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.

Fair enough. I retract my statement. It is entirely possible for terrain to be dangerous without being difficult.

SaintHazard wrote:Fair enough. I retract my statement. It is entirely possible for terrain to be dangerous without being difficult.

In the fluff.
Pg. 13...

time wizard wrote:Or picture a field of snow. A squad moves over it. It is not difficult, they can move their full 6". Suddenly one of them steps into a crevace and disappears! Dangerous, but not necessarily difficult.

I don't know about you, but if my buddy fell in a crevasse while trudging through snow, I sure as heck wouldn't be busting through it full speed at that point, I'd take my time and verify each step for stability.

time wizard wrote:The first bullet point is: "Which terrain pieces are area terrain, difficult terrain or dangerous terrain (or a combination)?"

This could allow for terrain that is:
1) Area
2) Difficult
3) Dangerous (And therefor also Difficult)
4) Area & Difficult
5) Area & Dangerous (And therefor also Difficult)

as the combinations implied, without meaning to allow Dangerous terrain sans Difficult.

Granted we have always played that Dangerous was not always Difficult, but this thread made me wonder.

Scott-S6 wrote: Being redundant does not create extra cases. Is there an example of dangerous terrain that isn't difficult in the rulebook?

As someone else posted, in the BRB pg 88 line "Decide which terrain pieces are area terrain , difficult terrain or dangerous terrain (or a combination)" is, to me, rather compelling proof that terrain CAN be both but aren't inherently. But at this point I think it's sufficiently vague that no definitive answer will be reached. I submitted this in the INAT thread and will play by Noseferatu's definition until something further is published.


Thank you all for your well reasoned arguments.

I love how people reference the flawed "3 Terrain Types" on page 13... have any of you bothered looking down all of ~5 inches down the page?

As a refresher, let me show you how the page pans out...

Page 13 wrote:
TERRAIN TYPES
Terrain Provides useful cover from enemy fire, but can also impede the movement of your units. Troops can be slowed by pushing through or climbing over barriers and obstructions. Thare are three general classes of terrain: clar, difficult and Impassible.

• Clear terrain can be moved across without any penalty, and generally covers most of the battle field

• Difficult terrain slows down models wishing to move though it, and can sometimes be ganderous to models passing though it.

• Impassible terrani cannot be moved across or into.

Guidelines on categorising terrain

.......

• Buildings that models can enter, like bunkers, bastions and other fortifications.

As you can see, they have guidlines on catagorising Buildings as a type of Terrain, but buildings are NOT included in the 3 catagory terrain types listed directally above them... does this mean that buildings do not exist? (Only a far-fetched "RAW Zealot" would make this claim, IMO) It means that while something may or may not fall DIRECTALLY into one of the 3 catagories, it does not conditionally exist or not exist. Strictly speaking, there is NO SUCH THING as "Dangerous Terrain". "Dangerous terrain" is merely a test taken by dangerous features to any of the pre-existing terrain you already have on the board (Be it Difficult, Clear, or Impassible). Now, in many cases, Dangerous Terrain will also be Difficult in nature, as in most cases, if something would be especially dangerous (for instance, a KNOWN minefield) then the units moving across them would do so at a "slower" pace. Not all features would work this way however, it is perfectally justifyable, especially depending on your scenario, for terrain to be dangerous but NOT difficult (for example, an UNKNOWN mine field). I think the "Ram + Tank Shock" example misses the cut as it implies dependancy. As for the Page 88 example of

This could allow for terrain that is:
1) Area
2) Difficult
3) Dangerous (And therefor also Difficult)
4) Area & Difficult
5) Area & Dangerous (And therefor also Difficult)

I think it is more so as follows.

Terrain-----------------------Area?---------------Difficult?--------------Dangerous?
3 trees side-by-side-------Yes--------------------Yes---------------------No--------
Impassible Rocks------------No--------------------No-----------------------No*------- *If you were to decide the rocks have a chance of falling onto models, then 1" dangerous could work here
Desert Oasis-----------------Yes--------------------No-----------------------No--------
Quick Sand-------------------Yes--------------------Yes--------------------Yes-------

Then you would take the same things and apply cover saves

3-Trees - 4+/Check LOS
Impassible Rocks - Check LOS
Desert Oasis 5+/Check LOS
Quick Sand - Check LOS

So to answer the question... In my opinion, I think the answer you are looking for is "No" but only because the question marked them as two types of "Terrain catagories" when in reality, they are not. Types of Terrain = Difficult, Clear, Impassible. Possible definitions of Terrain = Dangerous, Area, Difficult, Ruins, Cover, Impassible, AV (for buildings), Capacity (For Embarkable Buildings)/Access points/Firing Points, etc.

