Login

Username:


Password:


Remember me



Forgot Password?





 Merchandise




Changes to difficult terrain rules (repost from warseer)

News and rumours

Changes to difficult terrain rules (repost from warseer)

Postby Murphey » Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:39 am

Ok, I had a chance to check out the rulebook again, heres the synopsis:

If you are trying to move upward/downward at all, you lose movement. Meaning, if you want to move forward 2 inches, and upward 3, you must roll a 5 on difficult terrain. Moving up or down uses movement .

If you are going to end your move on the same horizontal surface as you started (i.e. the ground) you make a normal difficult terrain test. If you roll high enough to actually get completely across the piece of terrain (ignoring vertical distance on this) you can get to the other side, because you can magically move through solid objects now.

Seriously, you can move through walls/towers/trees/whatever.

However, if you are going to gain/lose any vertical distance, then that is subtracted from your movement distance. So the example above, you are not really using any vertical movement (even though you are climbing over several rocks), you are actually phasing through the solid object. However, if you did not roll high enough to phase through completely, then your movement is reduced to take into account the amount of vertical distance gained.

End result, it still will take CC armies whole turns to reach enemy models, especially in ruins, on hills/rocks, or across any dips, ravines, hills, rocks, etc.

~Murphey
User avatar
Murphey
Newbie
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Brighton, Michigan

Re: Changes to difficult terrain rules (repost from warseer)

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:36 am

if a low wall is declared Difficult Terrain, then the DT test represents the unit climbing over it (potentially tripping etc). you arent actually moving up the wall and down again, you are moving over it (e.g. grabbing the top of the wall and swinging your legs over, landing on the other side).

when vertical distance is being taken into consideration, that means you are actually moving vertically, for example, climbing up the side of a tower to reach the top.

if the surface is too high and too steep, and theres not enough to hold onto, then i would class that as vertically Impassable anyway. for example, i wouldnt expect my models to move over a 4"+ tall wall (unless it had ladders on both sides etc).

its not often a unit would have sufficient movement to move up a tower, walk accross the top and then climb down it on the other side. however, what can sometimes happen is that they would have sufficient movement to climb down one building from the roof, cross the small gap between it and the next building, and then climb up onto the roof opposite. this needed to be addressed, IMO (it just felt silly). although at the same time, we should have rules for jumping across small gaps... (maybe allow models to cross gaps no bigger than their base length without risk, with bigger gaps being Impassable?)

here's a question: if a Jetbike starts on one side of a building, and move to the other side, how do we measure that move? horizontal distance only? or 2xvertical height of building + horizontal distance? personally, i dont think ive ever seen anyone use the latter method...
but now compare that to if the Jetbike wanted to stop over the building: you would measure the distance at least in a straight line, if not vertial height of the building + horizontal distance moved.
this could lead to situations where a Jetbike can move all the way over a 13" building to the other side, but couldnt stop on top of it on the way!

the rules just dont seem to handle large vertical distances very well (or are simply vague about what to do). :(

something that always struck me as weird is that if you roll high enough for your DT test when moving into and up inside a ruined building, you could end up further from your starting point (both in terms of straight line distance and distance covered while moving) than if you were moving along open ground!
for example, if you walk up a gently sloping hill (Open Ground), your maximum horizontal distance will be less than your Movement allowance (as you walked at an angle).
however, replace the hill with a ruin (Difficult Terrain) of similar height, and you could potentially move your full Movement allowance horizontally whilst also moving upwards just as high (in fact higher) than when you walked up the hill, even though this move was supposed to be more "Difficult". this made no sense at all, and i am glad they addressed it.

its also nice that the rules seem to differentiate between crossing an obstacle and moving upwards.

Murphey wrote:End result, it still will take CC armies whole turns to reach enemy models, especially in ruins, on hills/rocks, or across any dips, ravines, hills, rocks, etc.

well...
- as long as they dont move up and/or down in the ruins (staying at tabletop level), then they shouldnt be affected by the new rule.
- i wouldnt expect hills to be Difficult Terrain unless they were incredibly steep, rocky or unstable.
- unless rocks were very large, they shouldnt be affected by the new rule.
- i wouldnt expect a dip in the ground to be Difficult Terrain unless it was steep, rocky or unstable.
- unless a ravine was narrow enough to jump over, i would expect to have to climb down one side, walk across the bottom, and then climb back up the other side - and that should take longer than hopping over a low wall (consider the total distance the models would have to physically move!).

one thing i would like to know, is whether the rulebook says to measure the actual distance moved or whether it specifies to add horizontal and vertical distances together. for example, if you have a rough rocky hill (Difficult Terrain, sloped sides), and you walk up the side of it, do you measure along the angle of the slope, or do you meausre upwards and then draw an imaginary line perpendicular to the board to the side of the hill? in fact, how would you even do that? trial and error until you find the height at which you can use the remaining distance rolled to move horizontally and not end up floating in mid air or buried inside the hill? 8O :?

