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 guys, I'm sure this has been asked before but I couldn't find a thread baout it so I'l just ask.

Orikan makes every oponent model on the first turn *count as moving through difficult terain

Writhing worldscape *all difficult terrain is counted as dangerous terrain

Would this stack as it isn't actually difficult terrain, it is counted as. It really does need a FAQ but what do you guys think? I would think because they count as being in difficult terrain for all intents and purposes they are in diffiult terain until the end of the turn which will then stack up but I don't know

There was a bit of a debate at the club I go to, which meant a list I had written around the combo (including tremor staves which also make enemy units count as mocing through difficult terain) Wasn't allowed to stack. Although I still won thanks to some TACTICAL GENIUS! (I was teamed up with traitor IG).

Cheers guys

* - Direct quote from the codex

Yes, it would stack.

Could you expand on that? I agree with you but others don't

Not really - you count open terrain as difficult, same as DS units coount all difficult as dangerous.

This means it IS difficult terrain for all purposes - including writhing worldscape

You need to search -- there was already a thread where this was thoroughly discussed.

And no, they don't combo. WIth Orikan, the unit "moves as if" in difficult terrain. It is not actually difficult terrain, and this Writhing worldscape does not make it dangerous.

Erm, the quote was "counts as"

nosferatu1001 wrote:Erm, the quote was "counts as"

Ya, difficult terrain "counts as" dangerous. But does "counts as difficult terrain" actually = difficult terrain? IMHO it does not.

It's like saying "this piece of paper counts as a picture", "this picture counts as a piece of art", this paper is art. It's just not true.

It "counts as" difficult terrain, meaning when Writhing Worldscape increases ALL difficult terrain to dangerous this goes up as well; if you dont increase it to dangerous then it has not counted as difficult terrain for one aspect, breaking a rule.

So, the Tremorstave causes units to 'treat open ground as difficult terrain'..

This is the same issue ('treat') as 'counts'.

I would think that these sorts of things would stack since it allows for interesting combos/synergy.. but not sure.

So if you have to move as if through difficult terrain, then you treat difficult terrain as dangerous then yes, it does stack. And the same for the tremorstave.

Just to elaborate on that, how do you justify it not stacking? Because it says 'counts as'? In the rules it mentions on wrecked vehicles 'counting as both difficult and dangerous terrain' but that doesn't mean its not actually dangerous terrain


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Erm, the quote was "counts as"

Ya, difficult terrain "counts as" dangerous. But does "counts as difficult terrain" actually = difficult terrain? IMHO it does not.

It's like saying "this piece of paper counts as a picture", "this picture counts as a piece of art", this paper is art. It's just not true.

By the way, writhing worldscape - 'all difficult terrain is also dangerous for the enemy'.

Caranthir987 wrote:So if you have to move as if through difficult terrain, then you treat difficult terrain as dangerous then yes, it does stack. And the same for the tremorstave.

Just to elaborate on that, how do you justify it not stacking? Because it says 'counts as'? In the rules it mentions on wrecked vehicles 'counting as both difficult and dangerous terrain' but that doesn't mean its not actually dangerous terrain


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Erm, the quote was "counts as"

Ya, difficult terrain "counts as" dangerous. But does "counts as difficult terrain" actually = difficult terrain? IMHO it does not.

It's like saying "this piece of paper counts as a picture", "this picture counts as a piece of art", this paper is art. It's just not true.

By the way, writhing worldscape - 'all difficult terrain is also dangerous for the enemy'.

Because the wording for writhing worldscape states "difficult terrain is also dangerous terrain", it does not say "when you roll for difficult terrain you take a dangerous terrain test." I know that GW isn't very explicit in their rules wording but the fact they specify that "difficult terrain" is changed and not just taking a difficult terrain test leads me to believe it is only meant to work on actual terrain pieces.

But as I've said before, I can see it working either way, I just do not believe it is meant to work the way people think it does.

Otherwise, certain units that always roll as if in difficult terrain would also have to roll for dangerous terrain every time they wanted to move, simply because they're making a "difficult terrain test", but that's not the way it *should* work. Mainly because it doesn't say to test for dangerous terrain just because you took a difficult terrain test, it says that specifically difficult terrain is dangerous for the enemy. And "counts as" is still not actually a terrain piece as it is open terrain being counted as difficult terrain, but not actually *being* difficult terrain it doesn't meet the criteria to also be dangerous.

