Movement on Severe Terrain

[snord]

Hi all,

Yesterday we had a game and a discussion followed on how to measure movement when moving through severe terrain. For the purposes of this discussion, lets assume a small miniature like Francisco, and just to simplify calculations, lets pretend its base has exactly 1" diameter.

Rules Manual, page 35: when measuring a model's movement, measure consistently using the same point on the model's base.

page 36: movement through severe terrain costs double the distance moved.

Francisco (Wk 5) is standing 1" away from a forest that is 3" wide. Francisco will move through the forest in a straight line using 2 walk actions (see the picture bellow).

So, he moves 1" to reach the forest, and then paying double movement, is able to move 2" more (2 * 2" = 4") into the forest. So he is standing right in the middle of the forest.

He then moves again, straight ahead. How far can he move?

Interpretation 1: since the first movement was measured using the front of the base, Francisco moves 1" paying double movement (2 * 1"=2") and since the front of the base is now outside the forest he can move 3" more.

Interpretation 2: since the back of the base will be the last thing to leave the forest, Francisco moves 2" paying double movement (2 * 2"=4") until the whole base is completely outside the forest, and then he is able to move only 1" extra.

Help?

Thanks

[gnam]

I love the pictures!

I'm going to add my 2 cents as it being option 2, but you already know that because of our discussion last night, let's see what others say.

[Lucidicide]

Nice diagram!

Interpretation 2. You are measuring using the same point, but you are not using any given point to determine if the model is in terrain. You are using the base to determine if you're in terrain.

[Dracomax]

Nice diagram!

Interpretation 2. You are measuring using the same point, but you are not using any given point to determine if the model is in terrain. You are using the base to determine if you're in terrain.

The only issue I have with that is that it effectivly makes every piece of terrain at least 33mm larger than it is for movement purposes.

[snord]

Hehe, I was trying to be impartial in my question, but Gnam spoiled it already...

So, I always thought it would be option 1, because otherwise you are paying double move+base size in penalties for moving through severe terrain, while the rules say you pay double move (no such thing as base size involved).

But then, I am relatively new to miniature games, and that is the reason for my question...

PS: I think I will go back to play with my spirits... no such complications when playing them... hehe

[Lucidicide]

The only issue I have with that is that it effectivly makes every piece of terrain at least 33mm larger than it is for movement purposes.

I guess that depends if you move straight through it like in the diagram or not.

But regardless, if your base is in the terrain, you're in the terrain. I haven't seen anything that tells me otherwise.

[dgraz]

if your base is in the terrain, you're in the terrain.

:+fate

[Lucidicide]

:+fate

Man, and I was really hoping for :+fate:+fate

I knew I should have charged.

[Dracomax]

I guess that depends if you move straight through it like in the diagram or not.

But regardless, if your base is in the terrain, you're in the terrain. I haven't seen anything that tells me otherwise.

Curious. how would moving in a non straight line make the distance less? you are still adding >33mm to to every movement through terrain.

[Lucidicide]

Curious. how would moving in a non straight line make the distance less? you are still adding >33mm to to every movement through terrain.

You don't have to put your whole base inside the terrain. You can put a tiny bit of it in, in which case you only have to move out as much as you moved in... so the terrain wouldn't grow.

Otherwise, I could put almost all of my base in a terrain in order to gain obscured status for cover, and then just measure from the part of my base that isn't on the terrain to move out. I gain the benefit of terrain... but never the movement penalties.

Obviously being a little inside a base for cover makes me roll my eyes, but I don't see any reason it doesn't work.

[Dracomax]

okay, I understand now--you meant if you weren't moving through the terrain. the straight part is where you lost me.

Honestly, I see your point--and I know you are almost certainly right--but I would probably have gone the other way; if your base is not completely in the terrain, you gain no effects from it.(which could have the effect of letting the terrain be up to 33mm shorter in the right hands) But then, I see denying benefits as superior than granting hardships.

[Hatchethead]

If it takes 2" to get from one edge to the middle, it should take another 2" to get from the middle to the other edge. Interpretation 2.

I've never thought of it this way, but I like this approach. It's elegant and more precise. Measuring from the back of the model base to the edge of the terrain base x 2 = total move until you return to normal, open ground. I'm just so used to measuring from the front of the model's base, it never occurred to me otherwise.

EDIT: Wait. Hmm. I may be changing my mind.

In my mind, 3" of severe terrain has always equaled 6" of potential movement. 1" toward (normal, in open ground), 2" in (double, equal to 4"), 1" in (double, equal to 2"), 1" out (normal, moving into open ground).