IMHO, you should just both split the pizza...

Buildings are (generally) impassible terrain with special rules.

kirsanth wrote:Buildings are (generally) impassible terrain with special rules.

Ruins are buildings...

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Buildings are (generally) impassible terrain with special rules.

Ruins are buildings...

Not quite correct. Buildings are buildings (defined on page77) and ruins are ruins (defined on page 82).
Each has their own separate and different rules.

and then there is this...

So I am still correct?

kirsanth wrote:So I am still correct?

Yes.

Since that page doesn't say anything at all about ruins also being buildings, he just made your point for you.

There is also this from the top right hand column of page 77:

BUILDINGS
This catagory includes all those intact buildings in
which players cannot physically place their models...

This is from the same page as the RUINS quote.
Buildings and ruins are separate terrain features, with different rules.

EDIT: Yes, kirsanth, you are correct.

SaintHazard wrote:

kirsanth wrote:So I am still correct?

Yes.

Since that page doesn't say anything at all about ruins also being buildings, he just made your point for you.

Now, you've lost me


@Timewizard, underneath that segment states seperate rules for "Impassible Buildings" implying that normal buildings are infact NOT impassible terrain, but a seperate form of Terrain entirely...

However, as to not derail the topic futher, regardless of if "All (but some exceptions buildings are impassible terrain" they are still forms of terrain that are not SOLIDLY DEFINED as any of the three catagories of terrain, and as such, definitions of terrain are not restricted wholly and/or mutually exclusive two any one Type of "Terrain Catagory" (Actually the building example is further proof of this" so to restrict the definition of "Dangerous" terrain to the terrain catagory "Difficult" is fundamentally flawed...

Does that help?

Yes, I see the "RUINS." I see the picture of the RUINS.

What are you trying to say here?

Are you trying to say that those ruins look like a building?

Are you also trying to say that that somehow, in a strange roundabout way, makes them a building?

This is YMDC, man, you should know by now how we feel about defining RAW using fluff.

I'd like to point you towards that crater over there.

It used to be a bomb.

Does that mean it's still a bomb? If you step in that crater, will you explode?

Ruins were once buildings. They aren't anymore. This is reflected in the rules by making RUINS and BUILDINGS two completely different kinds of terrain, with different rules each.

Buildings are (generally) impassible terrain.
Ruins are (generally) difficult terrain.

Whether ruins that are dangerous force difficult tests simply because they are dangerous is (related to) the real issue being discussed.

And yes, we have all read the book. Even the part 5 inches past the words we are discussing.

kirsanth wrote:Buildings are (generally) impassible terrain.
Ruins are (generally) difficult terrain.

Whether ruins that are dangerous force difficult tests simply because they are dangerous is (related to) the real issue being discussed.

And yes, we have all read the book. Even the part 5 inches past the words we are discussing.

Then why refer to the "Terrain Types" section of the book when discussing "Terrain Definitions" which is CLEARLY the topic at discussion?

My point of saying "Using the Terrain Type chart on Page 13 of the book to force all definitions of Dangerous Terrain to be Difficult terrain is flawed as on that same page, there are clearly other definitions of terrain other then 'Clear/Difficult/Impassible' "

Hell, you've said it you self.

Buildings (A terrain definition) are generally impassible terrain.
Ruins (A terrain definition) are generally difficult terrain.
Dangerous Terrain (A Terrain definition) is generally difficult terrain.

Are buildings ALWAYS impassible?
Are Ruins ALWAYS difficult?
Is Dangerous terrain ALWAYS difficult?

No.

Also @Saint I'm trying to say that Ruins fall under the rules for Buildings. Buildings also have extended rules for "Intact buildings" which probably explains why they used the word "Structures" in the "Ruins" definition to attempt to aviod the confusion that would have not existed if they instead placed Buildings and Ruins under the Catagory of "Structures" instead of "Buildings" (I am assuming they may have run into translation errors if they had done this however. Example: Kenzou-Japanese for Building/Structure/Construction). Its not defining RAW using Fluff. Its defining RAW using RAW (Ruins fall under the "Buildings" rule section, because in reality, a ruin is a building. They have seperate rules for Ruins and Buildings in the "Buildings" section, but the point of them falling under the same section still stands.). Either way, continued discussion will derail the topic.

Ouze wrote:As someone else posted, in the BRB pg 88 line "Decide which terrain pieces are area terrain , difficult terrain or dangerous terrain (or a combination)" is, to me, rather compelling proof that terrain CAN be both but aren't inherently. But at this point I think it's sufficiently vague that no definitive answer will be reached. I submitted this in the INAT thread and will play by Noseferatu's definition until something further is published.

