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.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Water is dangerous but not really difficult for a jetbike.

See the rules for Jetbikes (pg 53)--this is covered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:Again, I think it might be best to disregard the Venomthrope as well as any other unit that can provoke similar abilities

Agreed, but then people also need to read the rest of the thread to learn why.

Perhaps Jetbikes would be a better example?

Jetbikes do not take difficult terrain tests, but take dangerous (only) when moving into difficult terrain.
That is a(nother) example of why the initiative mod applies to either situation.
They can be seperated, even if it is not common.

I wouldn't paste entire rules, especially not photocopied.

In either case, since the rules are permissive, I do not see any RAW which allow you to specify a piece of terrain as dangerous but not difficult. This is because the guidelines for specifying terrain do not contain any section that I've found which allows you to specify terrain as dangerous, only difficult and then dangerous.

What a codex or rules appendix say on the matter really doesn't matter. If THOSE rules give you permission within THEIR specifications, that has no bearing on if you're using a battlefield where those rules do not apply (if, for example, you aren't using a Tyranid codex, any rules written in the Tyranid codex has no affect on your Spess Mahreens versus Orks game).

And, once again, even though the rules do not allow you, by RAW, to specify a piece of terrain as dangerous but not difficult, that doesn't mean it can't happen somewhere else. It's exactly the situation with falling back and Combat Tactics. Combat Tactics gives you permission to bend the morale rules in certain ways.

P.S. Daemon-Archon Ren, the rules aren't divided into sections depending on classification, they are divided into sections depending on loose association. That's why you find the rules for armour saves in shooting phase (because that's the first phase where you'll encounter armour saves in a large quantity). That doesn't mean you don't get to encounter those saves in the assault phase, nor that you're shooting at a target in the assault phase just because they get to make armour saves.
Simply put, ruins are in the buildings section because that's what a normal human association would be "a ruin is a destroyed building, thus it is a kind of building, where will I find the rules for a ruined building?". Strictly mechanically, ruins are area terrain that you can sometimes move in a third dimension in. Buildings are not, they are immobile vehicles mechanically.

P.P.S. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if you could direct me where permission is given to treat dangerous terrain as clear for movement quality, but given the examples of dangerous+difficult, it seems that immediately when there's a risk of being wounded the terrain is difficult - even if the danger is hidden. I, myself, choose to see this as occasionally stopping to cauterize a wound, pick yourself up from the ground if a mine knocked you down, stop and cough from the gas, or wipe the corrosive slime off your skin quickly before it does more than randomized plastic surgery.
Remember that the squad waits for the slowest member to catch up, unless they are forced to leave him behind (in which case he's a casualty, not necessarily dead, but out of the fight).

Mahtamori wrote:I wouldn't paste entire rules, especially not photocopied.

If GW wants to issue me a C&D for photocopying a rulebook which I own several copies of during a discussion about Rules therein, on a Forum dedicated to their product... I'd be happy to review it with as much enthusiasm as a "Free Credit Card" I get in the mail. I have more faith in their company to warrant such phases of paranoia.

Mahtamori wrote:
In either case, since the rules are permissive, I do not see any RAW which allow you to specify a piece of terrain as dangerous but not difficult. This is because the guidelines for specifying terrain do not contain any section that I've found which allows you to specify terrain as dangerous, only difficult and then dangerous.

If the rules are permissive, that would mean that you would not require direct "RAW" to say what you "Can or Can't Do" but rather the consent of your opponent...

When looking for RAW if you look at the "Defining Terrain" section (88) it states to Define terrain as Either Area, Difficult or Dangerous, or any combination therein. Based on that sentence, it would allow for Difficult and/or Dangerous and/or Area (check the chart I posted earlier). Also, most of the examples in the book differentiate Difficult and Dangerous terrain, making them seem more like separate entities as opposed to co-dependent.

Mahtamori wrote:
P.S. Daemon-Archon Ren, the rules aren't divided into sections depending on classification, they are divided into sections depending on loose association. That's why you find the rules for armour saves in shooting phase (because that's the first phase where you'll encounter armour saves in a large quantity). That doesn't mean you don't get to encounter those saves in the assault phase, nor that you're shooting at a target in the assault phase just because they get to make armour saves.
Simply put, ruins are in the buildings section because that's what a normal human association would be "a ruin is a destroyed building, thus it is a kind of building, where will I find the rules for a ruined building?". Strictly mechanically, ruins are area terrain that you can sometimes move in a third dimension in. Buildings are not, they are immobile vehicles mechanically.

