Fallen Angels is unfortunately more accurate

[DarkGuard]

Dangerous Terrain Tests are rolled by the specific model. Yes, your special weapons, sergeants, and characters are not safe.

 

This. The wording of the rules seems to lend itself to this interpretation, particular the part when it says "remove the model". Not "a model", "the model", which would imply rolling separately for each model that suffers dangerous terrain rolls. It's how I've always played it, it's how my LGS have always played it, and it's how we will always play it.

 

Although to simplify matters we'll batch roll for models of the same group effected, which is bad because we could lose the model closest to the enemy thereby meaning we cannot assault. For example: 10 jump packers enter terrain via jump pack. Therefore, there are 10 difficult terrain checks to make. There are 7 normal guys, 2 flamers, and a Sergeant. I pick up 7 dice, say I'm rolling for my normal guys, and one dies. I then pick up 2 dice, state I'm rolling for the flamers, and by misfortune one dies. I then pick up 1 die, say this is the Sergeant's turn, and roll a 2. Pausing to wipe the sweat off my brow I grin, glad I didn't lose my Sergeant, and possibly my squad due to failed morale.

 

If 5 had entered terrain, 3 normal, 1 flamer and 1 Sergeant. I would have rolled 3 dice for normal chaps, removing only those in dangerous terrain, then 1 for flamer in dangerous terrain and then Sergeant.

 

This IMO is the easiest, quickest, and fairest way to do this, and seems in keeping with the current edition rules for wound allocation through shooting and combat attacks. Even if those rules take place after the dangerous terrain section, I feel that that is no reason to forgo them in this instance to try and gain an advantage.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Roll a D6 for every model that

has entered, left or moved through one or more areas

of dangerous terrain during its move.

 

This is very specific it says "every model" not "each model" not "per model" nothing else "every model"

 

 

I think I made this clear in the last thread but every is a term you use for a cohesive group. you are rolling a group of unmarked dice together. How are you then supposed to select which dice was for which model? That of course is just my take on it. I think the rule is contradictory and strange.

 

Edit: @ Dark Guard. Have you considered that you are going against Wound allocation rules by placing attacks against specific models not wounds?

[Grey Mage]

Every child in mrs. Taylors 2nd grade class has one die. This tells us each of them has one, and only one die.

 

Talk to every child in mrs. Taylors class with a die. This tells us you have to talk to EACH child, because they all have a die.

 

We have a die for every child. This would tell us that we have an equal number of children and dice.

 

So, when it says roll a dice for each model, what does it mean? Its possible to construe it either way, however comparing it to every other instance that this is done... each model has its own test to make. As an example: roll a die for each wound caused on the unit- wether you decide to roll them all at once or not, your rolling a single die for a single wound. Your not rolling five dice for one wound and 0 dice for another because you willy-nilly feel like it.

 

Edit: @ Dark Guard. Have you considered that you are going against Wound allocation rules by placing attacks against specific models not wounds?

 

Have you considered that wound allocation only works when wounds are asigned to a unit? And have no bearing on this discussion at all?

[BOBMAKENZIE]

So, when it says roll a dice for each model, what does it mean? Its possible to construe it either way, however comparing it to every other instance that this is done... each model has its own test to make. As an example: roll a die for each wound caused on the unit- wether you decide to roll them all at once or not, your rolling a single die for a single wound. Your not rolling five dice for one wound and 0 dice for another because you willy-nilly feel like it.

 

But its every? Or was that just a typo?

 

Edit: @ Dark Guard. Have you considered that you are going against Wound allocation rules by placing attacks against specific models not wounds?

 

Have you considered that wound allocation only works when wounds are asigned to a unit? And have no bearing on this discussion at all?

 

I have. I am not certain that it is. Either way he specifically reference that it also agreed with the wound allocation rules which I just noted it did not.

[dswanick]

Roll a D6 for every model that

has entered, left or moved through one or more areas

of dangerous terrain during its move.

 

This is very specific it says "every model" not "each model" not "per model" nothing else "every model"

 

I think I made this clear in the last thread but every is a term you use for a cohesive group. you are rolling a group of unmarked dice together. How are you then supposed to select which dice was for which model? That of course is just my take on it. I think the rule is contradictory and strange.

 

Edit: @ Dark Guard. Have you considered that you are going against Wound allocation rules by placing attacks against specific models not wounds?

God I hate doing this, but...

eve·ry   /ˈɛvri/ Show Spelled

[ev-ree] Show IPA

 

–adjective

1. being one of a group or series taken collectively; each: We go there every day.