IMO if the new rules dont account for this, then they are in fact only considering moving straight up and straight across when they say to add the vertical and horizontal distances, making "add the vertical and horizontal distances" analogous to "measure the actual distance moved". ;)
(a bit like how the MoT says models with it cannot use 2 shooty powers a turn because models can only shoot one weapon a turn, but this clearly doesnt consider MCs which can shoot 2 weapons a turn, so we know that despite what it says, it means that models with the MoT cannot use more powers that replace shooting a weapon in a turn than the number of weapons they get to shoot, allowing MoT DPs to use 2 shooty powers).

cheers :)

~ Tim
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby KInG » Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:12 pm

The only thought i had on how they allow you to move horizontally from one side of the ruin to the other without any up and down movement penalty is if they add upwards movement and deduct downwards movement. They would then cancel each other out.

Fluff wise, climbing a ladder is slow, decending on ropes is quick. One hinders ur movement the other assists your speedy movement. Walking up a hill is slow, running down the other side is quick.
Last edited by KInG on Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
www.GamingFigures.com & http://www.AgeofStrife.com 15% off GW models 10% off FoW & GF9 - extra 1% off orders £100+ & 2% off orders £250+ with FREE UK SHIPPING now added
AoS_GF moderator
Image
User avatar
KInG
Archon
Archon
 
Posts: 5181
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:00 am
Medals: 2
Painting Entrant (2)

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:25 pm

KInG wrote:Fluff wise, climbing a ladder is slow, decending on ropes is quick. One hinders ur movement the other assists your speedy movement. Walking up a hill is slow, running down the other side is quick.

what if you start on a 2" high hill and move off it? wouldnt that leave you with a 8" move? :P

or if you start 2" away from the edge of a roof and climb down 3" to the ground - you would still have 7" of movement left, despite already moving 5" and only having a 6" Movement allowance. :lol:

dont forget that Movement in 40K isnt flat out - it represents moving from cover to cover, looking for boobytraps, communicating with your squadmates, awaiting orders, acquiring targets etc. - its too abstract to have things like speed gained from downhill momentum factored into it.
(for a game like Necromunda however, you could allow models to jump down short distances without that change vertical height counting against their move)

cheers :)

~ Tim
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby KInG » Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:52 pm

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:
KInG wrote:Fluff wise, climbing a ladder is slow, decending on ropes is quick. One hinders ur movement the other assists your speedy movement. Walking up a hill is slow, running down the other side is quick.

what if you start on a 2" high hill and move off it? wouldnt that leave you with a 8" move? :P

or if you start 2" away from the edge of a roof and climb down 3" to the ground - you would still have 7" of movement left, despite already moving 5" and only having a 6" Movement allowance. :lol:

dont forget that Movement in 40K isnt flat out - it represents moving from cover to cover, looking for boobytraps, communicating with your squadmates, awaiting orders, acquiring targets etc. - its too abstract to have things like speed gained from downhill momentum factored into it.
(for a game like Necromunda however, you could allow models to jump down short distances without that change vertical height counting against their move)

cheers :)

~ Tim


nah, what I am saying is that any upwards and downwards movement is calculated 1st and then the result applied. If the result is a minus figure then it has no effect on your horizontal movement. If there is a +2" due to moving up 4 and down 2 then u loose 2" from ur horizontal. But that would be too long winded to use i would think. Not that I said any of that at all in original post... :)
Last edited by KInG on Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.
www.GamingFigures.com & http://www.AgeofStrife.com 15% off GW models 10% off FoW & GF9 - extra 1% off orders £100+ & 2% off orders £250+ with FREE UK SHIPPING now added
AoS_GF moderator
Image
User avatar
KInG
Archon
Archon
 
Posts: 5181
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:00 am
Medals: 2
Painting Entrant (2)

Postby timewizard » Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:06 pm

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote: here's a question: if a Jetbike starts on one side of a building, and move to the other side, how do we measure that move? horizontal distance only? or 2xvertical height of building + horizontal distance? personally, i dont think ive ever seen anyone use the latter method...