Close, but there are possibilities (actually, there are 2 picture examples in the Rule Book alone...) of buildings that have portions that you can walk on, allowing you to "move in a third dimension in".

Also, Loose association? Look at such classifications as "Vehicles", "Unit Types", and "Universal Special Rules". A more accurate answer would have been "Buildings and Ruins are in a separate section as the rest of the terrain as 5th edition basically replaced the old CityFight Rules expansion book and the newer, simplified rules for buildings (INCLUDING RUINS) now have their own classification in the 5th edition rulebook."

Simply put, Ruins ARE buildings... do they follow the EXACT rules for "Intact" Buildings in the 5th edition rule book? No! But just as an armor save and an invul save are both saving throws, both Ruined Buildings (Ruins) and "Intact" Buildings ("Buildings") are 'Buildings'....

Mahtamori wrote:
P.P.S. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if you could direct me where permission is given to treat dangerous terrain as clear for movement quality, but given the examples of dangerous+difficult, it seems that immediately when there's a risk of being wounded the terrain is difficult - even if the danger is hidden. I, myself, choose to see this as occasionally stopping to cauterize a wound, pick yourself up from the ground if a mine knocked you down, stop and cough from the gas, or wipe the corrosive slime off your skin quickly before it does more than randomized plastic surgery.
Remember that the squad waits for the slowest member to catch up, unless they are forced to leave him behind (in which case he's a casualty, not necessarily dead, but out of the fight).

Example of Dangerous Terrain that is not Difficult... (as mentioned earlier) an unknown minefield! It may become difficult after the first guy dies (See: Using your Imagination section), but before the unit has experienced the minefield, there is the likelihood the mines in the 41st millennium could be 'undetected'!

The problem with Hidden Dangers being "difficult" is that Difficult tests/terrain is designated BEFORE the unit begins its move while Dangerous occurs AFTER the unit has moved. Even if a unit is waiting for its slowest member to catch up, it still wouldn't worry about any complications until after that member has moved. (And even then, you are dangerously blurring the line of RAW-vs-Fluff.)

You can photocopy what you want to.
Posting it, however can cause issues.


Regardless of what rules you want to invent (unknown minefield!) rules, then of course they can work however you want.

kirsanth wrote:You can photocopy what you want to.
Posting it, however can cause issues.

There is no practical difference between posting scanned sections of the rulebook and typing it out word-for-word. Posting such things is allowed where it is relevant to the thread. It's only the wholesale posting of rules or scanned material that is discouraged.

Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it, but the only real example i can think of for this kind of setup would be an Immobile cloud of acidic gas. in this case, if you had to go through it, you would want to move as quickly as possible and a difficult terrain test would not be in order.

DeathReaper wrote: you would want to move as quickly as possible and a difficult terrain test would not be in order.

That reasoning is so backwards it's perpendicular to sense.

DeathReaper wrote:Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it, but the only real example i can think of for this kind of setup would be an Immobile cloud of acidic gas. in this case, if you had to go through it, you would want to move as quickly as possible and a difficult terrain test would not be in order.

Even here I think there would be a donning of respirators, checking of seals, sergeants looking for helmets, etc. I've yet to see a convincing example given of terrain that ought to be dangerous but not difficult.

time wizard wrote:

SaintHazard wrote: I can't think of an instance where terrain could be dangerous and yet not difficult.

RAW are very fuzzy on this,

There is also page 88 BRB under "Define the Terrain" (q.v.) where we are advised to agree with our opponent on how to define the terrain we are using.

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

Here dangerous terrain seems to be in a catagory all by itself and this rule seems to indicate that a piece of area terrain could be classified as dangerous but not difficult.

For example, a field of alien plants could be classified as not difficult to move through, but dangerous to troops.

You would not have to roll for difficult terrain and could move through it at full speed, but each model would have to take a dangerous terrain test.

