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.

I was curious if many people out there played with hills counting as area terrain?

I've seen some people play that all hills are size 3, but then conveniently forget about the 'you can only see 6" in or out rule".

I've heard of some people that play short little hills (say 1.5") as area terrain size 2.

however, on page 17, it almost sounds like hills are WYSIWYG, and shouldn't be considered Area Terrain at all.

I'm just curious how other clubs play? :S

I've never played hills as area terrain. Ever. I've always played hills as WYSIWYG, and I've never seen it done any other way.

I've never played as hills being area terrain. However, they do have a level. Generally 2 or 3. So if a unit is standing on the hill, they add its level to themselves when shooting over area terrain or ongoing close combats, plus the inherent LOS advantages from being higher.

I've never played as hills being area terrain. However, they do have a level.

While this is a handy house rule to give the Height advantage for standing on a hill, it is not actually supported by the rules. Only Models and Area Terrain are actually listed as fitting into Size categories.

To be precise, Insaniak, the rules do say that "These categories are also used to define the height of some terrain features."

The only terrain features that must be given a size classification are Area Terrain, but nothing prevents you from doing so for other terrain, and its generally a really good idea. It's a matter of discussion between you and your opponent, but its generally a good idea to do so for hills and other elevating terrain. As I said, doing so gives no advantage besides potentially shooting over ongoing assaults or area terrain.

The issue you are discussing Insaniak/C99 was covered by the Pete Haines article in WD.

You should assign certain non-area terrain features as "elevated positions" (such as hills). Models standing on elevated positions count as size 3 for seeing/being seen over other area terrain/close combats.

The only terrain features that must be given a size classification are Area Terrain, but nothing prevents you from doing so for other terrain,

Nothing in the rules actually allows you to do so for other terrain. Only Area Terrain is actually listed as having a Size category. 'Some terrain' doesn't give you a blanket license to apply the rule to whatever terrain you want, anymore than you could put jump packs on all of your marines if the codex said that 'some Marines' wear jump packs.


However... Yakface mentioned the WD article. I don't remember it that clearly, but I'll take his word for it. So, not actually covered by the rules, but clarified by a designer's article in WD.

Posted By insaniak on 04/12/2006 7:29 PM

The only terrain features that must be given a size classification are Area Terrain, but nothing prevents you from doing so for other terrain,

Nothing in the rules actually allows you to do so for other terrain. .

Page 17 "In all cases you should discuss any unusual terrain features with your opponent bfeore the game and agree what exactly everything counts as...."

Page 21
"A model's line of sight will be considerably improved by being on an elevated position, such as a cliff or building, so it can count the height of the terrain piece it stands on for line of sight in regards to other ara terrain."

Sure sounds like he can assign any terrain feature he wants and that the rules even insinuate that they height of the feature they stand on can help.

Page 17 "In all cases you should discuss any unusual terrain features with your opponent bfeore the game and agree what exactly everything counts as...."

"Ok, so this hill here... it's not particularly unusual, but it does have that interesting little outcrop that looks like a thingy... do we count it as Area Terrain? Oh, hills aren't Area Terrain? Ok then..."

Page 21
"A model's line of sight will be considerably improved by being on an elevated position, such as a cliff or building, so it can count the height of the terrain piece it stands on for line of sight in regards to other ara terrain."

And which terrain has a height? Oh, Area Terrain. So if a model is standing on a piece of Area Terrain, it can apply the rule just quoted. A piece of Area Terrain is, after all, a piece of terrain.

NOTHING in the rules specifically allows you to assign a Size to any other type of terrain. I'm fairly sure that was an oversight, particularly in light of the WD article (in which, IIRC, they specifically mention that the LOS rules were, in hindsight, a little vague...) but there you go.

"Unusual Terrain Feature" well what is unusual, well that would be anything not covered in the main rules.

I believe it should be WYSIWYG.

This is because you end up with all sorts of problems when you have a hill on a hill on a hill and you are trying to shoot other units on elevations with vehicles in between. Line of sight is simpler.

I also play with rocks as impassible terrain for vehicles and blocking. (not rubble.. big big boulders) since you cant hide in them, and you should be able to see somebody that is on top clearly.. with no cover.. if you want cover.. stand behind the rock.

-Legacy40k

"Unusual Terrain Feature" well what is unusual,

'Unusual' is anything that does not obviously fit into a particular category.

A hill fits very neatly into a category. It is a hill. It therefore, as explained in the very start of the Area Terrain rules on page 17, can count as regular terrain. WYSIWYG, and the hill is as tall as the actual model representing it. All you would need to discuss is whether it counts as clear or difficult terrain. Area Terrain never enters into it.