Saying "A, B or C (or a combination)" does not mean that every combination is valid.

kirsanth wrote:Buildings are (generally) impassible terrain.
Ruins are (generally) difficult terrain.

Whether ruins that are dangerous force difficult tests simply because they are dangerous is (related to) the real issue being discussed.

And yes, we have all read the book. Even the part 5 inches past the words we are discussing.

BRB page 82 under "RUINS: THE BASICS"
"All ruins are area terrain (providing a 4+ cover save) and difficult terrain. Players may also agree at the beginning of the game to treat some ruins as dangerous terrain as well..."

The two key issues as I see it are;

Dangerous terrain does not have to be difficult terrain (though it usually is)
Difficult terrain tests and dangerous terrain tests are 2 separate tests which may or may not need to be taken.

Example 1; Your unit of 10 infantry is 5" away from an area of difficult and dangerous terrain.
You must first roll a difficult terrain test to see if your unit can move into the terrain.
If so, any models that move into the terrain take a dangerous terrain test.
Repeat as necessary.

Example 2; your unit of 10 infantry is 5" away from an area that has been agreed to be dangerous terrain but not difficult.
No roll for movement, the unit moves normally.
Any models that move into the terrain take a dangerous terrain test.
Repeat as necessary.

Again, the key (as mentioned many times in the rulebook) is for you and your opponent to discuss and agree to all terrain features before the game.
Then after clear terrain, area terrain, difficult terrain, dangerous terrain, buildings and ruins, or any parts thereof have been designated, play can get underway.

But, I repeat my view, there is nothing in the rulebook that dictates that any and/or all dangerous terrain must also be difficult, though I agree that it is the norm.

How about the Rune Priest power Tempest Wrath? It tells you that for specific unit types to treat all terrain as both difficult and dangerous, therefore differentiating them even more.

time wizard wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Whether ruins that are dangerous force difficult tests simply because they are dangerous is (related to) the real issue being discussed.

rules

Right... My example was bad in that line, then.

Slow and purposful units always count as moving through difficult terrain. Doesn't mean that all terrain is difficult, just that it always counts as such for them.

If they move throught difficult terrain, they don't have to take 2 tests.

If they move through dangerous terrain however, they would have to take both tests.

This is interesting...



from "Moving Assaulting Models" it states you would take difficult OR dangerous (if necessary) which not only futher proves that not all Dangerous = Difficult but also seems to imply that the assaulting models would only need to take a difficult OR dangerous terrain test when appliciable. (It states "OR" in the Assaulting Through Cover section as well).

Not true.
See the Venomthrope issue.

What is "not true" and how does the "Venomthrope issue" apply to it?

Forgive me if I missed it in this thread, but I don't think anyone has addressed the rules where terrain is actually defined by the players before a game - page 88, under "Define the terrain". The first bullet point reads:

Which terrain pieces are area terrain, difficult terrain, or dangerous terrain, (or a combination)?

I would think this or alone would be enough to say that yes, you can have terrain that is dangerous, but not difficult.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:What is "not true" and how does the "Venomthrope issue" apply to it?

Venomthropes force dangerous terrain checks.

Which would invoke the rule you mentioned without having terrain at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lambadomy wrote:Forgive me if I missed it in this thread,

Yes. Repeatedly.
Allowing a combination does not force every permutation to be viable.

kirsanth wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:What is "not true" and how does the "Venomthrope issue" apply to it?

Venomthropes force dangerous terrain checks.

Which would invoke the rule you mentioned without having terrain at all.

Just as slow and purposful invokes a difficult terrain test with, again, having no difficult terrain at all.

Again, I think it might be best to disregard the Venomthrope as well as any other unit that can create dangerous but not difficult, as it simply will not be useful: the best consensus possible will be that unit X can create this situation due to codex given traits which doesn't answer the main crux of the question at all (how it affects everyone else). I agree that terrain can be difficult or dangerous but not inherently both, but this can hardly use a codex specific rule for one unit to prove it.

The Rune Priest section is more illuminating, I think. If you look at the Rune Priest psychic powers, you'll see "Tempest's Wrath" (in part) creates a section of ground that is explicitly both difficult and dangerous and tests for both. If all dangerous terrain was also difficult, it would suffice to call it simply "dangerous", yes? I don't think this question is really possible to answer with the BGB as currently written.

We decided to split the pizza, for anyone following that aspect of it.

Hmm. I think it's the other way around...I guess.

Never mind, that's dumb.

I guess if it came up you could make that decision then...Water is dangerous but not really difficult for a jetbike.