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.

Consider two hypothetical Close Combat abilities that an Eldar model could have, one that actually increases his Strength by 1, and another that has him treat a defending model's Toughness as one less for Rolls to Wound only. This does not effect the Defender's actual Toughness. On a quick analysis, the application of either (but not both) of these abilities would seem to cause the same combat results. Let's say an Eldar (S3, T3) model attacks an Ork Nob (S4, T4). To increase the Eldar's Strength by 1or to treat the Nob's Toughness as 1 less would not change the Eldar's Roll to Wound; they would both be 4+. However, upon closer inspection, all kinds of CC effects change. The ability for the Eldar to re-roll failed Poison attacks would only be possible if his Strength is increased, not if he treats the Nob as having 1 less T for Rolls to Wound, because the Nob's actual T4 is considered for Poison Weapon Re-rolls. If the Eldar had a weapon that increased his Strength by 4, he would only be able to Instant Kill the Nob if his S was increased. If you treat the Nob's T as 3 for the Roll to Wound against the Eldar's 7, the Nob's T would still be 4 for considering Instant Death.

My main point is that these two abilities affect different things, and interpreting who, what, and how these abilities interact have serious implications on how the game turns out. Now, if I made myself clear enough to be deciphered, I am correct, and we agree, then please read on.

So we are playing a game. We have agreed on what is Difficult Terrain and what is Open Ground. You have an ability that affects Difficult Terrain, not Open Ground, making it also count as Dangerous. OK. You also have an ability that affects my units, not Open Ground, making them take a Difficult Terrain Test while moving through Open Ground. OK. Then you say I also have to take a Dangerous Terrain Test while moving through Open Ground. I disagree. Nothing about either of these abilities changes the properties of Open Ground, just like the above Eldar ability treated the Nob's T as 3 for Rolls to Wound, the Nob's T was still 4 for all other Tests and considerations. Neither of these abilities changes a Difficult Terrain Test to include a Dangerous Terrain Test unless I am moving through actual, agreed upon Difficult Terrain.

Now, does anybody have any proof that either of these abilities makes anybody take a Dangerous Terrain Test when moving through Open Ground? Or (the big one that everybody is assuming) does anybody have any proof that either of these abilities adds a Dangerous Terrain Test to ALL Difficult Terrain Tests?

All right, I think I understand what you are saying. The arguement comes from the fact that the "Open Ground" is suddenly being treated as difficult, and you want proof that it then becomes Dangerous. I think. If that's the case, look at the exact wording of Writhing Worldscape:

Necrons 5th ed Codex wrote: While the C'Tan shard is on the battlefield, all difficult terrain is also dangerous for the enemy...

Pay attention to the bolded word: all. This means that all difficult, regardless of what its normal state is, becomes dangerous. Simply put, the open ground, if it becomes treated like difficult, then it would become dangerous as well (as long as it remains difficult).

If you need more proof, I'm sure someone else with a little more rule-quotability will come by, but if we were playing, (or if you played anyone at my LFGS) that would be the case.

Edit: Removed as my mind was changed after re-reading the BGB FAQ on S&P and assault.

I direct you here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/414335.page

There is a forum about this already.

I think this is redundant.

xlEternitylx wrote:This means that all difficult, regardless of what its normal state is, becomes dangerous. Simply put, the open ground, if it becomes treated like difficult, then it would become dangerous as well (as long as it remains difficult).

No, the Open Ground is still Open Ground. Nothing changes this. Orkian's ability affects models, not Terrain. His only requirement when moving through Open Ground is to take a Difficult Terrain Test.

xlEternitylx wrote:if we were playing, (or if you played anyone at my LFGS) that would be the case.

I'm glad your gaming community has come to an agreement before the (hopefully) definitive FAQ comes out. That does not help anybody not understand why your interpretation is right or wrong. Saying, "That is how do do it around here. If the majority says it's so, they must be right." gives no weight to your argument.

Happyjew wrote:I think the problem is "moves as if in difficult terrain" is somehow turning into "is difficult terrain". Personally I don't see that as the case. If it was "Unit counts as being in difficult terrain" there would be a valid argument. However "moves as if in difficult terrain" doesn't mean you are actually in difficult terrain.

Even "counts as being in difficult terrain" would not be sufficient as it does not change the status of the open ground. The rule would have to be "open ground is treated as difficult" for writhing worldscape to make open ground dangerous.

Again, I redirect you to http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/414335.page

where a fierce debate is ongoing. I warn you though, it is 100% completely pointless to visit it, as there is nothing there but the possibility of a majority ruling. Since these mean nothing to you, I would save the time and just give up.

I really don't see the need for another thread for this, there is at least another 2 or 3 debating the same thing already.

We'll see when the FAQ comes out but I believe it's meant to stack.

May I just say though - with all due respect - your example of the eldar/nob thing is quite a poor and misleading comparison, as it isnothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed

Scott-S6 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:I think the problem is "moves as if in difficult terrain" is somehow turning into "is difficult terrain". Personally I don't see that as the case. If it was "Unit counts as being in difficult terrain" there would be a valid argument. However "moves as if in difficult terrain" doesn't mean you are actually in difficult terrain.

Even "counts as being in difficult terrain" would not be sufficient as it does not change the status of the open ground. The rule would have to be "open ground is treated as difficult" for writhing worldscape to make open ground dangerous.

"counts as" is the same thing as "is".

Caranthir987 wrote: We'll see when the FAQ comes out but I believe it's meant to stack.

I do too, but they are just not written that way.

Caranthir987 wrote:May I just say though - with all due respect - your example of the eldar/nob thing is quite a poor and misleading comparison, as it isnothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed

The issue being discussed is the wording and application of the term "treats as". I was giving a different example where interpreting "treats as" as "is" changes the nature of the ability, which is what is going on with the Temporal Snare/ Writhing Worldscape discussion. I do think it was probably too convoluted for this kind of forum.