Willow... what rulebook are you reading?? Pg 18 is a picture with "The priority phase" on it and your other references are random pages here n there.... are you still using the ORB?

I agree with Willow in that... I think the unscalable is the bit that implies all the "if it fits" stuff. But I wish we did not need such rules. I wish we gamers we able to use our noggins and solve problems by just having a bit of gaming sense. Shame we all in some way try to steal an advantage or make things easier... leading to a weird local meta.

Treebeard n friends driving trees across the board would be fun though.

I think that the Wood Elves in Warhammer could do that in one edition of the rules?

Yes some of them were. I never compared them side by side until today. The post could have been clearer

I did not realise my house rules had drifted so much. It comes from not playing in tournaments I guess.

I use impassable terrain rules so I have never had this kind of issue.
As for moving forest I was hoping for rules for Hurons.GW gave that up I guess.

_________________
"the same as a duck you must be made of wood"

Treebeard may be able to wake up and move trees but it’s not something that happens that fast, even in the stories. Otherwise why not also have him moving trees into the way of enemy models, blocking their path and trapping them?

We mark areas as difficult terrain but specific obstacles are and should always be WYSIWYG. Rocks and trees are there and don’t move. If they block LOS, movement, etc. that is part of the WYSIWYG nature of the game. Having a bunch of loose trees around the table but not classify an area as ‘difficult woodland’ is kind of silly in my opinion. So you want to have those areas called out and that is where woodland creature can benefit.

Spiders and such have the ability to go up, over, around trees, rocks, etc. so as long as you measure appropriately you can usually find a way for those to get through.

There are great opportunities for house rules here. Maybe a model can bend trees out of the way that are less than half its height and therefore not be blocked by them. Or maybe spiders can get through something ½ or ¼ their base size. Things like that. But often such things just complicate the game.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

As Tree Beard is of the forrest as are the tree herders then they would be able to find a path and so no restriction to movement same as for the Elves if you have walked in a dense forrest then you know its not the trees but the under growth that can be imposible as for the trees moving they do to Helms Deep and that is why no orcs escape

_________________
IF your invisible dont be surprised if people see right through you

I think moving terrain out of the way is fine, otherwise a unit would have to stand on bushes or similar foilage.

In treebeards case, I feel its unfair to restrict his movement on the basis of his massive base size. If he sidled through a pair of trees, he could totally fir through a gap as wide as a 25mm base... I mean really he isn't that massive in every direction, he is just really tall. If he ends his turn between two trees, just move the terrain if possible, if not just leave a marker where he is until you need LoS.

Cereal_thief I feel its a little unfair to JamesR, considering if you take into the account of realistic movement, bases should be done away with, and models should dive behind cover. A skirmish game still has a huge amount of abstraction because they are rigid pieces of plastic, resin, and metal. This is also why I feel it is ridiculous for Troke to think a model cannot duck through a small doorway.

Are we sure that is what was meant by the coment? "If something is in the way it is in the way" That sounds to me he was talking about shooting
I was not there to here the question or the answer. I see no reason based on the quote to apply that to movement. Make no mistake I have no reason to not believe the poster. Sorry don't remember who.It is that old timers thing I guess

.
Looking at the battle reports here and elsewhere I have come to the conclusion that many of you do not have, build or play with much terrain.
From my experience it is best to define what each section of terrain represents before you start. Is the line of trees an obstacle or a section of forest? It won't matter which so long as you decide before the game starts. State at the games start that tree trunks are impassable otherwise they are not. Good manners and sportsmanship count.

I build my terrain so that I can use it for more than one system, Some of the games require movement trays. A forest base represents the section for movement and LOS, The trees can be moved about so that movement trays can enter the section. I know some of you have fixed boards or can not move the trees. Make a house rule for the terrain section and make it clear what the rules are before you start.

_________________
"the same as a duck you must be made of wood"

That pretty much nails it.