Seriously people, what are you arguing about?

Have you read the article in WD by Pete Haines? He wrote that they neglected to write in the rulebook a method to give non-area terrain (like hills) a size category.

There is no argument here. For LOS purposes, hills are WYSIWYG (as described in the rulebook) and, if deemed appropriate by the players, should be given the "elveated position" status at the beginning of the game.

Yak- Which issue was it in? This is honestly the first I've heard of it.

Snoogums- I agree with Insaniak that only area terrain is defined as having a size per the rules. I always thought the reference on P21 was for ruins, which count as being area terrain but often have multiple floors and elevated places to stand.

Seriously people, what are you arguing about?

I have no idea... I already agreed that it was a non-issue because of the WD article.

Posted by Mannahnin on 04/13/2006 11:38 AM
Yak- Which issue was it in? This is honestly the first I've heard of it.

Although I'm not yak, it was posted in US White Dwarf #308 (September '05) on pages 90-95. It is the issue with the Wood Elf special characters on a Forest Dragon on the cover.

Thanks Ghaz!

WYSIWYG, but our local league (some of you might know it - IFL, Don Mondo ) usually states hills counting as area terrain for tournament purposes to keep arguments down. Of course, it's up to the discretion of the players involved whether they follow that rule but if there's any arguments the line (about hills being size 2 area terrain) is repeated. It helps that hills are usually the modular type akin to what you'd see on a contour map, so there's really no arguments about seeing through one end but not the other.

WYSIWYG, but our local league (some of you might know it - IFL, Don Mondo ) usually states hills counting as area terrain for tournament purposes to keep arguments down. Of course, it's up to the discretion of the players involved whether they follow that rule but if there's any arguments the line (about hills being size 2 area terrain) is repeated. It helps that hills are usually the modular type akin to what you'd see on a contour map, so there's really no arguments about seeing through one end but not the other.

It is, of course, always cool to change any rule a gaming group sees fit to do if they like the change. That's the nature of the beast.

However, the rulebook (p17) does state that hills are treated as WYSIWYG.

Posted By yakface on 04/16/2006 12:39 AM

WYSIWYG, but our local league (some of you might know it - IFL, Don Mondo ) usually states hills counting as area terrain for tournament purposes to keep arguments down. Of course, it's up to the discretion of the players involved whether they follow that rule but if there's any arguments the line (about hills being size 2 area terrain) is repeated. It helps that hills are usually the modular type akin to what you'd see on a contour map, so there's really no arguments about seeing through one end but not the other.

It is, of course, always cool to change any rule a gaming group sees fit to do if they like the change. That's the nature of the beast.

However, the rulebook (p17) does state that hills are treated as WYSIWYG.

Pg 17 even says hills and enclosed buildings are WYSIWYG, yet on page 21 in the example picture the tank traps are blocking LOS to the Fire Warriors like area terrain since it is "as tall as they are". Yet the building is a Size Level 3 building, and is enclosed, which contradicts that quote from page 17.

Snoogums, did you NOT read the part about the clarification in White Dwarf?  Re-read this thread.

I really think you're trolling at this point, dude. 

The best way to end a discussion with someone in the minority is to claim they are trolling. Congratulations.

My point is the book already had size level solid terrain. What has been written about the WD article was that they neglected to spell this out, but they had an example of it in the main rulebook already. I'm just saying they had an example of it in the book, so even though they didn't write "hills and buildings can have size levels" they already had given a building a size level in an example, so it must have been possible.

But obviously some people don't get that and required a clarification for what we already knew was correct.

Woops!  My apologies on this one; I re-read the posts and you weren't saying what I thought you were saying.  You usually argue a certain point, and my past experience tainted this thread.  I stand corrected, and embarrassed.

Sorry.

The tank traps seem like a logical choice to define as area terrain. It's an area of scattered obstructions.

Buildings are often a reasonable choice to define as area terrain, especially when they have windows and doors you can see through, for the exact same reasons that woods make good area terrain. If we modeled them to look as dense as they should be, they'd be no good for moving models through. The building in the picture seems like an odd choice to define as area terrain, unless it's also being done so as to simplify how you move in and through it, but maybe you can see models through the windows from one side to the other, and thought it would be lame to allow shooting through it.

We play hills as WYSIWYG. A crisis can see and be seen by a dev squad behind a certain hill if when you look down at the model's eye view you can actually see. So for example it's possible the dev squad can see the crisis, but not the fire warriors, behind a hill. If partially obscured by a hill it gives a 5+ cover save.