Now I'm not so sure.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Hatchethead

[Lucidicide]

If it takes 2" to get from one edge to the middle, it should take another 2" to get from the middle to the other edge. Interpretation 2.

I've never thought of it this way, I've always counted that last move out of the forest as double (until the base it fully clear of the terrain), but I like this approach more. It's elegant and more precise. Measuring from the back of the model base to the edge of the terrain base x 2 = total move until you return to normal, open ground. I'm just so used to measuring from the front of the model's base, it never occurred to me otherwise.

Yeah, we always do the fast math method. How far are we moving through? Double it, fudge a little on fractions, and then see how much move you have left. Measuring up to, then doubling, then after... that's too much for me :-P

okay, I understand now--you meant if you weren't moving through the terrain. the straight part is where you lost me.

Honestly, I see your point--and I know you are almost certainly right--but I would probably have gone the other way; if your base is not completely in the terrain, you gain no effects from it.(which could have the effect of letting the terrain be up to 33mm shorter in the right hands) But then, I see denying benefits as superior than granting hardships.

Yeah, I just looked it up in the RM. It doesn't matter if LoS passes through any part of the base or not, you get cover. Meaning if any part of your base is in, you're in!

[Dracomax]

Yeah, we always do the fast math method. How far are we moving through? Double it, fudge a little on fractions, and then see how much move you have left. Measuring up to, then doubling, then after... that's too much for me :-P

Yeah, I just looked it up in the RM. It doesn't matter if LoS passes through any part of the base or not, you get cover. Meaning if any part of your base is in, you're in!

Interesting and now going to be used constantly fact. question is, though, if you only move say, just enough to be overlapping the edge, how exactly do you determine double movement at that point? to the nearest sixteenth of an inch(or whatever the smallest measurement on your ruler is)?

[Lucidicide]

Interesting and now going to be used constantly fact. question is, though, if you only move say, just enough to be overlapping the edge, how exactly do you determine double movement at that point? to the nearest sixteenth of an inch(or whatever the smallest measurement on your ruler is)?

Yes. You never round for distances.

But it is ridiculous, and if I saw someone pulling that stuff, we'd have a long talk about it.

Also, there aren't a lot of obscuring terrain, at least on tables I play on. Pretty much just forests, and usually the strats and schemes take someone far from them.

[Hatchethead]

Having taken a few moments to consider, I'm flip flopping. Interpretation 2 has me paying double twice for the same inch of movement (mid-forest). Interpretation 1 suddenly makes more sense to me.

The logic of interpretation 2 also leads me to wonder:

You move 1", coming into base contact with the forest.

The next potion of the move starts in open ground, would this not result in "normal" movement until the entire base is in the terrain feature, carrying the model 1" into the forest before double move kicks in? If I pay double to leave the forest and enter open ground (having started the move with my base in the forest), why should I pay double to leave open ground (starting in the open) and enter the forest?

... because paying double to enter the forest makes sense. Paying double to leave the forest does not, just as paying double twice to cover the same 1" of mid-forest makes no sense. When leaving the forest (the front of my base is in b2b with the edge of the forest base), the inch of ground I'm paying to cover is open ground, meaning it requires an investment of 1". I've already invested my 2" to move into and occupy the inch of forest I'm standing on.

3" of severe terrain requires the expenditure of 6" of potential movement (3" of actual movement), as per interpretation 1. Interpretation 2 has us spending 8" of potential, 4" of actual. That doesn't sit right with me. I'm either being double double charged while moving within the forest OR I'm being charged double to bother enter AND leave, creating a strange movement-based double standard. Neither option makes sense to me.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Hatchethead

[gnam]

Having taken a few moments to consider, I'm flip flopping. Interpretation 2 has me paying double twice for the same inch of movement (mid-forest). Interpretation 1 suddenly makes more sense to me.

I'm not sure how you consider that you are paying for the same inch of forest twice. Your first movement action you measure from front to front, starting to pay the penalty as soon as your base enters the terrain. The second movement action, you are measuring back to back, paying the full penalty until your base completely leaves the terrain. You could measure from front to front in this case as well, but calculating the exact moment your base leaves the terrain becomes move cumbersome as you need to factor in the base size which is not easily calculated in inches. The point of reference is the only thing that changes here.

The logic of interpretation 2 also leads me to wonder:

You move 1", coming into base contact with the forest.

