult-T, however it could just be GW redundancy striking again - ref bikes and reminding you that the increased toughness does not count for instant death, a clearly redundant rule as ID already tells you this.

In this instance I would regard the two as inseperable, as I cant find a rule allowing for just dangerous-T. So all dangerous-T is also Difficult.

Saying that the rulebook by RAW doesn't allow "clear but dangerous" terrain is a bit like saying that the rulebook doesn't allow the addition of new army books since they're not listed in the appendix.

There are rules for clear terrain, and rules for dangerous terrain, and no reason that the two terrain types can't be used together to describe a piece of terrain.

solkan wrote:Saying that the rulebook by RAW doesn't allow "clear but dangerous" terrain is a bit like saying that the rulebook doesn't allow the addition of new army books since they're not listed in the appendix.

There are rules for clear terrain, and rules for dangerous terrain, and no reason that the two terrain types can't be used together to describe a piece of terrain.

It's not.
This is the RAW; There are three 'Terrain types' listed - none of them is 'Dangerous'. Clear-T says something damn close to this,
"Clear terrain can be moved across without any penalty, it covers most of a normal battlefield"
if you'd like to explain how one could work a non-existant terrain type in there along with the penalty it incurrs?

I realize that it's a much further back edition, bit, IIRC, third ed actually allowed for dangerous-but-not-difficult terrain... An application of common sense is kind of in order here, especially since there is no real interaction between the difficult terrain test, and the dangerous terrain test. It plays out as such:

If Terrain = "Difficult" and movement will pass through the affected area of the terrain, Then make Difficult terrain test

If Terrain = "Dangerous" and movement has passed through the affected area of the terrain, Then make a Dangerous Terrain Test.

Similar, but capable of operating entirely independant from one another, despite havingsome similar trigger situations, with certain subtle, but distinct differences.

Worse comes to worse, figure it out with your opponent.

Ouze wrote:Then why the 3 different mentions of when something is simultaneously difficult and dangerous? There are numerous mentions of something being difficult, and something being dangerous, but the numerous mentions of something being both difficult AND dangerous rather then simply dangerous rather implies they can operate independently or together.

Being redundant does not create extra cases. Is there an example of dangerous terrain that isn't difficult in the rulebook?

I normally don't condone justifying rules using fluff, but since this is such a gray area, consider this: can you think of a single instance in which dangerous terrain would not also be difficult?

Someone mentioned poison gas, but as that would sting the eyes and cause trouble breathing, it could be slower or more difficult to move through.

Someone else mentioned a minefield, and that would be difficult as well as dangerous because they'd have to navigate around the mines, creating a much slower movement pace.

I can't think of an instance where terrain could be dangerous and yet not difficult.

RAW are very fuzzy on this, so why don't we resolve it logically, with the above criteria?

SaintHazard wrote: I can't think of an instance where terrain could be dangerous and yet not difficult.

RAW are very fuzzy on this,

There is also page 88 BRB under "Define the Terrain" (q.v.) where we are advised to agree with our opponent on how to define the terrain we are using.

The first bullet point is: "Which terrain pieces are area terrain, difficult terrain or dangerous terrain (or a combination)?"

Here dangerous terrain seems to be in a catagory all by itself and this rule seems to indicate that a piece of area terrain could be classified as dangerous but not difficult.

For example, a field of alien plants could be classified as not difficult to move through, but dangerous to troops.

You would not have to roll for difficult terrain and could move through it at full speed, but each model would have to take a dangerous terrain test.

But would those infantry not move more carefully or gingerly through the plants to avoid being injured? Thus, difficult terrain (and a slower movement).

nosferatu1001 wrote:

In this instance I would regard the two as inseperable, as I cant find a rule allowing for just dangerous-T. So all dangerous-T is also Difficult.

But where does it say that? It doesn't say that just as much as it doesn't say that the two are separated. There are rules for Difficult. There are rules for Dangerous. As time wizard points out, the rulebook even refers to terrain being difficult or dangerous, or a combination thereof.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:But would those infantry not move more carefully or gingerly through the plants to avoid being injured? Thus, difficult terrain (and a slower movement).

Which is using fluff to support rules. Whose to say that the ground doesn't have barbs in it, so they don't know they need to be more careful, but when they tread on the ground, the barbs shoot up (like Bouncing Bettys) and cause wounds. That would be clear terrain that could be dangerous.

And as I said, even though I normally won't use fluff to justify a rules interpretation, here there seems to be no clear way to interpret this particular rule via RAW, so fluff is the next best thing.

SaintHazard wrote:And as I said, even though I normally won't use fluff to justify a rules interpretation, here there seems to be no clear way to interpret this particular rule via RAW, so fluff is the next best thing.

That's where we disagree. I think it's clear that a terrain piece can be dangerous, difficult, or both.

SaintHazard wrote:But would those infantry not move more carefully or gingerly through the plants to avoid being injured? Thus, difficult terrain (and a slower movement).

I used a field of plants because fields are specifically mentioned in the BRB page 13 as being included in clear terrain.

Or picture a field of snow. A squad moves over it. It is not difficult, they can move their full 6". Suddenly one of them steps into a crevace and disappears! Dangerous, but not necessarily difficult.

Bottom line is that the rule on page 88 states that the terrain types can be separate.

Most often dangerous terrain is also difficult, but there is no rule that says it has to be.

Fair enough. I retract my statement. It is entirely possible for terrain to be dangerous without being difficult.

SaintHazard wrote:Fair enough. I retract my statement. It is entirely possible for terrain to be dangerous without being difficult.

