Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.