Since jetbikes can move freely over all other models and terrain, I think you would just measure the horizontal distance moved.
LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:but now compare that to if the Jetbike wanted to stop over the building: you would measure the distance at least in a straight line, if not vertial height of the building + horizontal distance moved. this could lead to situations where a Jetbike can move all the way over a 13" building to the other side, but couldnt stop on top of it on the way! the rules just dont seem to handle large vertical distances very well (or are simply vague about what to do). ~ Tim

If 5th edition is incorporating the rules of Cities of Death, a jetbike could not end it's move on top of an intact building because in CoD, intact buildings are impassable terrain (unless the players agree otherwise). If the building were tall enough that no jetbike or skimmer could cover the distance, I would say that it is always impassable terrain.
If it is a tall ruin, then it would probably be possible, depending on placement of partial floors, for a jetbike to "walk" its way up the vertical distance (taking the DT tests on the way). What do you think?
"I have found again and again that in encounter actions, the day goes to the side that is the first to plaster its opponent with fire." - Erwin Rommel

Image
User avatar
timewizard
Master of Chronomancy
Field Commander
 
Posts: 5850
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:00 am
Location: (TWAT Colonial Outpost) in the eastern USA
Medals: 11
Gold Wreath (1) Gold (1) Silver Wreath (1) Bronze (2) Painting Entrant (6)
Blog: View Blog (2)

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:37 pm

timewizard wrote:Since jetbikes can move freely over all other models and terrain, I think you would just measure the horizontal distance moved.

that may be how some (or even most) people play it, but does it have any basis in the rules?
(the Jetbike rules say it doesnt need to take Difficult Terrain tests, and that it can move over things, not that its movement is always measured horizontally...)

timewizard wrote:If 5th edition is incorporating the rules of Cities of Death, a jetbike could not end it's move on top of an intact building because in CoD, intact buildings are impassable terrain (unless the players agree otherwise).

umm... i thought it was that the inside of sealed intact buildings was considered Impassable (so you didnt have to worry about the models exisiting in a place where they cannot physically be put, because you cant get the roof off), with the "unless agreed otherwise" bit to leave room for players making floorplans etc?

why would a flat roof or balcony be considered Impassable? :?
(the walls and doors etc could be Impassable and Vertically Impassable, but if you can get to the roof regardless, and its just a flat open space, why not land there?)

anyway, what if its a Ruin?

timewizard wrote:If the building were tall enough that no jetbike or skimmer could cover the distance, I would say that it is always impassable terrain.

but if the Jetbike can move over the building to the other side (because you measure that move horizontally), why shouldnt it be able to stop at the top (assuming it is allowed to stop there)?

and if an object is too tall for a Jetbike to get to the top of, how can we say that it can move to the other side by going right over the top and back down the other side? :?:

~ Tim
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby timewizard » Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:09 pm

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:
timewizard wrote:Since jetbikes can move freely over all other models and terrain, I think you would just measure the horizontal distance moved.
that may be how some (or even most) people play it, but does it have any basis in the rules? (the Jetbike rules say it doesnt need to take Difficult Terrain tests, and that it can move over things, not that its movement is always measured horizontally...)

Yes, but how else would you measure it? Wouldn't this be the same as a skimmer moving to the other side of a building?

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:
timewizard wrote:If 5th edition is incorporating the rules of Cities of Death, a jetbike could not end it's move on top of an intact building because in CoD, intact buildings are impassable terrain (unless the players agree otherwise).
umm... i thought it was that the inside of sealed intact buildings was considered Impassable (so you didnt have to worry about the models exisiting in a place where they cannot physically be put, because you cant get the roof off), with the "unless agreed otherwise" bit to leave room for players making floorplans etc? why would a flat roof or balcony be considered Impassable? :? (the walls and doors etc could be Impassable and Vertically Impassable, but if you can get to the roof regardless, and its just a flat open space, why not land there?)

CoD rules pg9 states that intact buildings in general are impassable terrain. It also says that both players may agree that certain units might be able to reach the roof like jump infantry, so you need to agree before the game that those area are accessable. If you have lift off roofs and the interior is accessable, this needs to be discussed as well but they recommend using the city ruin rules.

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:anyway, what if its a Ruin?

Easy! Ruins are classified as difficult terrain and confer a 4+ cover save. It also states that skimmers may not enter or occupy ruins, but says nothing about jetbikes (ref your other post!)