In the fluff.
Pg. 13...

time wizard wrote:Or picture a field of snow. A squad moves over it. It is not difficult, they can move their full 6". Suddenly one of them steps into a crevace and disappears! Dangerous, but not necessarily difficult.

I don't know about you, but if my buddy fell in a crevasse while trudging through snow, I sure as heck wouldn't be busting through it full speed at that point, I'd take my time and verify each step for stability.

time wizard wrote:The first bullet point is: "Which terrain pieces are area terrain, difficult terrain or dangerous terrain (or a combination)?"

This could allow for terrain that is:
1) Area
2) Difficult
3) Dangerous (And therefor also Difficult)
4) Area & Difficult
5) Area & Dangerous (And therefor also Difficult)

as the combinations implied, without meaning to allow Dangerous terrain sans Difficult.

Granted we have always played that Dangerous was not always Difficult, but this thread made me wonder.

Scott-S6 wrote: Being redundant does not create extra cases. Is there an example of dangerous terrain that isn't difficult in the rulebook?

As someone else posted, in the BRB pg 88 line "Decide which terrain pieces are area terrain , difficult terrain or dangerous terrain (or a combination)" is, to me, rather compelling proof that terrain CAN be both but aren't inherently. But at this point I think it's sufficiently vague that no definitive answer will be reached. I submitted this in the INAT thread and will play by Noseferatu's definition until something further is published.


Thank you all for your well reasoned arguments.

I love how people reference the flawed "3 Terrain Types" on page 13... have any of you bothered looking down all of ~5 inches down the page?

As a refresher, let me show you how the page pans out...

Page 13 wrote:
TERRAIN TYPES
Terrain Provides useful cover from enemy fire, but can also impede the movement of your units. Troops can be slowed by pushing through or climbing over barriers and obstructions. Thare are three general classes of terrain: clar, difficult and Impassible.

• Clear terrain can be moved across without any penalty, and generally covers most of the battle field

• Difficult terrain slows down models wishing to move though it, and can sometimes be ganderous to models passing though it.

• Impassible terrani cannot be moved across or into.

Guidelines on categorising terrain

.......

• Buildings that models can enter, like bunkers, bastions and other fortifications.

As you can see, they have guidlines on catagorising Buildings as a type of Terrain, but buildings are NOT included in the 3 catagory terrain types listed directally above them... does this mean that buildings do not exist? (Only a far-fetched "RAW Zealot" would make this claim, IMO) It means that while something may or may not fall DIRECTALLY into one of the 3 catagories, it does not conditionally exist or not exist. Strictly speaking, there is NO SUCH THING as "Dangerous Terrain". "Dangerous terrain" is merely a test taken by dangerous features to any of the pre-existing terrain you already have on the board (Be it Difficult, Clear, or Impassible). Now, in many cases, Dangerous Terrain will also be Difficult in nature, as in most cases, if something would be especially dangerous (for instance, a KNOWN minefield) then the units moving across them would do so at a "slower" pace. Not all features would work this way however, it is perfectally justifyable, especially depending on your scenario, for terrain to be dangerous but NOT difficult (for example, an UNKNOWN mine field). I think the "Ram + Tank Shock" example misses the cut as it implies dependancy. As for the Page 88 example of

This could allow for terrain that is:
1) Area
2) Difficult
3) Dangerous (And therefor also Difficult)
4) Area & Difficult
5) Area & Dangerous (And therefor also Difficult)

I think it is more so as follows.

Terrain-----------------------Area?---------------Difficult?--------------Dangerous?
3 trees side-by-side-------Yes--------------------Yes---------------------No--------
Impassible Rocks------------No--------------------No-----------------------No*------- *If you were to decide the rocks have a chance of falling onto models, then 1" dangerous could work here
Desert Oasis-----------------Yes--------------------No-----------------------No--------
Quick Sand-------------------Yes--------------------Yes--------------------Yes-------

Then you would take the same things and apply cover saves

3-Trees - 4+/Check LOS
Impassible Rocks - Check LOS
Desert Oasis 5+/Check LOS
Quick Sand - Check LOS

So to answer the question... In my opinion, I think the answer you are looking for is "No" but only because the question marked them as two types of "Terrain catagories" when in reality, they are not. Types of Terrain = Difficult, Clear, Impassible. Possible definitions of Terrain = Dangerous, Area, Difficult, Ruins, Cover, Impassible, AV (for buildings), Capacity (For Embarkable Buildings)/Access points/Firing Points, etc.

IMHO, you should just both split the pizza...

Buildings are (generally) impassible terrain with special rules.

kirsanth wrote:Buildings are (generally) impassible terrain with special rules.

Ruins are buildings...

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Buildings are (generally) impassible terrain with special rules.

Ruins are buildings...

Not quite correct. Buildings are buildings (defined on page77) and ruins are ruins (defined on page 82).
Each has their own separate and different rules.

and then there is this...

So I am still correct?

kirsanth wrote:So I am still correct?

Yes.

Since that page doesn't say anything at all about ruins also being buildings, he just made your point for you.

There is also this from the top right hand column of page 77:

BUILDINGS
This catagory includes all those intact buildings in
which players cannot physically place their models...

This is from the same page as the RUINS quote.
Buildings and ruins are separate terrain features, with different rules.

EDIT: Yes, kirsanth, you are correct.

SaintHazard wrote:

kirsanth wrote:So I am still correct?

Yes.

Since that page doesn't say anything at all about ruins also being buildings, he just made your point for you.