Seems like we are all caught up on wording.. I get what Kevin949 says in regard of certain units always rolling in difficult terrain (upped to dangerous terrain). But overall I'd think that the rules were written to enable combos and make difficult terrain dangerous terrain too. Sounds like an FAQ is needed!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Erm, the quote was "counts as"

Wrong wording. Orikan's thing is not "counts as" it's "moves as if in". Worldscape makes difficult "count as" dangerous, but the point is that it's not actually difficult in the first place, they're just moving as if it is.

I have hit on this issue in my FAQ thread.

Nos, here is a quote your argument might find useful:

BGB, p.13, Area Terrain:
You should discuss all such terrain features with your opponent before the game and agree exactly what everything counts as and where boundaries of terrain features lie.

Later, this issue is also referenced:

BGB, p.88, Define the Terrain:
Which terrain pieces are area terrain, difficult terrain or dangerous terrain (or a combination)?

In the first section it says "count as" and in the second section it says "is". As they are referencing the same thing, it means that to the writers of the rulebook, "counts as" means the same thing as "is".

For those of you who play Magic: the Gathering, or like logical reasoning, this is not necessarily intuitive. But trust me on this one, you do not want to see how far down the rabbit hole goes if you choose to define "counts as" as something other than "is" for the purposes of this game.

Logically, and in the language, yes, "counts as" does not imply the subject has the said characteristic or ability. It merely implies that the subject acts as if it had the said characteristic or ability, while technically not possessing it. Unfortunately, GW defines them as the same thing, and so for the purposes of the rules, they mean the same thing.

If you think it's not such a big deal, I urge you to go through the entire rulebook and all the codices, and note every time you hit a "counts as". Then I want you to think of all of the implications if that particular "counts as" becomes something different than "is".

I have seen many arguments on the subject, but I can throw a multitude of argumentative principles and theorems at this one, namely Occam's Razor and a fundamental rule of interpreting texts: that an interpretation that makes part of what the author said incoherent with itself is probably not the best interpretation.

So if Orikan makes you move as if in difficult terrain, and is affected by Writhing Worldscape, then Slow and Purposeful models who wish to move would also take dangerous terrain tests. Correct?

Yes, because they are always moving as if in difficult terrain

Sucks to be meganobz and oblits...

Happyjew wrote:So if Orikan makes you move as if in difficult terrain, and is affected by Writhing Worldscape, then Slow and Purposeful models who wish to move would also take dangerous terrain tests. Correct?

Yes, except no, it does not work that way. Orikan's rule and Writhing Worldscape do not interact.

Yes it does. As kitzz points out, in the rulebook when it mentions 'counts as', thats what it is. If not, then you would never have to take dangerous terrain for wrecks, but you do, because the rulebook says you do

There is already a precedent for counts as, in many different places in the rulebook - so that being the case when writhing worldscape states difficult is dangerous and orikan makes normal terrain count as difficult then it combines.

OMFG, you people are so confused. "Counts as" is not in any way the issue.

The Orikan rule says "counts as moving through difficult terrain." Forget about the "counts as", pretend it says "is" whatever, that's twisting your brain. The key part here is "moving". You're not in difficult terrain, you're only moving as though in difficult terrain. It's a big difference.

Likewise, forget about the "counts as" in the writhing Worldscape. It just makes difficult terrain into dangerous. Fine. But there is no difficult terrain. People are in open terrain, moving as if they were in difficult terrain.

This is completely different than the tremor stave, for instance, which says that the unit hit treats open terrain as difficult terrain. SO that unit is, for all intents and purposes, in difficult terrain, and writhing worldscape will make that dangerous.

But Orikan's temporal snares rule does not. It's really not that complicated.

you need to seriously chill out, or you'll have a stroke

seems like most folk are in consensus that it does, including every GW staffer that i've spoken to about it.
The tremor stave and orikans rule are very similar, to say that they are not is merely playing semantics

Caranthir987 wrote:you need to seriously chill out, or you'll have a stroke

seems like most folk are in consensus that it does, including every GW staffer that i've spoken to about it.
The tremor stave and orikans rule are very similar, to say that they are not is merely playing semantics

I need to chill out? I was not un-calm, there was just a serious lapse in reading comprehension.

They can be in consensus all they want, it's not what the rule says. "Moving as if in" and "Is in" or "treats open as difficult" are very different things. It's understandable that on first read-though people miss that, but if you pause and think about it, the difference is clear.