I think this is the most important thing. From the first paragraph on page 13, "How to represent terrain on the battlefield is discussed later (see page 88). For now, we're going to discuss terrain only in terms of how infantry moves through it." That modifies the entire section on page 13/14 to an explanation of how you move through terrain. This has nothing to do with how terrain is classified, that is on page 88.

On page 88 it tells you how to define the terrain. From the first bullet in defining terrain you have the following options for terrain:

area
area, difficult
area, difficult, dangerous
area, dangerous
difficult
difficult, dangerous
dangerous

Again, just because it says "or combination" does not mean that every combination is automatically valid.

I think its about time to /thread this...



Above are the rules for dangerous terrain.

The wording explicitly states "Some terrain features will be dangerous to move through".

It does not state "Some DIFFICULT Terrain features will be dangerous to move though"

It also does not state anywhere in the rules for "Dangerous terrain" that "Dangerous terrain is always also difficult terrain"

That omission is proof enough(while there are many other instances in the book that seem to segregate Difficult/Dangerous terrain) that Dangerous Terrain is not exclusive to difficult terrain. If the intent of the Rule Makers was to make them the same, this is the section where they would have stated it. OR Anywhere else in the book (especially in the sections covering terrain) they could have included the simple rules of "Dangerous terrain is always difficult terrain".

The "Golden Rule" justification of "Well, the rules themselves are more like guidelines anyway, so you COULD always just ignore the book if your opponent agrees" is not a required defense (and I think is not valid in YMDC as it makes the forum kinda useless when you think about it) as defining terrain as exclusive-Dangerous is actually expliciticly stated on page 88 under "Define the Terrain" under the bullet that states

Which terrain pieces are area terrain (Not difficult or Dangerous), Difficult terrain (Not Area or Dangerous) OR dangerous terrain (not area or dangerous) (Or a combination ((Allowing for such combos of Area-Difficult, Area-Dangerous, Area-Difficult-Dangerous, Difficult-Dangerous).

Again, the above section (if the intent was exclusivity) should have stated "Which terrain pieces are Area terrain, Difficult terrain, or Dangerous(And therefor, also "Difficult") terrain (Or a combination)?" If that was there intent, it would have been addressed in the 5th edition Errata/FAQ. Its a rather simple topic, since nothing has been said contrary by the writers in question (And they went out of there way to explain the LOS issue/contradiction of what a weapons "Should be able to fire" vs "How its glued" in full detail). Now, if they decide to change this in the future, or if in a seperate codex FAQ (For instance, the Tyranid 5th Edition FAQ, where it makes no such mention of this question...) then it will change.

However, as of right now, the answer to the question is "Nothing in the rulebook explicitly states that Dangerous terrain is inherently Difficult terrain, in fact, the rule book it self makes a point to segregate Difficult and Dangerous terrain in multiple instances of its contents, and there are currently codex-specific rules that explicitly state that there effects invoke 'Dangerous Terrain tests' in areas of terrain that are 'Not necessarily difficult' therefor supporting the statement of their seperation."

The major confusion is often caused by the conflicting(and for the most part, redundant) sections of "Guidlines on Catagorising Terrain" vs "Define the terrain". in the guidelines, it says that terrain catagorised as Difficult can also be considered dangerous, but makes no mention of Dangerous in any of the other catagories. The 3 definitions of terrain are Area/Difficult/Dangerous. Under Area terrain it states that area NORMALLY (but not always) counts as difficult terrain. Dangerous terrain makes no such mention of its relationship to any of the terrain types (in its rules section) and thus, creates a major conflict in rulings.

The safe bet is to go with what the book says to do (or in this cause, what it DOESN'T say NOT to do) and allow terrain (if you and your opponent decided to "Define" it this way, as allowable in the rulebook) to be either Difficult or Dangerous or Both. And as always, check with your TO/A Rules Judge if the question ever arises in a Tournement.

Samus_aran115 wrote: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.

IIRC, water is treated as impassible for non-amphibious vehicles and infantry. A jetbike couldn't end its move on water anyway.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:same stuff, only with more words

That still does not help your point. Difficult terrain is treated as only dangerous to some models. That is a perfectly valid reason for the "omission".