Now, you've lost me


@Timewizard, underneath that segment states seperate rules for "Impassible Buildings" implying that normal buildings are infact NOT impassible terrain, but a seperate form of Terrain entirely...

However, as to not derail the topic futher, regardless of if "All (but some exceptions buildings are impassible terrain" they are still forms of terrain that are not SOLIDLY DEFINED as any of the three catagories of terrain, and as such, definitions of terrain are not restricted wholly and/or mutually exclusive two any one Type of "Terrain Catagory" (Actually the building example is further proof of this" so to restrict the definition of "Dangerous" terrain to the terrain catagory "Difficult" is fundamentally flawed...

Does that help?

Yes, I see the "RUINS." I see the picture of the RUINS.

What are you trying to say here?

Are you trying to say that those ruins look like a building?

Are you also trying to say that that somehow, in a strange roundabout way, makes them a building?

This is YMDC, man, you should know by now how we feel about defining RAW using fluff.

I'd like to point you towards that crater over there.

It used to be a bomb.

Does that mean it's still a bomb? If you step in that crater, will you explode?

Ruins were once buildings. They aren't anymore. This is reflected in the rules by making RUINS and BUILDINGS two completely different kinds of terrain, with different rules each.

Buildings are (generally) impassible terrain.
Ruins are (generally) difficult terrain.

Whether ruins that are dangerous force difficult tests simply because they are dangerous is (related to) the real issue being discussed.

And yes, we have all read the book. Even the part 5 inches past the words we are discussing.

kirsanth wrote:Buildings are (generally) impassible terrain.
Ruins are (generally) difficult terrain.

Whether ruins that are dangerous force difficult tests simply because they are dangerous is (related to) the real issue being discussed.

And yes, we have all read the book. Even the part 5 inches past the words we are discussing.

Then why refer to the "Terrain Types" section of the book when discussing "Terrain Definitions" which is CLEARLY the topic at discussion?

My point of saying "Using the Terrain Type chart on Page 13 of the book to force all definitions of Dangerous Terrain to be Difficult terrain is flawed as on that same page, there are clearly other definitions of terrain other then 'Clear/Difficult/Impassible' "

Hell, you've said it you self.

Buildings (A terrain definition) are generally impassible terrain.
Ruins (A terrain definition) are generally difficult terrain.
Dangerous Terrain (A Terrain definition) is generally difficult terrain.

Are buildings ALWAYS impassible?
Are Ruins ALWAYS difficult?
Is Dangerous terrain ALWAYS difficult?

No.

Also @Saint I'm trying to say that Ruins fall under the rules for Buildings. Buildings also have extended rules for "Intact buildings" which probably explains why they used the word "Structures" in the "Ruins" definition to attempt to aviod the confusion that would have not existed if they instead placed Buildings and Ruins under the Catagory of "Structures" instead of "Buildings" (I am assuming they may have run into translation errors if they had done this however. Example: Kenzou-Japanese for Building/Structure/Construction). Its not defining RAW using Fluff. Its defining RAW using RAW (Ruins fall under the "Buildings" rule section, because in reality, a ruin is a building. They have seperate rules for Ruins and Buildings in the "Buildings" section, but the point of them falling under the same section still stands.). Either way, continued discussion will derail the topic.

Ouze wrote:As someone else posted, in the BRB pg 88 line "Decide which terrain pieces are area terrain , difficult terrain or dangerous terrain (or a combination)" is, to me, rather compelling proof that terrain CAN be both but aren't inherently. But at this point I think it's sufficiently vague that no definitive answer will be reached. I submitted this in the INAT thread and will play by Noseferatu's definition until something further is published.

Saying "A, B or C (or a combination)" does not mean that every combination is valid.

kirsanth wrote:Buildings are (generally) impassible terrain.
Ruins are (generally) difficult terrain.

Whether ruins that are dangerous force difficult tests simply because they are dangerous is (related to) the real issue being discussed.

And yes, we have all read the book. Even the part 5 inches past the words we are discussing.

BRB page 82 under "RUINS: THE BASICS"
"All ruins are area terrain (providing a 4+ cover save) and difficult terrain. Players may also agree at the beginning of the game to treat some ruins as dangerous terrain as well..."

The two key issues as I see it are;

Dangerous terrain does not have to be difficult terrain (though it usually is)
Difficult terrain tests and dangerous terrain tests are 2 separate tests which may or may not need to be taken.

Example 1; Your unit of 10 infantry is 5" away from an area of difficult and dangerous terrain.
You must first roll a difficult terrain test to see if your unit can move into the terrain.
If so, any models that move into the terrain take a dangerous terrain test.
Repeat as necessary.

Example 2; your unit of 10 infantry is 5" away from an area that has been agreed to be dangerous terrain but not difficult.
No roll for movement, the unit moves normally.
Any models that move into the terrain take a dangerous terrain test.
Repeat as necessary.

Again, the key (as mentioned many times in the rulebook) is for you and your opponent to discuss and agree to all terrain features before the game.
Then after clear terrain, area terrain, difficult terrain, dangerous terrain, buildings and ruins, or any parts thereof have been designated, play can get underway.

But, I repeat my view, there is nothing in the rulebook that dictates that any and/or all dangerous terrain must also be difficult, though I agree that it is the norm.

How about the Rune Priest power Tempest Wrath? It tells you that for specific unit types to treat all terrain as both difficult and dangerous, therefore differentiating them even more.

time wizard wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Whether ruins that are dangerous force difficult tests simply because they are dangerous is (related to) the real issue being discussed.

rules

Right... My example was bad in that line, then.

