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.

A lot of my friends and I think that the current 'dangerous' terrain rules are broken as they are now. Taking a wound on a D6 roll of 1 with no saving throws allowed- effectively killing the trooper/s is a little harsh and unreasonable considering that it's 'dangerous' terrain, not 'deadly/deadly death danger' terrain...

SO this is what we propose... SITTING DUCK!

Whenever a unit arrives in 'dangerous' terrain, a D6 roll is made for every model in the group (as per the current rule) BUT instead of a roll of 1 causing a wound (being that it's not DEADLY terrain), it is assumed that the model/s that have rolled a 1 have become 'stuck' and have effectively neutralized that unit for the remainder of the player's turn; fighting as normal the following turn.

Now for the dodgy part... If fired upon while stuck in terrain, the unit still receives a cover save concurrent with the terrain save value, BUT the unit suffers a -1 modifier to leadership and initiative... effectively making the unit... a sitting duck.

Now, we think it only fair to all forces concerned (that's everybody in dangerous -not deadly- terrain) that units with swarms, monstrous creatures, relentless, move through cover, and fleet special rules should be able to re-roll the stuck model/s, but must abide by the result.

Think this is fair? I think it's a better rule, and makes terrain less scary to use, and ultimately makes game more fun. Constructive feedback welcome

I like this idea, because it encourages players to actually use the damn terrain instead of walking around it like wusses. Every game I play where there's some kind of terrain nicely laid out (good looking terrain too, mind you!), my opponents avoid it like the Le Brea Tarpits. Thumbs up from me!

Being 'dangerous' doesn't necessarily negate any deadliness. If I said "Watch out, that live socket you're sticking your manhood into is dangerous" you could still die from doing it. An electric fence with a sign that says "Danger! Electric Fence" isn't any less deadly because it's dangerous.

As it stands, this rule doesn't really have any drawbacks. If you're in cover, you'll rarely be taking leadership tests anyway (and a fearless unit would ignore that part completely), and the -1 to initiative doesn't matter unless you're I2 and/or the enemy has frag grenades.

The D6 roll of a 1 rule is fine, with each model only having a 16.7% chance of failure. Also note that you're still allowed invulnerable saves against Dangerous Terrain, only armour saves and cover saves are disallowed.

Killing a model on a 1 in 6 per is still a little excessive. Tool it any way you want, but because you land in a broken burning ruin or a pit full of punji stakes shouldn't mean 'you die'.

The model could have his boot caught under some rubble or the model caught fire or whatever. Even if you have invulnerable save it's still a risk that most players won't take.

The point is to make terrain less ominous to units arriving in deep strike that drift too far. Instead of oops you're dead, you get, damn, Lenny's caught up! Hold it guys, we need to fix Lenny! They're stuck there for a turn and can't move or shoot and have bad leadership/initiative if they get shot up or assaulted.

Sheesh!

Worst case scenario is that it becomes a house rule that makes the game more fun and enjoyable because your deepstrikers didn't all die for drifting too far and had a bad roll for 'dangerous' terrain. Hence the re-rolls for special rules units.

Over all, it's just a small tweek to an existing rule to make the game more enjoyable and strategic. You, don't like it? Fine, but at least help me tool it up to make the concept better.

I'd rather the model died from DT. Getting stuck is even worse than a couple of models dying! Getting stuck means:

1) You need to endure another round of shooting. Imagine if you just deepstrike and get stuck. Nearby is a vindicator. I'd rather lose a couple of models than eat 2 vindicator shells. Then there's the rest of the army that gets to fire at you.

2) If you really need to assault a unit but this rule prevents you from doing so. Honestly, I'd rather lose a couple of guys but be able to wipe out that annoying long fang squad than to be stuck and either let those long fangs run away or worse, fire 5 kraks or even frags at my unit.

3) You need to reach an objective for the win/contest. Oh sh*t, one of my guys just got stuck. Game over. You lose.

4) If you do the math, a 10-man squad in DT has a 167% chance of getting stuck. That means they will get stuck. And if every turn you need to take 10 DT tests, then you're just going to be stuck in that stupid terrain for the whole game. I don't even need to shoot at you!


I'd rather lose 1 guy than get stuck in terrain any day.

Killing a model on a 1 in 6 per is still a little excessive.

1.67 Marines dying on average from a unit of 10 entering dangerous terrain is 'excessive'? It's pretty much the same as the being hit by 15 bolter shots, which means that 10 marines rapid firing at you kills more than dangerous terrain.

