Moving over terrain features.

[ExeterOborach]

Hey everyone,

 So the rules state that if a model moves over a terrain feature and said feature is 2 inches or less in height then that model moves over it like it's not there thus ignoring the vertical portion of the movement. and if it's over 2 inches the model must move up and down the terrain feature subtracting the height from it's movement. 

My question is regarding terrain that is different heights at certain points. For example the wall of a ruin. A lot of walls start off low and increase in height at an incline. What if a model wants to hop over the lowest part of the ruin ( 1.5 inches). Does it get to ignore the vertical portion of the movement because the actual part it's climbing over is lower than 2 inches or does it still have to "climb" because the tallest point of the ruin itself is 6" and you're supposed to take the entire ruin into consideration regarding it's height? Because the rules don't say" When moving over any part of a terrain feature and that part is  2" or less", it says " a model can move over a terrain feature that is 2 inches or less in height". 

Thanks. 

Edited May 20 by ExeterOborach
add some more clarification.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

There are several takes on this.

 

- The Rules as Written approach is that the rules for movement simply reads "terrain features that are less than 2" in height", without giving rules as how to determine the height of a terrain feature.  Given that it refers to the "feature" as a whole, my interpretation is that if any part of the feature is more than 2" in height, then you have to pay for the "up and down".

 

- Whether that is the rules as intended is unclear.  For FLY moves, the rules commentary at page 26 calls for a different approach, where you measure the height for the models base to clear the portion of the terrain crossed.  To me, this interpretation only applies to FLY moves.

 

- Certainly this seems like a valid area to house rule, particularly if you have terrain features that vary greatly in height within a particular feature.

[kabaakaba]

Doesn't our models moving straight forward until you intended to pivote(and pay pivote tax)? So for every model in unit u should measure height of ruin individually I think in certain point where model trying to climb.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I agree, but that doesn't determine whether the model has to pay for the movement at all, for example if it climbs over a section that is less than 2" tall.  My own interpretation is that it does if the terrain piece as a whole is higher than 2", but that its something that may be worth houseruling.

 

In other words, my interpretation of the rules is that if you have a terrain feature that is, say 3" tall, but cross it where it is 1" tall, you still have to pay the 1" up and down.

Edited May 20 by Dr_Ruminahui

[kabaakaba]

Hm, I rechecked core rules and there is this thing in terrain section regards ruins exactly

Doesn't it counters the rules about movement up and down?

[Dr_Ruminahui]

For infantry and beasts, yes, if its ruins.

 

For other models (say, a vehicle or mounted), the exception wouldn't apply and the rules would require (IMHO) the vertical movement as well.

[kabaakaba]

Still think that should be measured for every model in unit. Cause for example pack of rough riders of 10 go into ruin. 2 of them in wall far end where height is  < 2 and they go without climbing, but all other should climb( on the horse ) and some of them even can can't finish normal move and there is coherency problem can be

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I agree that seems to be a reasonable way of doing it, but to me it isn't one supported by the rules, which by my read set the need to climb by the height of the feature as a whole rather than where the individual models cross it.

 

Indeed, I would be inclined to play it that way, but can't say it is strictly legal.

[kabaakaba]

There is answer in comments file you share with me in another topic. On page 26. We should measure distance individually. Can't upload file for some reason to show it. It's example for flying but the concept the same with difference we are climbing(on a horse ) but go short way

Edited May 20 by kabaakaba

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Yeah, I mentioned that one - its specifically about flying units, who have their own movement rules and is a discussion in that context, so I don't think one can apply it more generally.

[kabaakaba]

I think we should email gw on this matter. I'm really curious now.

Asked GW via mail.

Edited May 20 by kabaakaba