Still.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

...The wording explicitly states "Some terrain features will be dangerous to move through"...

as i mentioned previously page 13 says it all, 3 types Clear, Difficult, and Impassible.

of these 3, only 2 are classified as Terrain features Difficult and impassible.

since by default clear terrain has no feature to speak of, thus it is clear or featureless as it were.

but again OP, if you and your opponent want to expand terrain types that are both agreeable, then go for it.

there could be snipers all over the place waiting to pick off people on either side, in this case the whole board could be clear dangerous terrain if you both agree on it.

Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it.

Daemon-Archon Ren, this is the company which sued Blizzard for a creature which looked a little like their Hormagaunts (I think) and when they lost the law suit made a creature which looked a little like Blizzard's Hydralisk.
Doesn't matter, though, I just triggered on the amount pasted and if the forum mods are cool with it, it's all good.

A mine field is described on page 13 as being an example of difficult and dangerous terrain. A crude magnetic scan, which even the Empire would be able to handle and possibly even the Orks, would reveal metal in the dirt in that general area. I'd imagine a mine field would rack up a lot more casualties than simply 1-in-6.

Difficult terrain is a section of it's own since it is referenced later in the rule book, among other things dealing with Jump Infantry or Jetbikes moving into difficult terrain - and since those rules do not want you to roll 2D6 and keep the highest for those movements, dangerous terrain is on it's lonesome omitting anything dealing with difficult terrain. It's sort of an elegant move in this case. I sort of; "I don't agree that it's RAW, but I still agree". Or, if you'll read DeathReaper's quote below:

DeathReaper wrote:Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it, but the only real example i can think of for this kind of setup would be an Immobile cloud of acidic gas. in this case, if you had to go through it, you would want to move as quickly as possible and a difficult terrain test would not be in order.

This hits the spot.

If it's a casual game you go by TMIR, and if it's a tournament game it's the TO's who get to say whether terrain is difficult, dangerous or a combination.

DeathReaper wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

...The wording explicitly states "Some terrain features will be dangerous to move through"...

as i mentioned previously page 13 says it all, 3 types Clear, Difficult, and Impassible.

of these 3, only 2 are classified as Terrain features Difficult and impassible.

since by default clear terrain has no feature to speak of, thus it is clear or featureless as it were.

but again OP, if you and your opponent want to expand terrain types that are both agreeable, then go for it.

there could be snipers all over the place waiting to pick off people on either side, in this case the whole board could be clear dangerous terrain if you both agree on it.

Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it.

And again the rules on page 13 have nothing to do with classifying terrain. At the very start of the section it explains that the rules that follow tell you how to move through terrain. The only section on classifying terrain are the ones on page 88.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Again, just because it says "or combination" does not mean that every combination is automatically valid.

Since the rules on page 88 are the only ones in the book for classifying terrain and that is the only paragraph in the book on how terrain is classified then by giving you those three options for terrain and then telling you that you may take combinations of them does allow all those combinations. Since the rules set is permissive and that is the only permission you have for classifying terrain then those are your options.

BrockRitcey wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

...The wording explicitly states "Some terrain features will be dangerous to move through"...

as i mentioned previously page 13 says it all, 3 types Clear, Difficult, and Impassible.

of these 3, only 2 are classified as Terrain features Difficult and impassible.

since by default clear terrain has no feature to speak of, thus it is clear or featureless as it were.

but again OP, if you and your opponent want to expand terrain types that are both agreeable, then go for it.

there could be snipers all over the place waiting to pick off people on either side, in this case the whole board could be clear dangerous terrain if you both agree on it.

Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it.

And again the rules on page 13 have nothing to do with classifying terrain. At the very start of the section it explains that the rules that follow tell you how to move through terrain. The only section on classifying terrain are the ones on page 88.

The heading Terrain types on page 13 does not classify terrain?

Oh wait, it does. therefore 3 types of terrain

and p.88 says "Define the terrain... Which pieces are area terrain, Difficult terrain, or dangerous terrain (or a combination)?"
since on page 13 under terrain types it defines Dangerous terrain as being Difficult there is no need for them to redefine Dangerous terrain.
and as such difficult terrain can be dangerous, Impassible can not be dangerous, and clear can not be dangerous (Because if it were clear then by default could not have anything dangerous within it)

See the thing is Danger-T doesn't exist, as Pg 13 states, some Diff-Terrain may also be dangerous to move through.