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:
timewizard wrote:If the building were tall enough that no jetbike or skimmer could cover the distance, I would say that it is always impassable terrain.
but if the Jetbike can move over the building to the other side (because you measure that move horizontally), why shouldnt it be able to stop at the top (assuming it is allowed to stop there)?

Nope, not if the building has been classified as impassable terrain.

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:and if an object is too tall for a Jetbike to get to the top of, how can we say that it can move to the other side by going right over the top and back down the other side? :?: ~ Tim

There you go trying to inject logic into a GW ruleset :)
Seriously though, there are rules that make no sense in the real world but are simply the rules of the game. If the rule says that the jetbike ignores the terrain, then it really wouldn't matter how tall the terrain is, would it?

Edit to add a thought: These are from the CoD codex. As I said, I haven't seen the 5th ed rules yet, so I don't know if any of the rules I referenced are handled differently in the new book. If anyone gets a chance to look, perhaps they can let me know? Would appreciate it :D
Last edited by timewizard on Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I have found again and again that in encounter actions, the day goes to the side that is the first to plaster its opponent with fire." - Erwin Rommel

Image
User avatar
timewizard
Master of Chronomancy
Field Commander
 
Posts: 5850
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:00 am
Location: (TWAT Colonial Outpost) in the eastern USA
Medals: 11
Gold Wreath (1) Gold (1) Silver Wreath (1) Bronze (2) Painting Entrant (6)
Blog: View Blog (2)

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:18 pm

just a quick reply (time to give Seth his bottle)...

timewizard wrote:If the rule says that the jetbike ignores the terrain, then it really wouldn't matter how tall the terrain is, would it?

thing is, the (4th ed) rules dont actually say they "ignore terrain", just that they can move over it, and they they dont take Difficult Terrain tests.

it never says they always have enough movement allowance to reach the other side, or that we wouldnt measure the distance moved normally.

one of the problems i was trying to highlight though is how vague the (current) rules are: how do we measure movement normally? :?:

~ Tim
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby conscriptboris » Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:29 pm

For jetbikes/troops that may want to stay on the designated difficult terrain don't you roll for the distance your going to make it to, then cut it short how much you want, that was my understanding, you roll, get your distance, then decide how far your guys are going to move?

conscriptboris
User avatar
conscriptboris
Elvis isnt Dead!
Sorceror
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:00 am
Location: On the Throne of Skulls
Medals: 1
Painting Entrant (1)

Postby timewizard » Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:33 pm

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:just a quick reply (time to give Seth his bottle)...

I fully understand. It's nearly 2:30 PM here, almost time for my bottle too! :lol:

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:
timewizard wrote:If the rule says that the jetbike ignores the terrain, then it really wouldn't matter how tall the terrain is, would it?
thing is, the (4th ed) rules dont actually say they "ignore terrain", just that they can move over it, and they they dont take Difficult Terrain tests. it never says they always have enough movement allowance to reach the other side, or that we wouldnt measure the distance moved normally. one of the problems i was trying to highlight though is how vague the (current) rules are: how do we measure movement normally? :?: ~ Tim


I agree with the vagueness(real word?) of the rules. I was hoping that 5th ed would address some of these. I thought I read somewhere that in 5th, that jetbikes did 'ignore' any terrain they moved over. I could be wrong :roll: As I said, I haven't actually seen the rules yet.
"I have found again and again that in encounter actions, the day goes to the side that is the first to plaster its opponent with fire." - Erwin Rommel

Image
User avatar
timewizard
Master of Chronomancy
Field Commander
 
Posts: 5850
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:00 am
Location: (TWAT Colonial Outpost) in the eastern USA
Medals: 11
Gold Wreath (1) Gold (1) Silver Wreath (1) Bronze (2) Painting Entrant (6)
Blog: View Blog (2)

Postby AdrianG » Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:18 pm

Jet bikes probably would ignore the terrain, as long as they have enough movement to go over/round/through/under it.
As for difficult terrain tests and movement in buildings. It's possible that 5th Ed is using CoD rules variation?
Personally, I'll find out this Thursday, as I'm getting a chance to test out the new Ed of the game.
If ya haven't resolved it by then, maybe I can throw some flies into the ointment :P
Last edited by AdrianG on Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Collector of Space Wolves, and all round awful painter!

AdrianG's Gallery: http://www.ageofstrife.com/gallery/AdrianG
User avatar
AdrianG
Apprentice Lurker (Still)
Captain
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Eastbourne,East Sussex




Return to 40K News & Rumours




 Social Links