Anyway, Part One is here to discuss the new procedure for Dangerous Terrain Tests, for no reason other than it is the inspiration for the series as a conglomerate entity.
So, what's different?
Well, in order to understand the change, you need to first understand how Dangerous Terrain functioned in 5th Edition. And 4th Edition. And indeed in 3rd. When a model moved through or into Terrain classed as Dangerous in these previous editions of the game, it rolled a d6 (or rather, you did on its behalf...) and on a roll of a 1, the model had an unfortunate incident involving a tree branch or other scenery feature, and some part of its anatomy that didn't want to get punctured in that fashion. Simply put, the model suffered a Wound, with no recourse bar an Invulnerable Save. This was done once per phase, maximum, allowing models to leapfrog between terrain features with impunity as long as they could get over the initial hurdle. So to speak.
This system was intentionally punishing, to act somewhat as a limiting factor on assault troops perhaps, or simply to even out the playing field already benefiting heavily-armoured troops by making them no less likely to trip up in a minefield, or to rouse a sleeping Lesser Catachan Barking Toad.
In the case of Vehicles, it Immobilised them, causing no end of difficulty to the mobility-obsessed, and particular problems for Skimmers prior to 5th, when their rules made them completely suck (pre-4e Falcons, anyway...)
In 6th, this system has received quite a radical overhaul. Firstly, a model can now take multiple tests in the same phase, although still only once for the same terrain feature - a necessary move perhaps to help prevent arguments among players, which is one of the few good moves by GW in this regard in the 6e ruleset.
This, if it were still the same set of rules for resolution as in 5th, could have been incredibly punishing, and some would say more punishing to heavily-armoured elite units, such as Space Marines and especially Terminators. This is essentially the same bullshit argument that gets spouted regarding Snap Fire being unequal, but that warrants an article of its own, and don't worry, it WILL get one. ;-)
Suffice it to say, all units are equal in this (hypothetical) situation, with equal chances of success and failure, so don't make a big deal out of nothing when you're failing to understand the rules correctly and think critically about them.
In 6th, this change above relates most importantly to vehicles, however. Some ground vehicles cannot access or in 5th could not afford (more accurately, could not justify the expense) upgrades like Dozer Blades to reroll failed Dangerous Terrain tests, and make themselves much better protected in these situations. Since a vehicle can potentially cross as many as 3 terrain pieces in a single Movement Phase (terrain rules stipulate that features must be 3" apart...) this piece of wargear (and its superior cousins, the Siege Shield and Deff Rolla) are much more valuable.
While some armies are still going to struggle to justify the cost of the upgrade (IG) and some simply don't have alternatives worth mentioning (or at all, although these armies typically tend to use alternative modes of transport to primitive wheels and tracks) it is important tactically [callback to the title, wink wink] to note how this impacts on vehicle movement by making them much more susceptible to Immobilisation (but NOT losing a Hull Point in the process, strangely) and making them easier to box in with things like, I dunno, other Wrecked vehicles? [winks again]
How it relates to non-Vehicles, however, is huuuugely different, and impacts them just as much (though in a radically different fashion.)
Now, the test permits models to take Armour saves against them. It is no longer equal, due to this simple fact. Contrary to the rest of the base rules in the game [/sarcasm] it doesn't favour Imperial Space Marines due to their improved statlines. In all seriousness though, it allows the models that don't need cover due to their superior armour to simply walk through it when necessary, while those who have more of an issue with protection from incoming wounds, for example Imperial Guard, Orks, or Dark Eldar, suffer greatly as a result. Yes, strictly speaking fewer Orks die now to Dangerous Terrain than in previous editions, but the change is negligible, and literally not worth mentioning. The only models to whom the new rules make a significant impact are those to whom the universally decreased Cover Save simply means they won't bother, rather than those to whom a high baseline cover save is the only or main factor in mitigating their early demise.
Cliff notes?
Lightly armoured troops are now basically more scared of Dangerous Terrain than before (more chance to live, greater frequency of tests acts to cancel this) while heavily armoured models, especially Terminators and their ilk, can simply stomp through even the most imposing of terrain features (no-one will ever consider Lethal terrain a valid part of a balanced set-up) with impunity, little fearing the impact on anything but their charge distance.
7 comments:
So, something that heavily penalized expensive armored units over chaff has been changed so said armored units actually benefit from their protection?
Call the cops!
That's a crock of shit Chumby.
Expensive models come in smaller sized unit, the odds of failing sufficient to make a sizeable impact in one turn in 5th was negligible.
Indeed, with a smaller number of rolls being made, even the likelihood of losing the specialist troopers in a unit was less in MSU armies - things that some Codexes, for instance Orks, always struggled with due to the relative weakness of their troops models.
Losing 1 of a 5-man Marine unit was a loss, but certainly less important than Orks losing 5 of 30, which is still reasonably likely, while the Marines are unlikely to lose even one in the same scenario in 6th.
Armies built around getting in close and personal, typically Xenos (see Orks, Nids) suffer more from this because they lackj the requisite saves to weather the issue and reach the enemy regardless. Meanwhile, MEQs can retreat through dangerous terrain, firing constantly, trusting in the additional rolls being forced to whittle the foe down further and further.
It's a crock of awesome and you know it!
Typically your dangerous terrain isn't all-encompassing, so you're unlikely to have an entire 30-man unit of Orks all stubbing their toes. Smaller units like Marines are going to have every model take tests, so even if the chances are lower it's a larger chunk of the unit at risk. And hey, let them benefit from their armor, it's not like they don't pay for it.
How often are you moving through more than one piece of Dangerous Terrain in a single phase, anyway? Unless you're doing a 12" charge over a vehicle graveyard (and if you're doing that you've probably already one), having to take multiple tests isn't really going to come up.
Even I'm hard pressed to see how the new way is worse than the old.
Perhaps I haven't been clear enough.
The old system was completely fair - both infantry and vehicles reacted the same, got equally penalised.
Now, less nimble and agile troops (in theory) get a free pass for simply shoving stuff out of their way. This is bad.
If it's going to be a different system for non-vehicles, then it shouldn't be random for the sake of it, it should be means-tested, and the best way, the only FAIR way, to do this is an Initiative test. Fail that, take a Dangerous save.
Done.
Wow, I didn't know such a indepth and long discussion could be made out of dangerous terrain, lol.
Btw, will be linking this to this weeks UK Bloggers Group round up. If you could add the UK Bloggers Group banner to your site, that would be great also :)
Post a Comment