The problem with page 88 and what is confusing BrockRitcey I think, is the phrase 'any combination', now if that wasn't there one couldn't make and Danger-T at all. As when looking at the definitions of type of terrain on page 13 there is no Danger-T, it's an attribute that one may give to a piece of Diff-T.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
See the thing is Danger-T doesn't exist, as Pg 13 states, some Diff-Terrain may also be dangerous to move through.

The problem with page 88 and what is confusing BrockRitcey I think, is the phrase 'any combination', now if that wasn't there one couldn't make and Danger-T at all. As when looking at the definitions of type of terrain on page 13 there is no Danger-T, it's an attribute that one may give to a piece of Diff-T.

DeathReaper wrote:

BrockRitcey wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

...The wording explicitly states "Some terrain features will be dangerous to move through"...

as i mentioned previously page 13 says it all, 3 types Clear, Difficult, and Impassible.

of these 3, only 2 are classified as Terrain features Difficult and impassible.

since by default clear terrain has no feature to speak of, thus it is clear or featureless as it were.

but again OP, if you and your opponent want to expand terrain types that are both agreeable, then go for it.

there could be snipers all over the place waiting to pick off people on either side, in this case the whole board could be clear dangerous terrain if you both agree on it.

Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it.

And again the rules on page 13 have nothing to do with classifying terrain. At the very start of the section it explains that the rules that follow tell you how to move through terrain. The only section on classifying terrain are the ones on page 88.

The heading Terrain types on page 13 does not classify terrain?

Oh wait, it does. therefore 3 types of terrain

and p.88 says "Define the terrain... Which pieces are area terrain, Difficult terrain, or dangerous terrain (or a combination)?"
since on page 13 under terrain types it defines Dangerous terrain as being Difficult there is no need for them to redefine Dangerous terrain.
and as such difficult terrain can be dangerous, Impassible can not be dangerous, and clear can not be dangerous (Because if it were clear then by default could not have anything dangerous within it)

The heading on page 13 isn't terrain types it's just terrain. And in the very first paragraph it tells you that that entire section tells you how infantry moves through terrain and not how to define it. The first paragraph tells you that the section on how to define terrain is on page 88.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:See the thing is Danger-T doesn't exist, as Pg 13 states, some Diff-Terrain may also be dangerous to move through.

The problem with page 88 and what is confusing BrockRitcey I think, is the phrase 'any combination', now if that wasn't there one couldn't make and Danger-T at all. As when looking at the definitions of type of terrain on page 13 there is no Danger-T, it's an attribute that one may give to a piece of Diff-T.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
See the thing is Danger-T doesn't exist, as Pg 13 states, some Diff-Terrain may also be dangerous to move through.

The problem with page 88 and what is confusing BrockRitcey I think, is the phrase 'any combination', now if that wasn't there one couldn't make and Danger-T at all. As when looking at the definitions of type of terrain on page 13 there is no Danger-T, it's an attribute that one may give to a piece of Diff-T.

Page 88 isn't confusing me. Page 88 is the page that defines terrain. The problem with page 13, and what is confusing you and everyone else that quotes it, is that page 13 doesn't define terrain. If you were to read the first paragraph it tells you that page 13 is about how to move through terrain.

This whole argument is about MOVING through terrain.

Does a player need to take both a Dangerous AND a Difficult terrain test when attempting to move through Dangerous terrain?

The only way to answer this as a "NO" is to ignore the phrase "As mentioned previously.." under Dangerous Terrain on page 14.

For anyone who is on the "No" side of this question, you are going to need to explain to all of us what the phrase "As mentioned previously.." is referring to. The word "dangerous" appears only 3 times prior to this quote, and none of those places support a "No" position on this argument.

Except page 88 tells you that terrain can be dangerous without being difficult. And since page 88 is the section for defining what terrain is that is the section you have to look at for defining what terrain is.

After you have defined terrain you would go back and look at the section for difficult, dangerous or area terrain and read the relevant sections for how to move through it.