How much terrain is normally dangerous to infantry? Not a lot; hell I don't even remember the last time I needed to make a dangerous terrain check with infantry.

The point is to make terrain less ominous to units arriving in deep strike that drift too far

Deep striking into terrain is supposed to be dangerous, it's more dangerous than walking into it. If you teleport inside a wall, then you're fethed, lucky for you that dangerous terrain has all sorts of random crap to teleport into, hence why it's dangerous to deep strike into it.

They're stuck there for a turn and can't move or shoot and have bad leadership/initiative if they get shot up or assaulted.

The moving bit is pointless, since to enter it they'd have to have moved already. The shooting is arguably worse than taking a wound. Worst case scenario, you lose your powerfist sergeant or your meltagun, best case (and normal case) is that you lose a bolter, with the shooting, you've effectively lost the entire squad. If 1.67 marines is excessive, then what is 10 marines?

You, don't like it? Fine, but at least help me tool it up to make the concept better.

That's my point, the concept cannot get better; the rule is perfectly fine as it is.

What sort of a trade-off is -1 I (seeing as though since you're cover, the assualting unit is I1 anyway) and -1 Ld (since marines can't be sweeping advanced, so winning combat ins't exactly an accomplishment, and anything with low enough Ld to be affected is usually squishy in CC) plus the loss of a squad's worth of shooting, for 1 dead marine in 6?

Soooo...are you saying that you want to retool the rules because people you play with don't want to risk their terminators lives by running into a grove of trees? I can say with all honesty that it is a tactical decision. Either you enter the cover, and 1 out of 6 of your troops will die or you chose to circumvent the cover, meaning that you are generally out in the open. The rule is fine as it is. If it sincerely bothers you then you should just count all of your "dangerous" terrain as "difficult." That is a simple fix for you and the players in your area rather than calling for a game wide rule change.

A unit charging into cover without grenades is I1. That means that a unit suffering from -1 Init will not be at any severe disadvantage. And leadership? I suppose you were just looking for something else to downsize because you knew that it was a bit off. A boyz squad has crappy leadership as is, losing 1 off the score has negligible results. Space marines have very good Ld, meaning a -1 would bring them down to above average. This doesn't seem like a fair trade off for the current rule.

And how is 1 dead marine excessive? It's hardly a game changer.

Once again, i'll repeat. If you don't like dangerous terrain rules, then have a conversation with your opponent and ask him if all terrain can be considered difficult. This is one of the few rules that doesn't need tweaking.

The concept and spirit of the proposed rule is not being grasped. Was anyone ever in the military and hung out of a helicopter or jumped from an airplane? Or even seen a movie about WW2 where a whole platoon is stopped dead because they have to cut a guy down from a tree because his parachute got hung up or broke his ankle on a bad PLF or Rope in?

You don't like it? Groovy. Don't play it.

Then how about this, units with the special rules attached to them such as relentless, fleet, move through cover, monstrous creature etc get to re-roll their DT test? Even if you have invulnerable saves.

Would this be an acceptable compromise, or are we going to troll this out until it gets ugly and the moderator comes and shuts it down? Positive construction people. Please, This is how stuff gets worked out. I'm thinking about the spirit of the game. If you're going to shut me down by rules lawyering me to death without coming up with a possible compromise/option then I'm just going to go to GW and speak with them, since I can't get any constructive options here. It might be more productive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and anyone spouting statistics of 16% chance of getting kills to your squad from DT have never seemingly had a dice roll where your squad was halved and rendered combat ineffective because the dice gods were satisfied...

all I'm reading is this WON'T work...does anyone have any, this doesn't work, but THIS is what WOULD make it work, or what you tried perhaps tweeking THIS? Or maybe this rule would make the duck rule viable...?

You know, like constructive criticism?

Well I think if one is *really* against this proposed rule, they really are 1) a Spath Mareenth player (lisping intended) and 2) are the wuss I was referring to in regards to walking around terrain because they're really afraid of it. That's right, I'm talking to you!

Ever seen a Space Marine player with uber armor choose not to walk through some bushes because he was afraid of losing a model? I have. Every game ever against these types of players. Total troglodyte players who just want to hurry up and pew pew and not play the game. Is what they are. So yeah, I like this type of rules proposal, though some tweaking is obviously necessary.

I play Necrons BTW, so flamesuit zipped!

There is the concept of the rule, or spirit of the rule, and then there is the practicality of the rule.