Slow and purposful units always count as moving through difficult terrain. Doesn't mean that all terrain is difficult, just that it always counts as such for them.

If they move throught difficult terrain, they don't have to take 2 tests.

If they move through dangerous terrain however, they would have to take both tests.

This is interesting...



from "Moving Assaulting Models" it states you would take difficult OR dangerous (if necessary) which not only futher proves that not all Dangerous = Difficult but also seems to imply that the assaulting models would only need to take a difficult OR dangerous terrain test when appliciable. (It states "OR" in the Assaulting Through Cover section as well).

Not true.
See the Venomthrope issue.

What is "not true" and how does the "Venomthrope issue" apply to it?

Forgive me if I missed it in this thread, but I don't think anyone has addressed the rules where terrain is actually defined by the players before a game - page 88, under "Define the terrain". The first bullet point reads:

Which terrain pieces are area terrain, difficult terrain, or dangerous terrain, (or a combination)?

I would think this or alone would be enough to say that yes, you can have terrain that is dangerous, but not difficult.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:What is "not true" and how does the "Venomthrope issue" apply to it?

Venomthropes force dangerous terrain checks.

Which would invoke the rule you mentioned without having terrain at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lambadomy wrote:Forgive me if I missed it in this thread,

Yes. Repeatedly.
Allowing a combination does not force every permutation to be viable.

kirsanth wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:What is "not true" and how does the "Venomthrope issue" apply to it?

Venomthropes force dangerous terrain checks.

Which would invoke the rule you mentioned without having terrain at all.

Just as slow and purposful invokes a difficult terrain test with, again, having no difficult terrain at all.

Again, I think it might be best to disregard the Venomthrope as well as any other unit that can create dangerous but not difficult, as it simply will not be useful: the best consensus possible will be that unit X can create this situation due to codex given traits which doesn't answer the main crux of the question at all (how it affects everyone else). I agree that terrain can be difficult or dangerous but not inherently both, but this can hardly use a codex specific rule for one unit to prove it.

The Rune Priest section is more illuminating, I think. If you look at the Rune Priest psychic powers, you'll see "Tempest's Wrath" (in part) creates a section of ground that is explicitly both difficult and dangerous and tests for both. If all dangerous terrain was also difficult, it would suffice to call it simply "dangerous", yes? I don't think this question is really possible to answer with the BGB as currently written.

We decided to split the pizza, for anyone following that aspect of it.

Hmm. I think it's the other way around...I guess.

Never mind, that's dumb.

I guess if it came up you could make that decision then...Water is dangerous but not really difficult for a jetbike.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Water is dangerous but not really difficult for a jetbike.

See the rules for Jetbikes (pg 53)--this is covered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:Again, I think it might be best to disregard the Venomthrope as well as any other unit that can provoke similar abilities

Agreed, but then people also need to read the rest of the thread to learn why.

Perhaps Jetbikes would be a better example?

Jetbikes do not take difficult terrain tests, but take dangerous (only) when moving into difficult terrain.
That is a(nother) example of why the initiative mod applies to either situation.
They can be seperated, even if it is not common.

I wouldn't paste entire rules, especially not photocopied.

In either case, since the rules are permissive, I do not see any RAW which allow you to specify a piece of terrain as dangerous but not difficult. This is because the guidelines for specifying terrain do not contain any section that I've found which allows you to specify terrain as dangerous, only difficult and then dangerous.

What a codex or rules appendix say on the matter really doesn't matter. If THOSE rules give you permission within THEIR specifications, that has no bearing on if you're using a battlefield where those rules do not apply (if, for example, you aren't using a Tyranid codex, any rules written in the Tyranid codex has no affect on your Spess Mahreens versus Orks game).

And, once again, even though the rules do not allow you, by RAW, to specify a piece of terrain as dangerous but not difficult, that doesn't mean it can't happen somewhere else. It's exactly the situation with falling back and Combat Tactics. Combat Tactics gives you permission to bend the morale rules in certain ways.

P.S. Daemon-Archon Ren, the rules aren't divided into sections depending on classification, they are divided into sections depending on loose association. That's why you find the rules for armour saves in shooting phase (because that's the first phase where you'll encounter armour saves in a large quantity). That doesn't mean you don't get to encounter those saves in the assault phase, nor that you're shooting at a target in the assault phase just because they get to make armour saves.
Simply put, ruins are in the buildings section because that's what a normal human association would be "a ruin is a destroyed building, thus it is a kind of building, where will I find the rules for a ruined building?". Strictly mechanically, ruins are area terrain that you can sometimes move in a third dimension in. Buildings are not, they are immobile vehicles mechanically.

P.P.S. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if you could direct me where permission is given to treat dangerous terrain as clear for movement quality, but given the examples of dangerous+difficult, it seems that immediately when there's a risk of being wounded the terrain is difficult - even if the danger is hidden. I, myself, choose to see this as occasionally stopping to cauterize a wound, pick yourself up from the ground if a mine knocked you down, stop and cough from the gas, or wipe the corrosive slime off your skin quickly before it does more than randomized plastic surgery.
Remember that the squad waits for the slowest member to catch up, unless they are forced to leave him behind (in which case he's a casualty, not necessarily dead, but out of the fight).

Mahtamori wrote:I wouldn't paste entire rules, especially not photocopied.

If GW wants to issue me a C&D for photocopying a rulebook which I own several copies of during a discussion about Rules therein, on a Forum dedicated to their product... I'd be happy to review it with as much enthusiasm as a "Free Credit Card" I get in the mail. I have more faith in their company to warrant such phases of paranoia.