2. all possible; the greatest possible degree of: every prospect of success.

—Idioms

3. every bit, in every respect; completely: This is every bit as good as she says it is.

4. every now and then, on occasion; from time to time: She bakes her own bread every now and then. Also, every once in a while, every so often.

5. every other, every second; every alternate: milk deliveries every other day.

6. every which way, in all directions; in disorganized fashion: I brushed against the table, and the cards fell every which way.

Use every in a Sentence

See images of every

Search every on the Web

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Origin:

1125–75; ME every, everich, OE ǣfre ǣlc ever each

 

 

—Synonyms

1. See each.

The words are interchangeable (as in : each and every). 'Each' is even used as part of the #1 definition of 'every'.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Just because a word is a synonym doesnt mean its always a synonym.

 

–adjective

1. every one of two or more considered individually or one by one: each stone in a building; a hallway with a door at each end.

–pronoun

2. every one individually; each one: Each had a different solution to the problem.

–adverb

3. to, from, or for each; apiece: They cost a dollar each.

Use each in a Sentence

See images of each

Search each on the Web

 

 

—Synonyms

1. Each, every are alike in having a distributive meaning. Of two or more members composing an aggregate, each directs attention to the separate members in turn: Each child (of those considered and enumerated) received a large apple. Every emphasizes inclusiveness or universality: Every child (of all in existence) likes to play.

[dswanick]

Which still does not equal "roll all dice together and assign wounds as per the shooting rules". And I doubt that the rules writers at GW all have Masters in English Lit. 'Each" and 'every' have similar definitions, have similar usage, and are synonyms which each use the other in their definitions.

 

I still challenge you to show me in the rule where it says to assign wounds. Whether it says "Roll a d6 for each model..." or "Roll a d6 for every model" it still specifies later in the rule that a roll of 1 causes a wound to the model - not causes a wound to the unit, or causes a wound to be assigned, but a wound to the model. You are just deciding that the wounds can be assigned to models other than for whom they were rolled. Unless the rule says to do so - you can't, and the common usage of these words impies that a specific die rolled is for that specific model for which it is rolled and the "On a roll of 1, the model suffers a wound" reinforces this and disagrees with you.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

No and yet nor do I but I can notice the difference between each and every fairly easily.

 

If you've been following my posts. I agree that 'the models' used later certainly makes it seem that its individuals for that part of the rule as if you should be assigning it to different models. However the first line still says to me that we are rolling as a collective for the models. Which counteracts the second rule. So I look to other common sources to see what might be done. Especially when the rule then references me to Wounds in the shooting phase I think its reasonable to look at how they work there as a model when the rules are unclear in the rule itself.

 

I just think from what I've seen this is a rule that shouldnt be written the way its written. (Similar to the way that smoke launchers shouldnt be written as they are written if you dont want people to shoot through smoke)

[DarkGuard]

Edit: @ Dark Guard. Have you considered that you are going against Wound allocation rules by placing attacks against specific models not wounds?

 

Sorry, a bit of confusion there in my post caused by me being a little tired when writing it. What is perhaps the easiest way to explain is that I tend to consider it as an autowound on every model with a 2+ save (and the any invulnerables after that), that's how I compared it to wound allocation. I only now see the flipside (and less mental way of thinking about this), which is you roll to wound (on a 1) then allocate the wounds, then take any saves available (invulnerable).

 

However, this seems against the spirit of this edition's rules, and more of a throwback to 4th ed. What do you do when only have your squad enter dangerous terrain, say the Sergeant, flamer and 3 normal chaps. Do you throw all at once, and by bad luck fail all of them, then allocate them to only the normal guys? Because in my mind that wouldn't make sense. Two of those normal didn't enter dangerous terrain, only three of them did, the other two who died because of the terrain were the Sergeant and flamer.

 

The whole idea of wound allocation now is risk and chance. Whereas before hand you'd have to fail 8 saves to remove a special model from a full strength Tactical squad, now you only need to fail one save after taking 8 wounds. There's a chance that the guy with the meltagun will get hit square in the face with a boltgun shot. There's a chance that the guy with the flamer may slam into some masonry and get knocked out. There's an equal chance that this would happen to the other guys. Wound allocation was made so that people couldn't avoid taking of their special models until towards the end of the game, and so in this sense it makes sense to do this for dangerous terrain tests. Otherwise, we might as well start thinking about playing 4th ed again.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

The whole idea of wound allocation now is risk and chance. Whereas before hand you'd have to fail 8 saves to remove a special model from a full strength Tactical squad, now you only need to fail one save after taking 8 wounds. There's a chance that the guy with the meltagun will get hit square in the face with a boltgun shot. There's a chance that the guy with the flamer may slam into some masonry and get knocked out. There's an equal chance that this would happen to the other guys. Wound allocation was made so that people couldn't avoid taking of their special models until towards the end of the game, and so in this sense it makes sense to do this for dangerous terrain tests. Otherwise, we might as well start thinking about playing 4th ed again.

