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.

Hey, had a rules dispute last night, but we diced off and I won the toss, but I want dakka's call on this. I have the citadel miniatures forest terrain with 3 trees on it. Now, any terrain has typically been counted as 'difficult' on our table, unless specified otherwise (like a box of Necron crystals my friend recently bought). The forest has always counted as difficult terrain, not impassible, and if models move through it, we've always just moved the trees out of the way. I had a squad of terminators that deep struck and landed right on top of one of the trees. As this has always been difficult, I went to roll for dangerous terrain. My friend told me "No, it's impassible because he landed ON the tree." As stated, we've always moved the trees out of the way during regular movement. We diced off, and I won the roll, counting it only as difficult/dangerous. Was I in the wrong? I don't think so, but I kind of want other opinions.

Whether that tree in the middle of your difficult terrain is impassible or not is between the people playing the game. What you and your opponent failed to do was agree on the categorization of the terrain before the game.

See page 13, column one, paragraph six: "... it is important that you and your opponent agree what class of terrain each feature falls into before starting your game." See also the second to last paragraph on the right hand column on that page for a reminder to do this, and a note that you should also ensure that you both agree on the boundaries of each section.

Tricky as all terrain is agreed opponent before the game with your opponent... but normally we ignore trees and just DT any where in that terrain.

Fuffy reason is its like in the movies the model just cuts the parachute away and lands on his feet (apart from bob who falls and breaks his neck).

solkan wrote:Whether that tree in the middle of your difficult terrain is impassible or not is between the people playing the game. What you and your opponent failed to do was agree on the categorization of the terrain before the game.

See page 13, column one, paragraph six: "... it is important that you and your opponent agree what class of terrain each feature falls into before starting your game." See also the second to last paragraph on the right hand column on that page for a reminder to do this, and a note that you should also ensure that you both agree on the boundaries of each section.

Please look at my first post: I stated that we have always played the forest as difficult only: that means the ENTIRE forest model, not differing parts of it. So, it had previously BEEN categorized as "forests are difficult." This was an attempt at "well, the forest is difficult, but the tree is impassible, even though we've never done that before."

And thanks Tri, looks like you look at trees the same way I do. Again, terrain was agreed upon in previous games and there was never any change.

timetowaste85 wrote:

solkan wrote:Whether that tree in the middle of your difficult terrain is impassible or not is between the people playing the game. What you and your opponent failed to do was agree on the categorization of the terrain before the game.

See page 13, column one, paragraph six: "... it is important that you and your opponent agree what class of terrain each feature falls into before starting your game." See also the second to last paragraph on the right hand column on that page for a reminder to do this, and a note that you should also ensure that you both agree on the boundaries of each section.

Please look at my first post: I stated that we have always played the forest as difficult only: that means the ENTIRE forest model, not differing parts of it. So, it had previously BEEN categorized as "forests are difficult." This was an attempt at "well, the forest is difficult, but the tree is impassible, even though we've never done that before."

And thanks Tri, looks like you look at trees the same way I do. Again, terrain was agreed upon in previous games and there was never any change.

Then the terrain is difficult. The trees are part of the terrain and unless you guys specifically said "This forest is difficult, but the trees are impassable." I would argue it still falls under the realm of being the forest and, thus, difficult.

timetowaste85 wrote:

Please look at my first post: I stated that we have always played the forest as difficult only: that means the ENTIRE forest model, not differing parts of it. So, it had previously BEEN categorized as "forests are difficult." This was an attempt at "well, the forest is difficult, but the tree is impassible, even though we've never done that before."

The point he's making--which I agree with--is that this is the kind of thing you should have discussed before the game.

There are no 'rules' on terrain pieces, each club plays it differently. Mine plays it like yours (difficult terrain, get the treses out of the way if moving through), but I still always double check with my opponent before playing, just to be sure.

timetowaste85 wrote:

solkan wrote:Whether that tree in the middle of your difficult terrain is impassible or not is between the people playing the game. What you and your opponent failed to do was agree on the categorization of the terrain before the game.

See page 13, column one, paragraph six: "... it is important that you and your opponent agree what class of terrain each feature falls into before starting your game." See also the second to last paragraph on the right hand column on that page for a reminder to do this, and a note that you should also ensure that you both agree on the boundaries of each section.

Please look at my first post: I stated that we have always played the forest as difficult only: that means the ENTIRE forest model, not differing parts of it. So, it had previously BEEN categorized as "forests are difficult." This was an attempt at "well, the forest is difficult, but the tree is impassible, even though we've never done that before."

And the problem remains: You and your opponent were disagreeing about what the terrain was classified as.

The fact that you think your opponent pulled the disagreement out of thin air doesn't change the fact.