Mahtamori wrote:
In either case, since the rules are permissive, I do not see any RAW which allow you to specify a piece of terrain as dangerous but not difficult. This is because the guidelines for specifying terrain do not contain any section that I've found which allows you to specify terrain as dangerous, only difficult and then dangerous.

If the rules are permissive, that would mean that you would not require direct "RAW" to say what you "Can or Can't Do" but rather the consent of your opponent...

When looking for RAW if you look at the "Defining Terrain" section (88) it states to Define terrain as Either Area, Difficult or Dangerous, or any combination therein. Based on that sentence, it would allow for Difficult and/or Dangerous and/or Area (check the chart I posted earlier). Also, most of the examples in the book differentiate Difficult and Dangerous terrain, making them seem more like separate entities as opposed to co-dependent.

Mahtamori wrote:
P.S. Daemon-Archon Ren, the rules aren't divided into sections depending on classification, they are divided into sections depending on loose association. That's why you find the rules for armour saves in shooting phase (because that's the first phase where you'll encounter armour saves in a large quantity). That doesn't mean you don't get to encounter those saves in the assault phase, nor that you're shooting at a target in the assault phase just because they get to make armour saves.
Simply put, ruins are in the buildings section because that's what a normal human association would be "a ruin is a destroyed building, thus it is a kind of building, where will I find the rules for a ruined building?". Strictly mechanically, ruins are area terrain that you can sometimes move in a third dimension in. Buildings are not, they are immobile vehicles mechanically.

Close, but there are possibilities (actually, there are 2 picture examples in the Rule Book alone...) of buildings that have portions that you can walk on, allowing you to "move in a third dimension in".

Also, Loose association? Look at such classifications as "Vehicles", "Unit Types", and "Universal Special Rules". A more accurate answer would have been "Buildings and Ruins are in a separate section as the rest of the terrain as 5th edition basically replaced the old CityFight Rules expansion book and the newer, simplified rules for buildings (INCLUDING RUINS) now have their own classification in the 5th edition rulebook."

Simply put, Ruins ARE buildings... do they follow the EXACT rules for "Intact" Buildings in the 5th edition rule book? No! But just as an armor save and an invul save are both saving throws, both Ruined Buildings (Ruins) and "Intact" Buildings ("Buildings") are 'Buildings'....

Mahtamori wrote:
P.P.S. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if you could direct me where permission is given to treat dangerous terrain as clear for movement quality, but given the examples of dangerous+difficult, it seems that immediately when there's a risk of being wounded the terrain is difficult - even if the danger is hidden. I, myself, choose to see this as occasionally stopping to cauterize a wound, pick yourself up from the ground if a mine knocked you down, stop and cough from the gas, or wipe the corrosive slime off your skin quickly before it does more than randomized plastic surgery.
Remember that the squad waits for the slowest member to catch up, unless they are forced to leave him behind (in which case he's a casualty, not necessarily dead, but out of the fight).

Example of Dangerous Terrain that is not Difficult... (as mentioned earlier) an unknown minefield! It may become difficult after the first guy dies (See: Using your Imagination section), but before the unit has experienced the minefield, there is the likelihood the mines in the 41st millennium could be 'undetected'!

The problem with Hidden Dangers being "difficult" is that Difficult tests/terrain is designated BEFORE the unit begins its move while Dangerous occurs AFTER the unit has moved. Even if a unit is waiting for its slowest member to catch up, it still wouldn't worry about any complications until after that member has moved. (And even then, you are dangerously blurring the line of RAW-vs-Fluff.)

You can photocopy what you want to.
Posting it, however can cause issues.


Regardless of what rules you want to invent (unknown minefield!) rules, then of course they can work however you want.

kirsanth wrote:You can photocopy what you want to.
Posting it, however can cause issues.

There is no practical difference between posting scanned sections of the rulebook and typing it out word-for-word. Posting such things is allowed where it is relevant to the thread. It's only the wholesale posting of rules or scanned material that is discouraged.

Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it, but the only real example i can think of for this kind of setup would be an Immobile cloud of acidic gas. in this case, if you had to go through it, you would want to move as quickly as possible and a difficult terrain test would not be in order.

DeathReaper wrote: you would want to move as quickly as possible and a difficult terrain test would not be in order.

That reasoning is so backwards it's perpendicular to sense.

DeathReaper wrote:Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it, but the only real example i can think of for this kind of setup would be an Immobile cloud of acidic gas. in this case, if you had to go through it, you would want to move as quickly as possible and a difficult terrain test would not be in order.

Even here I think there would be a donning of respirators, checking of seals, sergeants looking for helmets, etc. I've yet to see a convincing example given of terrain that ought to be dangerous but not difficult.

time wizard wrote:

SaintHazard wrote: I can't think of an instance where terrain could be dangerous and yet not difficult.

RAW are very fuzzy on this,

There is also page 88 BRB under "Define the Terrain" (q.v.) where we are advised to agree with our opponent on how to define the terrain we are using.

The first bullet point is: "Which terrain pieces are area terrain, difficult terrain or dangerous terrain (or a combination)?"

Here dangerous terrain seems to be in a catagory all by itself and this rule seems to indicate that a piece of area terrain could be classified as dangerous but not difficult.

For example, a field of alien plants could be classified as not difficult to move through, but dangerous to troops.

You would not have to roll for difficult terrain and could move through it at full speed, but each model would have to take a dangerous terrain test.