You can have the same effect with the tremorstave, if you want, that at least works as you describe.

So does that make vehicles moving count the difficult terrain as dangerous?

For Orikan's power, no. They are "moving as if in difficult terrain", but vehicles, bikes, and jump troops get full movement when in difficult terrain. They are not in difficult terrain, though, and so do not have to make dangerous tests.

For tremorstaves, yes. They are in difficult terrain.

Again, whether it says "counts as," "moving as if in," "is treated as," or any similar phrase, it does not matter. It all means "is."

Using another grouping of words that means the same thing as "counts as" is not going to get you off of the hook, here.

Do not tell other people they do not having reading comprehension until you lay out your reasoning, and, when you do so, please reevaluate your argument, as you might realize it's the same argument in any case.

Sorry but I have to disagree with Sir_Prometheus. If you "count as" being in difficult terrain you have to apply the penalties, otherwise how are you counted as being in it? That would apply to making difficult terrain checks, dangerous terrain checks and for the purposes of assaulting and getting reduced to I1 if you happen to be without assault grenades. If you don't do these things then you aren't really counted as being in the terrain are you and the power would have no point whatsoever.

And yes Ctan and Orikan stack.

I still say there is a huge difference between a power that effects Terrain and and one that effects a Unit. Orkian's Temporal Snares effects units, and the C'Tan's Writhing Worldscape effects Terrain. A unit would have to be in difficult Terrain, not Open Ground, to be affected by Writhing Worldscape.

Kitzz wrote:Again, whether it says "counts as," "moving as if in," "is treated as," or any similar phrase, it does not matter. It all means "is."

Using another grouping of words that means the same thing as "counts as" is not going to get you off of the hook, here.

Do not tell other people they do not having reading comprehension until you lay out your reasoning, and, when you do so, please reevaluate your argument, as you might realize it's the same argument in any case.

No and No. This is a little bit of a straw man, as "counts as" and "is treated as" do indeed mean "is". However, "movin as if in" very specifically does not. In fact, it is a very specific specification.

lukus83 wrote: If you "count as" being in difficult terrain you have to apply the penalties, otherwise how are you counted as being in it?

And this is the other thing. Just forget about "counts as". There really is no "counts as".

The exact quote is "counts as moving in difficult terrain"

You're all treating this ad if that's the same thing as "counts as difficult terrain". If that were true, then Orikan's power would work with it just fine. But that's not what it's saying at all, in fact it's saying the opposite.

In this case "counts as" is just a segue into "moving as if within". "Moving as if in" is the opperator here, "counts as" is just the setup . This is completely different than when "counts as" is the operator: It can be, in some sentences, and then it would mean what you're saying. But it's simply not the oeprator here.

You are indeed free to replace "counts as" with a "is" here, if you like. What does the sentence become? It becomes "Is moving as if within difficult terrain". OK. But you see, that's wuite different than actually being in difficult terrain, isn't it?

There are only two states under discussion here. There's "moving as if within" (Orikan's temporal snares) and "Treats open terrain as difficult terrain." These are clearly different things, aren't they? There is no rule where "counts as" is the active part of the sentence.

Several of you have become quite confused by that, and I'm not sure I understand why.

But you do realize that when you don't move terrain has no effect whatsoever right? Without the "moving" part the whole statement becomes redundant.

I think they use the "counts as moving" instead of "counts as difficult terrain" for one simple reason:

If you count as moving through difficult terrain you get all the negative effects of difficult terrain without getting the benefits, namely a cover save.

This makes sense since the power is obviously not intended to give a possible benefit to units that don't choose to move on the first turn.

Sir P I don't think the "counts as" part is in question anymore what they are saying for the purpose of "moving as if in" you have to define what "difficult terrain" is and what the penalty is for moving in it. Definition is decided by players at the start before the game and it's penalty is traditionally slowed movement. However what other people are trying to say is the presence of a C'tan changes the penalty and orikan/staffs change the definition. As long as the C'tan lives it's impossible for the opponent to experience difficult terrain and dangerous separately, so difficult terrain is both difficult and dangerous even if still only referred to as difficult. As for what defines the difficult terrain usually players will agree on a piece of terrain or feature to represent this. Orikan however changes this from the player elected terrain to the board itself representing difficult terrain. The staff means the squad itself defines the terrain feature by where it's bases are place. By this reasoning I believe both work in conjunction as stupidly annoying as it may be.