That isn't a rules problem. That's a "Go get a responsible adult to mediate" problem.

solkan wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:

solkan wrote:Whether that tree in the middle of your difficult terrain is impassible or not is between the people playing the game. What you and your opponent failed to do was agree on the categorization of the terrain before the game.

See page 13, column one, paragraph six: "... it is important that you and your opponent agree what class of terrain each feature falls into before starting your game." See also the second to last paragraph on the right hand column on that page for a reminder to do this, and a note that you should also ensure that you both agree on the boundaries of each section.

Please look at my first post: I stated that we have always played the forest as difficult only: that means the ENTIRE forest model, not differing parts of it. So, it had previously BEEN categorized as "forests are difficult." This was an attempt at "well, the forest is difficult, but the tree is impassible, even though we've never done that before."

And the problem remains: You and your opponent were disagreeing about what the terrain was classified as.

The fact that you think your opponent pulled the disagreement out of thin air doesn't change the fact.

That isn't a rules problem. That's a "Go get a responsible adult to mediate" problem.

AKA: Roll a die.

I fully think it was fair for me to come on here and ask when a piece of terrain has been played the same EVERY time and a change was attempted last night. I see no need to say before EVERY game with the same opponent "okay, remember all terrain is difficult." If there's no change, there is no need to mention it. It only needs to be mentioned if something changes. We added Necron crystals to the table, we discussed what they were. It's now been agreed upon they count as impassible. Done deal, we don't need to mention it again. If new people join us, sure. Otherwise it's a waste of time to me. The problem was pulled out of thin air, because an agreement had been formed over this piece of terrain in the past: the agreement was "forests, hills, broken aquilla ships count as difficult." So yes, "out of thin air" was the situation


And PS Solkan, I'm a 26 year old teacher. I think I fall under the category of "responsible adult." So thanks for the unnecessary condescending remark. It's EXTREMELY appreciated

timetowaste85 wrote: I fully think it was fair for me to come on here and ask when a piece of terrain has been played the same EVERY time and a change was attempted last night. I see no need to say before EVERY game with the same opponent "okay, remember all terrain is difficult." If there's no change, there is no need to mention it. It only needs to be mentioned if something changes. We added Necron crystals to the table, we discussed what they were. It's now been agreed upon they count as impassible. Done deal, we don't need to mention it again. If new people join us, sure. Otherwise it's a waste of time to me. The problem was pulled out of thin air, because an agreement had been formed over this piece of terrain in the past: the agreement was "forests, hills, broken aquilla ships count as difficult." So yes, "out of thin air" was the situation


And PS Solkan, I'm a 26 year old teacher. I think I fall under the category of "responsible adult." So thanks for the unnecessary condescending remark. It's EXTREMELY appreciated

I don't think it was unfair. We do the same thing here (unless a new player comes in, like you mentioned or a new terrain piece).

Rolling the die is the quick way to resolve it.

Next time you'll have to decide if individual trees within an area terrain marker count as impassible before starting the game.

In my experience people normally accept all of a piece of area terrain as difficult, dangerous or impassible, rather than trying to split it into distinct sub-pieces. Sub-dividing it would seem to overturn the basic concept of area terrain which is that it is rather ill-defined except for its edges.

CrazyThang wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote: I fully think it was fair for me to come on here and ask when a piece of terrain has been played the same EVERY time and a change was attempted last night. I see no need to say before EVERY game with the same opponent "okay, remember all terrain is difficult." If there's no change, there is no need to mention it. It only needs to be mentioned if something changes. We added Necron crystals to the table, we discussed what they were. It's now been agreed upon they count as impassible. Done deal, we don't need to mention it again. If new people join us, sure. Otherwise it's a waste of time to me. The problem was pulled out of thin air, because an agreement had been formed over this piece of terrain in the past: the agreement was "forests, hills, broken aquilla ships count as difficult." So yes, "out of thin air" was the situation


And PS Solkan, I'm a 26 year old teacher. I think I fall under the category of "responsible adult." So thanks for the unnecessary condescending remark. It's EXTREMELY appreciated

I don't think it was unfair. We do the same thing here (unless a new player comes in, like you mentioned or a new terrain piece).

I agree-new players or new terrain means new rules for them. Don't worry, my irate attitude wasn't directed at you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
In my experience people normally accept all of a piece of area terrain as difficult, dangerous or impassible, rather than trying to split it into distinct sub-pieces. Sub-dividing it would seem to overturn the basic concept of area terrain which is that it is rather ill-defined except for its edges.

Thanks Kilkrazy: this is exactly what was attempted: dividing one piece of terrain into 4 separate pieces. Appreciate your response and will pass it on to him tomorrow.