The next potion of the move starts in open ground, would this not result in "normal" movement until the entire base is in the terrain feature, carrying the model 1" into the forest before double move kicks in? If I pay double to leave the forest and enter open ground (having started the move with my base in the forest), why should I pay double to leave open ground (starting in the open) and enter the forest?

As soon as your base enters the severe terrain, you will need to pay the penalty. Even if your base completely starts in open terrain, the moment the front edge of your base enters you are doubling your movement. There is no distinction anywhere in the rules that says you pay severe terrain penalties only when a base is completely within terrain.

... because paying double to enter the forest makes sense. Paying double to leave the forest does not, just as paying double twice to cover the same 1" of mid-forest makes no sense. When leaving the forest (the front of my base is in b2b with the edge of the forest base), the inch of ground I'm paying to cover is open ground, meaning it requires an investment of 1". I've already invested my 2" to move into and occupy the inch of forest I'm standing on.

3" of severe terrain requires the expenditure of 6" of potential movement (3" of actual movement), as per interpretation 1. Interpretation 2 has us spending 8" of potential, 4" of actual. That doesn't sit right with me. I'm either being double double charged while moving within the forest OR I'm being charged double to bother enter AND leave, creating a strange movement-based double standard. Neither option makes sense to me.

As I've mentioned above, it's not a matter of entering or leaving the forest, it's a matter of doubling any movement distance when your base is even partly within a terrain feature. You always need to consider your base size in these situations, as the larger your base is the more time it will take you to completely remove yourself from the terrain. a 50mm base will be in terrain longer than a 30mm base, and will need to spend more movement to leave. This is standard in any wargame I've ever played that imposes movement penalties.

[Hatchethead]

Okay. Got ahead of myself again.

You are NOT being double charged mid-forest (as gnam has point out above in true ninja fashion), but my point still stands regarding entering and leaving the forest. I've jiggered the diagram to illustrate my point:

I used the model in the middle of the forest as my reference point.

I look at it like this. Imagine the entire table is a grid made up of 1"x1" squares. Each 1" square costs a certain amount of movement to enter and occupy dependent on the terrain therein. If it's open, it's a 1". If it's severe, it's a 2" cost. Once you've "paid" to enter and occupy a square, you are free to choose a square beyond and enter that, paying the appropriate cost.

I realize this is a massive oversimplification, but I believe it stands up even when you start dealing with fractions of movements. Once the front of your base is out of the forest, you're back to 1:1 movement (assuming I've been using that as the reference point the entire way through). I finish my move with the front portion of my base 1/4 inch in open ground, it doesn't matter that the ass end of your base is still 3/4 of an inch in the forest. The front base reference point already paid double-movement to occupy that space and has since moved on.

Interpretation 1 lines up with my belief. Interpretation 2 suddenly forces me to spend double to enter and occupy a square of open terrain (leaving the forest). Boo to that.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Hatchethead

[snord]

Okay. Got ahead of myself again.

You are NOT being double charged mid-forest (as gnam has point out above in true ninja fashion), but my point still stands regarding entering and leaving the forest. I've jiggered the diagram to illustrate my point:

[picture removed]

I used the model in the middle of the forest as my reference point.

I look at it like this. Imagine the entire table is a grid made up of 1"x1" squares. Each 1" square costs a certain amount of movement to enter and occupy dependent on the terrain therein. If it's open, it's a 1". If it's severe, it's a 2" cost. Once you've "paid" to enter and occupy a square, you are free to choose a square beyond and enter that, paying the appropriate cost.

I realize this is a massive oversimplification, but I believe it stands up even when you start dealing with fractions of movements. Once the front of your base is out of the forest, you're back to 1:1 movement (assuming I've been using that as the reference point the entire way through). I finish my move with the front portion of my base 1/4 inch in open ground, it doesn't matter that the ass end of your base is still 3/4 of an inch in the forest. The front base reference point already paid double-movement to occupy that space and has since moved on.

Interpretation 1 lines up with my belief. Interpretation 2 suddenly forces me to spend double to enter and occupy a square of open terrain (leaving the forest). Boo to that.

Exactly my point.

And an even easier way to think: choose a point in the base of the miniature and "consistently use that point to measure movement". If that point is in rough terrain, pay double, otherwise, pay regular for moving it.

I always use the front edge of the miniature to measure move, but that is me.

[Hatchethead]

As I've mentioned above, it's not a matter of entering or leaving the forest, it's a matter of doubling any movement distance when your base is even partly within a terrain feature. You always need to consider your base size in these situations, as the larger your base is the more time it will take you to completely remove yourself from the terrain. a 50mm base will be in terrain longer than a 30mm base, and will need to spend more movement to leave. This is standard in any wargame I've ever played that imposes movement penalties.

