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.

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.