@timetowaste: I know. Figured I'd just say.

For what it's worth, both the area terrain and the difficult terrain rules state that you can move through the individual features in the terrain as the default.

So unless you have specifically agreed before the game that the trees are for some reason going to count as impassable, they're just there for show.

insaniak wrote:For what it's worth, both the area terrain and the difficult terrain rules state that you can move through the individual features in the terrain as the default.

So unless you have specifically agreed before the game that the trees are for some reason going to count as impassable, they're just there for show.

And to provide obscurement for units behind it.

Technically, by moving trees about you could change which models are behind or between two elements of the terrain and so have an effect on LOS and cover.

But if someone is so desperate to win a game of toy soldiers that they're going to move the trees to give them some advantage you may as well let them.

kmdl1066 wrote:Technically, by moving trees about you could change which models are behind or between two elements of the terrain and so have an effect on LOS and cover.

But if someone is so desperate to win a game of toy soldiers that they're going to move the trees to give them some advantage you may as well let them.

Nope, It states on Page 13 that: "you may temporarily move the rocks, trees, etc. to make moving models easier. Remember, however, to put them back where they originally were after you finish moving, as they may affect the LoS of models shooting through area terrain."

So no issues with LoS or cover, since you are told to put them back where they were.

I'd bet almost nobody precisely marks where the trees came from and moves them back to the exact spot they came from.

However in YMDC we should be discussing RAW and not they way it is generally played, so you are of course entirely correct.

jbunny wrote:And to provide obscurement for units behind it.

Well, yes, but the thread was discussing movement specifically.

Kmdl - which is why the GW forests can only be put back in one place....they have holes so you cant forget.

I actually have the trees on my forest terrain pieces magnetized so they can be put back in the same spot.

But generally, we are pretty flexible with forests. We taks trees down and put them back up all the time to facilitate moving, never a problem.

timetowaste85 wrote: I fully think it was fair for me to come on here and ask when a piece of terrain has been played the same EVERY time and a change was attempted last night. I see no need to say before EVERY game with the same opponent "okay, remember all terrain is difficult." If there's no change, there is no need to mention it. It only needs to be mentioned if something changes. We added Necron crystals to the table, we discussed what they were. It's now been agreed upon they count as impassible. Done deal, we don't need to mention it again. If new people join us, sure. Otherwise it's a waste of time to me. The problem was pulled out of thin air, because an agreement had been formed over this piece of terrain in the past: the agreement was "forests, hills, broken aquilla ships count as difficult." So yes, "out of thin air" was the situation


And PS Solkan, I'm a 26 year old teacher. I think I fall under the category of "responsible adult." So thanks for the unnecessary condescending remark. It's EXTREMELY appreciated

I do think Solkan was unnecessarily condescending, but I think the point he was attempting to make was that if you are an adult, and have adult judgment, you should be able to realize that either one of two things happened here:

1. You did not really communicate well enough before hand about the terrain rules, and you bear responsibility to fix that if you want to avoid these issues in the future.
or
2. Your opponent was just being an ass, pulling a BS ruling out of his backside in direct contradiction to your established terrain rules.

In either event, being adults you can hopefully either own up to the failure in communication or call him on being a dick.

I can understand coming here for a sanity check, though, if you're hesitant to judge him as being a dick and want to make sure you weren't off base. Or if you were looking for a new way to express the concept/gently argue with your opponent, without having to be confrontational. Kilkrazy's analysis seems very solid; a good way to politely explain to your opponent why the ruling he was making up doesn't make sense.

DeathReaper wrote:

kmdl1066 wrote:Technically, by moving trees about you could change which models are behind or between two elements of the terrain and so have an effect on LOS and cover.

But if someone is so desperate to win a game of toy soldiers that they're going to move the trees to give them some advantage you may as well let them.

Nope, It states on Page 13 that: "you may temporarily move the rocks, trees, etc. to make moving models easier. Remember, however, to put them back where they originally were after you finish moving, as they may affect the LoS of models shooting through area terrain."

So no issues with LoS or cover, since you are told to put them back where they were.

In my experience people just treat the whole patch of area terrain as a uniform block of cover.

It's too much hassle to worry about placement, height and shape of individual trees, crystals, pillars, etc.

We save a lot of time for playing the game rather than messing around with exact placement of small bits of scenery.

The placement of the individual elements can be quite important in terms of who gets cover; although most of the people I've played with don't get too hung up trying to be precise about putting them right back in the same spot to the millimeter. It does help when the base for the area terrain has magnets or cutouts/sockets to put them right back where they were; like the GW ones, or the pieces Adepticon has built and uses.