I don't want to start an "I've been wargaming for X years" $$$$$$$$ing contest, so I won't. Every group I've gamed with has determined movement penalties based on the total amount of terrain present, not the time spent within it. 3" of severe/rough/difficult/whatever terrain = 6" of movement invested, beyond that is open ground and therefore 1:1 movement. It's how I was raised!

If you have a model in the middle of a patch of severe terrain, measure from the front of the model base to the edge of the terrain base, double that total, from there on you are moving 1:1. You pay double to get to that point, beyond that you're moving into open ground and you're back to normal. It's how I've always done it, that's how my current group does it. If we're wrong ... I'm always happy to be the bearer of bad news and proper procedure.

[Dracomax]

Exactly my point.

And an even easier way to think: choose a point in the base of the miniature and "consistently use that point to measure movement". If that point is in rough terrain, pay double, otherwise, pay regular for moving it.

I always use the front edge of the miniature to measure move, but that is me.

I agree with the sentiment, but RAW disagree.

Yes. You never round for distances.

But it is ridiculous, and if I saw someone pulling that stuff, we'd have a long talk about it.

Also, there aren't a lot of obscuring terrain, at least on tables I play on. Pretty much just forests, and usually the strats and schemes take someone far from them.

However, If you are going to enforce the rule that all movement in the terrain must be payed for as severe so long as any part of the base is in base contact, then you can't complain when that is exploited; it may be an edge case, but it is still the logical ending point of the RAW. You can't ban one without modifying the other, because all effects of a piece of terrain should apply if any do(setting aside for the moment models that ignore an effect of terrain--sever terrain is still severe for spirits, for instance, it just is irrelevant due to "spirit")

[snord]

... 3" of severe/rough/difficult/whatever terrain = 6" of movement invested...

:+fate

[Hatchethead]

As soon as your base enters the severe terrain, you will need to pay the penalty. Even if your base completely starts in open terrain, the moment the front edge of your base enters you are doubling your movement. There is no distinction anywhere in the rules that says you pay severe terrain penalties only when a base is completely within terrain.

I'm aware of that.

You'll notice I dismembered my own example in the paragraph immediately following. I wasn't posing this to prove my position, it was a means of illustrating how interpretation 2 is flawed from a reverse, logical perspective. It has me paying 2" to enter a forest (good) and 2" to enter open ground (bad). Sorry for the confusion.

I agree. As soon as my base's point of reference enters severe terrain, the penalty is applied. What I disagree with is my base continuing to incur penalties even when my point of reference has left the severe terrain. Switching point of reference mid terrain is flawed, in my opinion.

[gnam]

If you have a model in the middle of a patch of severe terrain, measure from the front of the model base to the edge of the terrain base, double that total, from there on you are moving 1:1. You pay double to get to that point, beyond that you're moving into open ground and you're back to normal.

Using that logic, you can have a model sit with 95% of it's base within the severe terrain, and as long as you measure from the 5% edge that's out of the terrain, you will not pay any movement penalty.

This would mean you can gain all of the advantages that the terrain can offer (cover/obscuring/whatnot), but never suffer any of the disadvantages.

[Dracomax]

I'm aware of that.

You'll notice I answered my own question in the following paragraph. I wasn't posing this to prove my position, it was a means of illustrating how interpretation 2 is flawed from a reverse, logical perspective. It has me paying 2" to enter a forest (good) and 2" to enter open ground (bad). I agree. As soon as my base's point of reference enters severe terrain, the penalty is applied. What I disagree with is my base continuing to incur penalties even when my point of reference has left the severe terrain. Switching point of reference mid terrain is flawed, in my opinion.

From a logical perspective, if we were to break it down into absurdity, it should work that every part of the model in the severe territory takes movement penalties, while those parts outside do not. To figure out exactly how fast the model was moving would probably require calculus. However, since this cancels out on leaving the forest, you really should only have the distance covered once(double movement on entering or leaving, but not both).

I think this would stop most of the weird, broken edge cases too.

[Dracomax]

Using that logic, you can have a model sit with 95% of it's base within the severe terrain, and as long as you measure from the 5% edge that's out of the terrain, you will not pay any movement penalty.

This would mean you can gain all of the advantages that the terrain can offer (cover/obscuring/whatnot), but never suffer any of the disadvantages.

only if you apply the rules inconsistantly. so long as one effect is applied, all effects should be.