My suggestion is to try it out. Play-test it to see if it works. Move a whole squad of 10 through DT. I could be wrong, but my prediction is that you're going to find getting stuck in there to be a whole lot worse than just losing 1-2 guys from it.

Yeah, you have to remember that this is not dangerous terrain in our world (building that may fall down) but dangerous in world of wh40k. That is "super intelligent cyborg sharks on fire armed with bazookas swimming in acid pool" dangerous.
I think rolling snake eyes difficult terrain is enough to represent being bogged down.
Lone IC and MC have already additional dice to represent everything you want. I don't think we need to replace dangerous terrain with slowing terrain because we already have one. Another type of slowing terrain is cool but you are trying to take away some variety.
Besides, terrain is only dangerous if you and your partner decide it is. If you don't like it - it's perfectly acceptable to just not have any on the table.

Dangerous terrain saved me from losing a game yesterday I cast murdeous hurricane on a unit he walked ran and charged lost 19 of 27 boys and my long fangs where able to wipe them in cc in 2 turns.

Panxer wrote:The concept and spirit of the proposed rule is not being grasped. Was anyone ever in the military and hung out of a helicopter or jumped from an airplane? Or even seen a movie about WW2 where a whole platoon is stopped dead because they have to cut a guy down from a tree because his parachute got hung up or broke his ankle on a bad PLF or Rope in?

I dunno if you knew this already, but Warhammer 40k isn't present day military (where it would be illegal to use the Imperial Guard the way they are used in W40k; mainly as meatshields for better things) or a WW2 film (also, correct me if i'm wrong here, I do believe you weren't allowed to go back and help people who got stuck).

You don't like it? Groovy. Don't play it.

I won't play it, and i'm trying to make you understand why.

Then how about this, units with the special rules attached to them such as relentless, fleet, move through cover, monstrous creature etc get to re-roll their DT test? Even if you have invulnerable saves.

Test it and see.

Would this be an acceptable compromise, or are we going to troll this out until it gets ugly and the moderator comes and shuts it down? Positive construction people. Please, This is how stuff gets worked out. I'm thinking about the spirit of the game. If you're going to shut me down by rules lawyering me to death without coming up with a possible compromise/option then I'm just going to go to GW and speak with them, since I can't get any constructive options here. It might be more productive.

There is a difference between 'trolling' and 'giving out harsh truths'. Asking for constructive criticism relies on you presenting an idea that can be built upon, and only by telling you what doesn't work can you come up with that. The original rule you presented was not only flawed, but didn't have anything that could be improved upon, unlike the idea you suggested a paragraph ago.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
and anyone spouting statistics of 16% chance of getting kills to your squad from DT have never seemingly had a dice roll where your squad was halved and rendered combat ineffective because the dice gods were satisfied...

You can attempt to justify your ideas by providing rare examples and anecdotes, but it doesn't help you. My Fire Warriors have killed more models in combat in my years of playing Tau than they have with shooting; does that make them good at close combat? No, they still suck at close combat, I just got lucky. Statistics are not the be-all and end-all of gaming theory, they only help by pinpointing the average (and therefore most likely) results.

all I'm reading is this WON'T work...does anyone have any, this doesn't work, but THIS is what WOULD make it work, or what you tried perhaps tweeking THIS? Or maybe this rule would make the duck rule viable...?

You know, like constructive criticism?

See my paragraph about having a workable idea.

Kirigakure wrote:Well I think if one is *really* against this proposed rule, they really are 1) a Spath Mareenth player (lisping intended) and 2) are the wuss I was referring to in regards to walking around terrain because they're really afraid of it. That's right, I'm talking to you!

or maybe they have a different opinion. Just sayin'

Ever seen a Space Marine player with uber armor choose not to walk through some bushes because he was afraid of losing a model? Nope, because bushes usually aren't dangerous terrain.I have Good for you, maybe next time try using bushes as difficult terrain instead, like the majority of area terrain on a board is. Every game ever against these types of players. Total troglodyte players who just want to hurry up and pew pew and not play the game. Is what they are. So yeah, I like this type of rules proposal, though some tweaking is obviously necessary.

If you think you can improve something then suggest it. As it stands, neither I nor many other posters could see anything to improve upon with the original idea, and so said it wouldn't work; but saying it needs tweaking and then nothing else isn't as helpful as it sounds.

I play Necrons BTW good for you; I play Tau; I don't see how this is relevant, so flamesuit zipped!