Now if you defined a piece of terrain as dangerous, which you are clearly given permission for as per the rules for defining terrain on page 88, then you would go look at the dangerous terrain section. The dangerous terrain section does not tell you that you also need to make difficult terrain roles, all it tells you to do is make the dangerous terrain test and tells you how to do it.

The line at the top of dangerous terrain that say "as mentioned previously...", is saying hey remember 5 min ago when you were reading about dangerous terrain, this is the section that talks about it. It doesn't actually tell you that dangerous terrain is limited to those sections it was talking about earlier.

Again, read page 88 for defining terrain, then read page 13 for how to move through the terrain. The rules give you clear permission for terrain that is dangerous in the defining terrain section.

Anyone that is for the must be both side of the question needs to find a quote that says "all dangerous terrain is also difficult". Since there isn't one in the book you must follow the rules for defining terrain as they are laid out on page 88.

Wow I am gone for a bit and all heck breaks loose! :p

As has been stated multiple times, not all Dangerous Terrain is Difficult. It's not that hard to grasp!

Gwar! wrote:Wow I am gone for a bit and all heck breaks loose! :p

As has been stated multiple times, not all Dangerous Terrain is Difficult. It's not that hard to grasp!

Perfect. I was wondering when you were going to show up.

ChrisCP wrote:See the thing is Danger-T doesn't exist, as Pg 13 states, some Diff-Terrain may also be dangerous to move through.

Did you just completely ignore that quote/picture Daemon-Archon Ren provided, which shows that it DOESN'T say "Difficult Terrain"?

BrockRitcey wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

...The wording explicitly states "Some terrain features will be dangerous to move through"...

as i mentioned previously page 13 says it all, 3 types Clear, Difficult, and Impassible.

of these 3, only 2 are classified as Terrain features Difficult and impassible.

since by default clear terrain has no feature to speak of, thus it is clear or featureless as it were.

but again OP, if you and your opponent want to expand terrain types that are both agreeable, then go for it.

there could be snipers all over the place waiting to pick off people on either side, in this case the whole board could be clear dangerous terrain if you both agree on it.

Bottom line is, if you and your opponent want to classify a piece of terrain as dangerous and open terrain then go for it.

And again the rules on page 13 have nothing to do with classifying terrain. At the very start of the section it explains that the rules that follow tell you how to move through terrain. The only section on classifying terrain are the ones on page 88.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Again, just because it says "or combination" does not mean that every combination is automatically valid.

Since the rules on page 88 are the only ones in the book for classifying terrain and that is the only paragraph in the book on how terrain is classified then by giving you those three options for terrain and then telling you that you may take combinations of them does allow all those combinations. Since the rules set is permissive and that is the only permission you have for classifying terrain then those are your options.

Except that on page 88 they say to see page 13...

and page 13 says it all, 3 types Clear, Difficult, and Impassible.

of these 3, only 2 are classified as Terrain features Difficult and impassible.

since by default clear terrain has no feature to speak of, thus it is clear or featureless as it were. and can not be dangerous terrain.

it even goes on to say, on page 13, "Guidelines on categorising terrain" read that section as well, it does not mention dangerous terrain in the clear terrain section, it only mentions it in the Difficult terrain section. ans since it does not say that clear terrain can be dangerous, it, by default, can not be dangerous.

the RAW are pretty clear on this point.

DeathReaper wrote:the RAW are pretty clear on this point.

Yes, it is.


See? Notice the lack of "DANGEROUS IS ALWAYS DIFFICULT".

Now I see the mistake you are making. You are reading the heading of "Define the Terrain" and thinking this means "Here are how the 5th edition rules define terrain."

No. This section is about how you and your opponent work out how that box looking object is going to play in the game. This is not about how the 5th defines terrain types. Terrain types are defined on page 13.

That is why they make it clear that you need to see page 13 for these details.

Possibly in the 6th edition they should make the words "see pages 13 and 77 for more details" in bold and red, although if I was asked to re-write this, I would explain that it is already clear. See page 13 means see page 13.

This is just going around in circles.

And ultimately, it's a non-issue. You need to discuss how the terrain is going to work with your opponent before the game anyway, so if you do wind up with some bizarre piece of terrain that would for some reason be appropriately classed as Dangerous without also being Difficult, you can sort it out with them then.