I think this is the most important thing. From the first paragraph on page 13, "How to represent terrain on the battlefield is discussed later (see page 88). For now, we're going to discuss terrain only in terms of how infantry moves through it." That modifies the entire section on page 13/14 to an explanation of how you move through terrain. This has nothing to do with how terrain is classified, that is on page 88.

On page 88 it tells you how to define the terrain. From the first bullet in defining terrain you have the following options for terrain:

area
area, difficult
area, difficult, dangerous
area, dangerous
difficult
difficult, dangerous
dangerous

Again, just because it says "or combination" does not mean that every combination is automatically valid.

I think its about time to /thread this...



Above are the rules for dangerous terrain.

The wording explicitly states "Some terrain features will be dangerous to move through".

It does not state "Some DIFFICULT Terrain features will be dangerous to move though"

It also does not state anywhere in the rules for "Dangerous terrain" that "Dangerous terrain is always also difficult terrain"

That omission is proof enough(while there are many other instances in the book that seem to segregate Difficult/Dangerous terrain) that Dangerous Terrain is not exclusive to difficult terrain. If the intent of the Rule Makers was to make them the same, this is the section where they would have stated it. OR Anywhere else in the book (especially in the sections covering terrain) they could have included the simple rules of "Dangerous terrain is always difficult terrain".

The "Golden Rule" justification of "Well, the rules themselves are more like guidelines anyway, so you COULD always just ignore the book if your opponent agrees" is not a required defense (and I think is not valid in YMDC as it makes the forum kinda useless when you think about it) as defining terrain as exclusive-Dangerous is actually expliciticly stated on page 88 under "Define the Terrain" under the bullet that states

Which terrain pieces are area terrain (Not difficult or Dangerous), Difficult terrain (Not Area or Dangerous) OR dangerous terrain (not area or dangerous) (Or a combination ((Allowing for such combos of Area-Difficult, Area-Dangerous, Area-Difficult-Dangerous, Difficult-Dangerous).

Again, the above section (if the intent was exclusivity) should have stated "Which terrain pieces are Area terrain, Difficult terrain, or Dangerous(And therefor, also "Difficult") terrain (Or a combination)?" If that was there intent, it would have been addressed in the 5th edition Errata/FAQ. Its a rather simple topic, since nothing has been said contrary by the writers in question (And they went out of there way to explain the LOS issue/contradiction of what a weapons "Should be able to fire" vs "How its glued" in full detail). Now, if they decide to change this in the future, or if in a seperate codex FAQ (For instance, the Tyranid 5th Edition FAQ, where it makes no such mention of this question...) then it will change.

However, as of right now, the answer to the question is "Nothing in the rulebook explicitly states that Dangerous terrain is inherently Difficult terrain, in fact, the rule book it self makes a point to segregate Difficult and Dangerous terrain in multiple instances of its contents, and there are currently codex-specific rules that explicitly state that there effects invoke 'Dangerous Terrain tests' in areas of terrain that are 'Not necessarily difficult' therefor supporting the statement of their seperation."

The major confusion is often caused by the conflicting(and for the most part, redundant) sections of "Guidlines on Catagorising Terrain" vs "Define the terrain". in the guidelines, it says that terrain catagorised as Difficult can also be considered dangerous, but makes no mention of Dangerous in any of the other catagories. The 3 definitions of terrain are Area/Difficult/Dangerous. Under Area terrain it states that area NORMALLY (but not always) counts as difficult terrain. Dangerous terrain makes no such mention of its relationship to any of the terrain types (in its rules section) and thus, creates a major conflict in rulings.

The safe bet is to go with what the book says to do (or in this cause, what it DOESN'T say NOT to do) and allow terrain (if you and your opponent decided to "Define" it this way, as allowable in the rulebook) to be either Difficult or Dangerous or Both. And as always, check with your TO/A Rules Judge if the question ever arises in a Tournement.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Hmm. I think it's the other way around...I guess.

Never mind, that's dumb.

I guess if it came up you could make that decision then...Water is dangerous but not really difficult for a jetbike.

IIRC, water is treated as impassible for non-amphibious vehicles and infantry. A jetbike couldn't end its move on water anyway.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:same stuff, only with more words

That still does not help your point. Difficult terrain is treated as only dangerous to some models. That is a perfectly valid reason for the "omission".

Still.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

...The wording explicitly states "Some terrain features will be dangerous to move through"...

as i mentioned previously page 13 says it all, 3 types Clear, Difficult, and Impassible.

of these 3, only 2 are classified as Terrain features Difficult and impassible.

since by default clear terrain has no feature to speak of, thus it is clear or featureless as it were.

but again OP, if you and your opponent want to expand terrain types that are both agreeable, then go for it.

there could be snipers all over the place waiting to pick off people on either side, in this case the whole board could be clear dangerous terrain if you both agree on it.

Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it.

Daemon-Archon Ren, this is the company which sued Blizzard for a creature which looked a little like their Hormagaunts (I think) and when they lost the law suit made a creature which looked a little like Blizzard's Hydralisk.
Doesn't matter, though, I just triggered on the amount pasted and if the forum mods are cool with it, it's all good.

A mine field is described on page 13 as being an example of difficult and dangerous terrain. A crude magnetic scan, which even the Empire would be able to handle and possibly even the Orks, would reveal metal in the dirt in that general area. I'd imagine a mine field would rack up a lot more casualties than simply 1-in-6.