I can't stress enough the fact that Difficult and Dangerous terrain are not synonymous in terms of the rules; honestly, if you're having so much trouble with dangerous terrain, then you probably have too much of it, or are counting Difficult terrain as Dangerous; dial it down a notch and remember that electing area terrain as Dangerous is completely optional.

Welll, what everyones saying about how this new proposed rule isnt good, they're right. Harsh but right.

I belive you have a problem not with the terrain, but with the attitude of the people playing the terrain, which you should completely use to your advantage just like a good commander would. They dont want to step in the buzzsaws of doom? fine,then let them go through the pussywillows. You now know where to stick your big guns.

The new rule you suggested, it doesnt fix that problem. The people who avoided your beautifuly crated (abeit dangerous!) terrain are gonna do the same with these rules as with the old one's.

You might as well toss out that peice of art, punch a hole through the table, and model a little tiny sign next to it that says "Black Hole" because thats what these new rules represent.

The first problem with these rules is: Do you roll 1 die per person or one die for the whole squad? You didnt metion this and if its like Avatar720 suggested, any more then 3 models rolling a die and boom, the whole unit cant move or shoot next turn...and scince its rare to find less then 3 models a squad that means everytime you enter, you'll always get stuck.
2nd problem: -1 int, -1 ld... they look good fluff wise but in game terms, this does absolutly nothing for noone, nohow. its not a real big change.

Ok, now for the solution:
what YOU are looking for isnt a black hole, its Dangerous Terrain Lite, a less hurtful terrain that your "WussyMarines" can swallow. when you roll for dangerous terrain, instead of it being insta-kill, your troops get to roll for armour save. problem solved.

So when your opponet walks through a "grove of trees" use this rule...although i dont know why the heck you would catagorize that as dangerous terrain...things like lava, acid pits, and Doom Blades of Dooom!!! are what dangerous terrain is supposed to be.

How about this:

If you walk into dt and roll plenty of ones, you have to choose between moving on (leave the stuck ones behind -remove them as casuality) or getting them out. If you choose the latter, the unit gets stuck as described above. Maybe if you want to move on you first have to do a morale check to see if you warriors are man enough to leave their mates behind.
I think with this choice you can improove the comlexity of the game quite a bit, since you get a nice new amount of tactical decisions to make.

You guys are the best. Thank you very much. I appreciate your input, and will kindly refrain from posting my future opinions/thoughts on how to make a game more fun an enjoyable to a larger cross section of people who 'enjoy' the GAME. It's all it is, ever was, and will ever be; a game.

If it's that's serious that the english gentleman with the filthy sally profile pic needs to rip it apart, instead of just saying something along the lines of, 'yeah, probably better off as a house rule, probably not for wide game play'. Period. You sir, have behaved like a dick, and have killed my hope for positive conversation and constructive criticism. Perhaps in time you'll learn that. I'm not holding out hope, but you never know. Dice can't be 1's all the time.

I apologize to all others who actually helped with the rule. I like the Armor save bit as well as some of the other ideas expressed (even the constructive criticism). This is a 'proposed rule' section, but you sir, have taken it to a level I never wanted to take it to. You sir, are why I loathe the majority of 'serious' players and 'rule lawyers' that niggle and squeeze every ounce of fun out of the game for the sake of 'being right'. I bid you all good day and good fortune...may your dice rolls all ever be 6's, even filthy mary's. Panxer...Signing out.

If another poster is rude to you, the appropriate way to respond is politely or not at all. Be sure to hit the yellow triangle on their post to alert a moderator as well. Being rude or sarcastic in response means at BEST you have lowered yourself to the same level, and at worst you have actually misinterpreted a comment as being rude when it was not intended to be, and you yourself are the rude party.

It's just never worth it to be rude or sarcastic; at least not on Dakka.

On the flip side, people should be careful to express criticisms of someone's idea in a courteous and thoughtful way. Even if an idea really is poor, there may be legitimate reasons why it does not seem so to the person proposing it. Avatar720 had a good moment of insight when he noted that perhaps the OP is using excessive amounts of Dangerous Terrain, or confusing the rules for Difficult with Dangerous, which could indeed result in feeling that the rule is too harsh.

No, I really meant every word. Good fortune and all. Sarcasm included in first paragraph, admonishments in the second, and apology and well wishes in the third. Completely sincere.

And now you've got your 2 cents in, and this thread is no longer about 40k. I'd hoped the issue was put to bed, I'd said good night, but here we are. Let's just drop it, I'll send a note to admin and ask them to remove this thread.

Seriously, I'm done. Thank you.

Be well.