 

But its a question of realism as well. Before you couldn't kill people outside your kill zone, you couldnt kill models that were out of LOS or out of range. (Im not 100% on the LOS one but that is how I recall it. I know range is true) Now it is entirely possible for you to get a guy thats out of LOS or a guy that is out of your range (so long as some of the squad is). Theres alot of precedent for models being killed that otherwise would be 'safe' except one of their chums moved alittle too far one way or another.

 

If you want an fluff explination for why Dangerous Terrain might kill members of a squad that didnt walk through it here are some to think about

 

-A forest might have a dangerous creature that is scared out by the entrance of the marines. Or in teh case of Jump packs the first guy lands scares a bird, the second guy landing beside the trees accidentally hits the bird mid flight and it goes in a turbine and boom goes the jump pack.

-A piece of rubble/ scrap metal/etc might be dangerously close to collapsing and a wrong move sends it tumbling beyond the 'terrain' and ontop of another squad member.

-An injured enemy (think black hawk down) or a cocked weapon might be jolted and it could accidentally shoot a friendly. Similarly in a tank hulk a missile might be knocked that fires into a friendly or an old fuel canister might be knocked over onto a friendly.

-Mines are often descibed as being smart and 'leaping' into the air prior to detonation. Shrapnel is a strange thing (And thank you Major Shrapnel for inventing such things for us <3) and the person whom triggers the mine might not be hit with anything dangerous while someone else near by might be brutally killed. Let us remember this is a battle field we are talking about.

-In the case of special weapons it might not be the weapon thats damaged at all.

-In the case of sargeants the possibility of something akin to the 'look out sir!' rule from fantasy might be an explination.

 

it might be interesting to note that there was also a wound allocation rule with the sole purpose of forcing people to take safes on special models under the old rules as well.

[DarkGuard]

it might be interesting to note that there was also a wound allocation rule with the sole purpose of forcing people to take safes on special models under the old rules as well.

 

Yes there was, it was called Torrent of Fire and you had to cause a number of wounds equal to or greater than the amount of people in the target squad, whereby your opponent assigned who would take the first wound. It was never game breaking though, as the controlling player chose the save, that plasma shot would still kill a normal Marine while 9 times out of 10 that lasgun shot would bounce off the meltagunner's greave.

 

You have your own way of playing dangerous terrain, and I have my own way. They are both somewhat valid interpretations of the same rule that hasn't been clarified enough. Reading through the rest of the rulebook has more or less convinced me that the way I play it is what was intended. It seems that the entire book wants special characters and upgrades to be at greater risk from dying as they were in 4th ed, and so therefore bearing in mind that the rules say 'remove the model', it appears to me that you allocate and then roll to see if they die. Of course, I could be wrong and intended it otherwise, but the way I play it seems to fit in more with the way the rest of the rulebook works in regard to allocation.

[narf]

Quick question, if Jump infantry take Dangerous terrain checks when moving through cover, why will they not take them when they decide to walk rather than use there jump packs/wings etc?

 

They are still jump infantry, and dont magically become infantry at that point, so will still take DT test's even in assault.

 

Or am i missing something? i thought this was what made "move as jump infantry" so much more useful, can fit in tanks, and no DT tests!

[dswanick]

Quick question, if Jump infantry take Dangerous terrain checks when moving through cover, why will they not take them when they decide to walk rather than use there jump packs/wings etc?

 

They are still jump infantry, and dont magically become infantry at that point, so will still take DT test's even in assault.

 

Or am i missing something? i thought this was what made "move as jump infantry" so much more useful, can fit in tanks, and no DT tests!

MOVEMENT

Jump infantry can use their jump packs (or equivalent) and move up to 12" in the Movement phase. This is optional and they can choose to move as normal infantry if they wish.

[DarkGuard]

Jump infantry have two movement options, normal infantry movement, or jump infantry movement. Most of the time jump infantry movement is more desirable. You are able to ignore cover and models you are moving over and can move further at 12" allowing you to move faster and pick desirable spots more easier (like behind terrain), or land next to an enemy about assault.