Difficult terrain is a section of it's own since it is referenced later in the rule book, among other things dealing with Jump Infantry or Jetbikes moving into difficult terrain - and since those rules do not want you to roll 2D6 and keep the highest for those movements, dangerous terrain is on it's lonesome omitting anything dealing with difficult terrain. It's sort of an elegant move in this case. I sort of; "I don't agree that it's RAW, but I still agree". Or, if you'll read DeathReaper's quote below:

DeathReaper wrote:Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it, but the only real example i can think of for this kind of setup would be an Immobile cloud of acidic gas. in this case, if you had to go through it, you would want to move as quickly as possible and a difficult terrain test would not be in order.

This hits the spot.

If it's a casual game you go by TMIR, and if it's a tournament game it's the TO's who get to say whether terrain is difficult, dangerous or a combination.

DeathReaper wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

...The wording explicitly states "Some terrain features will be dangerous to move through"...

as i mentioned previously page 13 says it all, 3 types Clear, Difficult, and Impassible.

of these 3, only 2 are classified as Terrain features Difficult and impassible.

since by default clear terrain has no feature to speak of, thus it is clear or featureless as it were.

but again OP, if you and your opponent want to expand terrain types that are both agreeable, then go for it.

there could be snipers all over the place waiting to pick off people on either side, in this case the whole board could be clear dangerous terrain if you both agree on it.

Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it.

And again the rules on page 13 have nothing to do with classifying terrain. At the very start of the section it explains that the rules that follow tell you how to move through terrain. The only section on classifying terrain are the ones on page 88.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Again, just because it says "or combination" does not mean that every combination is automatically valid.

Since the rules on page 88 are the only ones in the book for classifying terrain and that is the only paragraph in the book on how terrain is classified then by giving you those three options for terrain and then telling you that you may take combinations of them does allow all those combinations. Since the rules set is permissive and that is the only permission you have for classifying terrain then those are your options.

BrockRitcey wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

...The wording explicitly states "Some terrain features will be dangerous to move through"...

as i mentioned previously page 13 says it all, 3 types Clear, Difficult, and Impassible.

of these 3, only 2 are classified as Terrain features Difficult and impassible.

since by default clear terrain has no feature to speak of, thus it is clear or featureless as it were.

but again OP, if you and your opponent want to expand terrain types that are both agreeable, then go for it.

there could be snipers all over the place waiting to pick off people on either side, in this case the whole board could be clear dangerous terrain if you both agree on it.

Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it.

And again the rules on page 13 have nothing to do with classifying terrain. At the very start of the section it explains that the rules that follow tell you how to move through terrain. The only section on classifying terrain are the ones on page 88.

The heading Terrain types on page 13 does not classify terrain?

Oh wait, it does. therefore 3 types of terrain

and p.88 says "Define the terrain... Which pieces are area terrain, Difficult terrain, or dangerous terrain (or a combination)?"
since on page 13 under terrain types it defines Dangerous terrain as being Difficult there is no need for them to redefine Dangerous terrain.
and as such difficult terrain can be dangerous, Impassible can not be dangerous, and clear can not be dangerous (Because if it were clear then by default could not have anything dangerous within it)

See the thing is Danger-T doesn't exist, as Pg 13 states, some Diff-Terrain may also be dangerous to move through.

The problem with page 88 and what is confusing BrockRitcey I think, is the phrase 'any combination', now if that wasn't there one couldn't make and Danger-T at all. As when looking at the definitions of type of terrain on page 13 there is no Danger-T, it's an attribute that one may give to a piece of Diff-T.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
See the thing is Danger-T doesn't exist, as Pg 13 states, some Diff-Terrain may also be dangerous to move through.

The problem with page 88 and what is confusing BrockRitcey I think, is the phrase 'any combination', now if that wasn't there one couldn't make and Danger-T at all. As when looking at the definitions of type of terrain on page 13 there is no Danger-T, it's an attribute that one may give to a piece of Diff-T.

DeathReaper wrote:

BrockRitcey wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

...The wording explicitly states "Some terrain features will be dangerous to move through"...

as i mentioned previously page 13 says it all, 3 types Clear, Difficult, and Impassible.

of these 3, only 2 are classified as Terrain features Difficult and impassible.

since by default clear terrain has no feature to speak of, thus it is clear or featureless as it were.

but again OP, if you and your opponent want to expand terrain types that are both agreeable, then go for it.

there could be snipers all over the place waiting to pick off people on either side, in this case the whole board could be clear dangerous terrain if you both agree on it.

Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it.

And again the rules on page 13 have nothing to do with classifying terrain. At the very start of the section it explains that the rules that follow tell you how to move through terrain. The only section on classifying terrain are the ones on page 88.

The heading Terrain types on page 13 does not classify terrain?

Oh wait, it does. therefore 3 types of terrain

and p.88 says "Define the terrain... Which pieces are area terrain, Difficult terrain, or dangerous terrain (or a combination)?"
since on page 13 under terrain types it defines Dangerous terrain as being Difficult there is no need for them to redefine Dangerous terrain.
and as such difficult terrain can be dangerous, Impassible can not be dangerous, and clear can not be dangerous (Because if it were clear then by default could not have anything dangerous within it)

The heading on page 13 isn't terrain types it's just terrain. And in the very first paragraph it tells you that that entire section tells you how infantry moves through terrain and not how to define it. The first paragraph tells you that the section on how to define terrain is on page 88.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:See the thing is Danger-T doesn't exist, as Pg 13 states, some Diff-Terrain may also be dangerous to move through.

The problem with page 88 and what is confusing BrockRitcey I think, is the phrase 'any combination', now if that wasn't there one couldn't make and Danger-T at all. As when looking at the definitions of type of terrain on page 13 there is no Danger-T, it's an attribute that one may give to a piece of Diff-T.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
See the thing is Danger-T doesn't exist, as Pg 13 states, some Diff-Terrain may also be dangerous to move through.

