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'm not sure there is an answer to this question, but I'm hoping to get some people brainstorming ideas, at least.

How do you actually use a Feculent Gnarlmaw in 9th edition? It counts as a terrain piece, but the FAQ doesn't give it any terrain traits (unlike, for example, the Battle Sanctum). Does this mean you have to "agree with your opponent" before the game as to what traits it has, and that if you can't agree, I guess you roll off and whoever scores higher gets to assign whatever traits to it they want?

Also, although it is terrain, it doesn't have a terrain category - it isn't a BUILDING, nor is it an Obstacle, Area Terrain, or a Hill. Is this even possible under the 9th edition ruleset - doesn't all terrain have to fall into one of these categories? So does this also mean that you have to "agree with your opponent" as to which of these categories it falls into? With the same roll-off if you can't agree?

Finally, presumably this also means that models can move over a gnarlmaw by paying vertical movement to move up and down it, assuming they have a high enough M characteristic to fully clear it (I don't think wobbly model would allow you to end your movement on it, though admittedly I haven't tried to see if I can balance any models in the tree)?

As usual GW didnt think before making new rules. We dont know how to play it.

If it doesn't have terrain traits it has none

it has no terrain based effects on the battlefield

We do know how to play with it - it has a datasheet and rules

It just has no traits

It's effectively identical to 8th


And no you can't move up it - it does not have the scalable trait or an alternative rule that gives you permission to do so

U02dah4 wrote:
If it doesn't have terrain traits it has none

it has no terrain based effects on the battlefield

We do know how to play with it - it has a datasheet and rules

It just has no traits

It's effectively identical to 8th


And no you can't move up it - it does not have the scalable trait or an alternative rule that gives you permission to do so

Agreed. It's a terrain piece with no terrain traits.

Can you point to anything that states that a fortification without labeled traits has none, as opposed to being like any other piece of terrain and having whatever traits you and your opponent agree on? The lists of traits for certain types of terrain in the book are just suggestions, technically you have to agree with your opponent on all of it. Just because the book says forests have X doesn't mean they do. Is there any reason the gnarlmaw wouldn't follow the same rules?

Also the contention re: not being able to go up and down it is wrong, you can go up and down all terrain by paying movement; this is in the general movement rules and doesn't depend on having any particular trait. Scaleable, ironically, makes something LESS scaleable than if it doesn't have the trait, as it limits the stuff that can end its movement on top of the terrain to infantry/beasts/swarm. However, even for scaleable terrain, a land raider can still go straight up the wall and straight down the other end if it has the movement - it just can't end its movement on top. This is 9th's version of the silly grot on the barrel problem: tanks that can go up and down sheer walls and cliffs.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Can you point to anything that states that a fortification without labeled traits has none, as opposed to being like any other piece of terrain and having whatever traits you and your opponent agree on?

It doesn't become terrain until after it is deployed, so you can't agree pre-game what trait it has.

Also, the fact no rules say you can assign traits to it. "It doesn't say I can't" isn't an argument.

All terrain pieces can be assigned traits - including fortifications. This is specifically called out in the book. So that's wrong.

However, the point that it doesn't become a piece of terrain until deployed is a good one. Feels like a typical Gee-dubs mistake, but this does technically mean that it isn't terrain at the time you have to decide what traits terrain has, so I guess that does, stupidly, mean you can't give it any.

Incidentally, I think the fact that it isn't terrain until deployed means you can also plop it down right on top of an objective marker, despite the general rule that you can't put terrain on objectives.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Can you point to anything that states that a fortification without labeled traits has none, as opposed to being like any other piece of terrain and having whatever traits you and your opponent agree on?

It doesn't become terrain until after it is deployed, so you can't agree pre-game what trait it has.

Also, the fact no rules say you can assign traits to it. "It doesn't say I can't" isn't an argument.

Correct

At least Shroud of Flies still works correctly in 9th edition - a non-monster/vehicle unit completely within 7" of the Feculent Gnarlmaws receives the benefit of light cover (BRB page 360 for clarifying "benefit of cover")