 

9 times out of 10 you'll want jump movement, but sometimes infantry movement is more desirable. In particular, when moving in and out of terrain as jump infantry you take dangerous terrain checks. When doing so with your infantry movement, you are moving as infantry, and so roll 2D6 picking the highest to see how far you go, and don't take dangerous terrain checks unless the terrain itself is dangerous, in which case you should be jumping anyway.

[trefenwyd]

Important to realize that though jump infantry may choose to "move as normal infantry", they are still classified as Jump Infantry. 2 Space Wolf psychic power examples for why this is important (sorry, SW player here):

 

Murderous Hurricane (MH) - causes tests for skimmers and jump infantry (can't be avoided by "choosing" to move as normal - you're still jump infantry)

Jaws of the World Wolf - does not impact Jump Infantry, even if they "moved as normal" the previous turn

 

I've seen arguments where someone will claim that MH does not affet the jump infantry if they don't use the jet packs, but then turn around and argue next turn that they are unaffected by JotWW b/c they are jump infantry.

[DarkGuard]

Well yes, naturally. Those two Space Wolf powers refer to a unit type. The Dangerous Terrain movement and Difficult Terrain movement isn't about a unit's type, it's about a unit's movement. They are quite different, but it is a valid point that we must remember that they are still jump infantry.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Tempest's wrath. Not Murderous Huricane.

[JamesI]

Well yes, naturally. Those two Space Wolf powers refer to a unit type. The Dangerous Terrain movement and Difficult Terrain movement isn't about a unit's type, it's about a unit's movement. They are quite different, but it is a valid point that we must remember that they are still jump infantry.

Now, of course, this is an area that would make sense reversed. Jaws doesn't affect Jump infantry, but if the Jump infantry walked it should. Tempest wrath affects jump infantry, but if they walked it shouldn't.

 

Oh well.

[Grey Mage]

Well yes, naturally. Those two Space Wolf powers refer to a unit type. The Dangerous Terrain movement and Difficult Terrain movement isn't about a unit's type, it's about a unit's movement. They are quite different, but it is a valid point that we must remember that they are still jump infantry.

Now, of course, this is an area that would make sense reversed. Jaws doesn't affect Jump infantry, but if the Jump infantry walked it should. Tempest wrath affects jump infantry, but if they walked it shouldn't.

 

Oh well.

.... Wich is why my gaming group house ruled Tempests Wrath.

 

Not Jaws though, perhaps because I find it mostly useless and dont take it.... so it doesnt come up.

[DarkGuard]

Well yes, naturally. Those two Space Wolf powers refer to a unit type. The Dangerous Terrain movement and Difficult Terrain movement isn't about a unit's type, it's about a unit's movement. They are quite different, but it is a valid point that we must remember that they are still jump infantry.

Now, of course, this is an area that would make sense reversed. Jaws doesn't affect Jump infantry, but if the Jump infantry walked it should. Tempest wrath affects jump infantry, but if they walked it shouldn't.

 

Oh well.

 

True, but then we get into complicated rules, and we know how GW no longer like complicated don't we? ;)

[narf]

so even though they can choose to move as normal infantry they are still considered jump infantry? hence still take DT tests....

 

Thats how it looks to me atm, i dont have my book, so if someone could send me some useful page numbers i'll check it out at the wkend

 

cheers folks

[DarkGuard]

No. Dangerous terrain tests only count for jump infantry is they are using jump movement. If they are using normal infantry movement, there is no need for them to take tests as they are moving as infantry, despite being jump infantry.

[Grey Mage]

Its a contextual thing. Pg. 52.

 

- Jump infantry can use their jump packs.

- If they do so they can move up to 12" during the movement phase.

- This is optional.

- It also allows them to move over models and terrain freely.

- However, theyre subject to dangerous terrain tests at the begining and end of their movement.

- They cannot land on other models.

- They can land on impassable terrain only if they actually fit, counting as dangerous.

 

Note, in the paragraph, it says 'when using jump packs' immediately after the optional part? The rest of the paragraph is refering to this form of movement, as no further clarification is required for moving as infantry.

[afrostb]

I have a related question. Assuming that dangerous terrain wounds individiduals (ie. specialists not safe) what would happen in this example?

 

Three space marine attack bikes (one HB, 2 MMs) enter dangerous terrain and somehow they all roll 1's. What's left? All three with one wound or one unscathed MM and a wounded HB?

[dswanick]

"...the model suffers a wound..." so three wounding models.