The problem with page 88 and what is confusing BrockRitcey I think, is the phrase 'any combination', now if that wasn't there one couldn't make and Danger-T at all. As when looking at the definitions of type of terrain on page 13 there is no Danger-T, it's an attribute that one may give to a piece of Diff-T.

Page 88 isn't confusing me. Page 88 is the page that defines terrain. The problem with page 13, and what is confusing you and everyone else that quotes it, is that page 13 doesn't define terrain. If you were to read the first paragraph it tells you that page 13 is about how to move through terrain.

This whole argument is about MOVING through terrain.

Does a player need to take both a Dangerous AND a Difficult terrain test when attempting to move through Dangerous terrain?

The only way to answer this as a "NO" is to ignore the phrase "As mentioned previously.." under Dangerous Terrain on page 14.

For anyone who is on the "No" side of this question, you are going to need to explain to all of us what the phrase "As mentioned previously.." is referring to. The word "dangerous" appears only 3 times prior to this quote, and none of those places support a "No" position on this argument.

Except page 88 tells you that terrain can be dangerous without being difficult. And since page 88 is the section for defining what terrain is that is the section you have to look at for defining what terrain is.

After you have defined terrain you would go back and look at the section for difficult, dangerous or area terrain and read the relevant sections for how to move through it.

Now if you defined a piece of terrain as dangerous, which you are clearly given permission for as per the rules for defining terrain on page 88, then you would go look at the dangerous terrain section. The dangerous terrain section does not tell you that you also need to make difficult terrain roles, all it tells you to do is make the dangerous terrain test and tells you how to do it.

The line at the top of dangerous terrain that say "as mentioned previously...", is saying hey remember 5 min ago when you were reading about dangerous terrain, this is the section that talks about it. It doesn't actually tell you that dangerous terrain is limited to those sections it was talking about earlier.

Again, read page 88 for defining terrain, then read page 13 for how to move through the terrain. The rules give you clear permission for terrain that is dangerous in the defining terrain section.

Anyone that is for the must be both side of the question needs to find a quote that says "all dangerous terrain is also difficult". Since there isn't one in the book you must follow the rules for defining terrain as they are laid out on page 88.

Wow I am gone for a bit and all heck breaks loose! :p

As has been stated multiple times, not all Dangerous Terrain is Difficult. It's not that hard to grasp!

Gwar! wrote:Wow I am gone for a bit and all heck breaks loose! :p

As has been stated multiple times, not all Dangerous Terrain is Difficult. It's not that hard to grasp!

Perfect. I was wondering when you were going to show up.

ChrisCP wrote:See the thing is Danger-T doesn't exist, as Pg 13 states, some Diff-Terrain may also be dangerous to move through.

Did you just completely ignore that quote/picture Daemon-Archon Ren provided, which shows that it DOESN'T say "Difficult Terrain"?

BrockRitcey wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

...The wording explicitly states "Some terrain features will be dangerous to move through"...

as i mentioned previously page 13 says it all, 3 types Clear, Difficult, and Impassible.

of these 3, only 2 are classified as Terrain features Difficult and impassible.

since by default clear terrain has no feature to speak of, thus it is clear or featureless as it were.

but again OP, if you and your opponent want to expand terrain types that are both agreeable, then go for it.

there could be snipers all over the place waiting to pick off people on either side, in this case the whole board could be clear dangerous terrain if you both agree on it.

Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it.

And again the rules on page 13 have nothing to do with classifying terrain. At the very start of the section it explains that the rules that follow tell you how to move through terrain. The only section on classifying terrain are the ones on page 88.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Again, just because it says "or combination" does not mean that every combination is automatically valid.

Since the rules on page 88 are the only ones in the book for classifying terrain and that is the only paragraph in the book on how terrain is classified then by giving you those three options for terrain and then telling you that you may take combinations of them does allow all those combinations. Since the rules set is permissive and that is the only permission you have for classifying terrain then those are your options.

Except that on page 88 they say to see page 13...

and page 13 says it all, 3 types Clear, Difficult, and Impassible.

of these 3, only 2 are classified as Terrain features Difficult and impassible.

since by default clear terrain has no feature to speak of, thus it is clear or featureless as it were. and can not be dangerous terrain.

it even goes on to say, on page 13, "Guidelines on categorising terrain" read that section as well, it does not mention dangerous terrain in the clear terrain section, it only mentions it in the Difficult terrain section. ans since it does not say that clear terrain can be dangerous, it, by default, can not be dangerous.

the RAW are pretty clear on this point.

DeathReaper wrote:the RAW are pretty clear on this point.

Yes, it is.


See? Notice the lack of "DANGEROUS IS ALWAYS DIFFICULT".

Now I see the mistake you are making. You are reading the heading of "Define the Terrain" and thinking this means "Here are how the 5th edition rules define terrain."

No. This section is about how you and your opponent work out how that box looking object is going to play in the game. This is not about how the 5th defines terrain types. Terrain types are defined on page 13.

That is why they make it clear that you need to see page 13 for these details.

Possibly in the 6th edition they should make the words "see pages 13 and 77 for more details" in bold and red, although if I was asked to re-write this, I would explain that it is already clear. See page 13 means see page 13.

This is just going around in circles.

And ultimately, it's a non-issue. You need to discuss how the terrain is going to work with your opponent before the game anyway, so if you do wind up with some bizarre piece of terrain that would for some reason be appropriately classed as Dangerous without also being Difficult, you can sort it out with them then.