Some of our terrain is bases / hills with fixed trees, rocks, etc. Others are free standing small bases with 1-3 trees on them. Sometimes we'll use green felt cutouts to mark regions of area terrain that need to stand out. Through all of it though we typically take about a minute to just go through the table once it's been laid out and be sure we each understand everything. If you think something like trees can be moved talk it out in advance. If you disagree, roll it off. At least you know before you start play and that's what really counts.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

"realistic movement" You are playing a game and exist within the system you play. The bases create a set of parametres without which the game would not function, and if models could dive this would be "infinity" the strategy battle game where they can dive.

All terrain should be agreed at the start of a game but sorry, I would not agree to saying trees can move. They make too big a difference to the game and the situations they create are covered in the rulebook.
Cant shoot what you cant see
Cant charge what you cant see
Cant charge through a solid object
Most cant climb it or jump it so extra movement to go around it.

I feel it is unsporting to ask to play otherwise unless no one has bows or magic and we agree to not walk through the woodland terrain.

Now you might think that this is a very uncompromising and unsporting way to play but I would counter that by saying that you would not be happy if I said "I just ignored that pillar for movement because it was in my way" and happened to now be in charge range.

If we all play firstly to the rules and then with a smile then things generally go well. I think I have presented a good case for trees being obstacles and for what kind. If further proof is needed... *shrug* then can of worms = open
Though Tezzy I would (and do) allow people to just place a base if the pose of the model is hindering it or putting it at risk. e.g. fellbeasts when flying close together can catch on each other. So replace 1 with a base and hte problem is solved.

You are correct I do. If you used that argument,I would have to add the worst kind of power gamer. But we understand the example is hyperbole. "In the way" is a term used during the shooting phase. If the pilar is an obstacle then you need to use rules for obstacles and moving not rules for shooting.
From [url]Rules for Radicals[/url] when you can not win an argument with facts change the definitions of the terms. Of course you can change the subject and call names too. We should write a book and call it Rules for Power Gamers

_________________
"the same as a duck you must be made of wood"

Willow you fart stealer. *name calling* This is the first example of me calling someone names on this thread.

My use of the term in the way in that example was in reference to the previous people saying they would remove or move trees because they blocked hte movement of treebeard who they felt could ignore the trees(i.e the trees got in the way of movement)... despite me showing in the rules why this is both incorrect and against the ethos of the game. *rational response* Hence I never used the phrase "in the way test" or anything to illude towards shooting. But a reference to ignoring things just because they got (and I quote myself) "in my way"

I have not change the definition, I just misused a term because English is broader than this book, as an fellow native English speaker you should have sympathy.

Any one who would like to offer a real, rational, rules based reason for allowing treebeard to walk through a tree without penalty?
Or does anyone want to show me how removing trees doesn't change the very nature of the game in the ways I have shown?

Because it seems like you are just saying "it is ok because we have always done it" or "it is ok because I think it should be that way"

I set this up as an example of why everyone should agree before you start a game.
The wizard can shoot at Treebeard using the in the way rules. Or can he?
The wizard has enough movement to cross the base of the Heritage ent even at 1/2



Oh My
Is LOS blocked or not? WYSIWYG I set this up so that it is not clear.
If we had agreed at the start that forest bases block LOS or don't there would be no issue.
If the tree is a 1/4 wide obstacle the wizard cleary can reach Treebeards base even if it halfs movement.
If forest bases block line of sight the wizard can not shoot or charge.
The point is that if you agree at the start of the game it will smooth issues out



If we agree that a forest base does not block line of sight then it does not matter where the tree models are. If you want to say tree trunks are obstacles then it still won't matter for movement because they rarely more than 1/4 inch around.
Defending an obstacle.
If you did so ahead of time you could say that troops in the forest count as defending an obstacle for purposes of in the way test during combat.
Agree ahead of time.

_________________
"the same as a duck you must be made of wood"

I have been called a lot worse. I would tell you about my street name but I can't use that kind of language.


I don't. I explained why.


It is necessary to model forest this way in many games. I like the movement system in the FBG and the Hobbit. The climbing , falling, and swimming rules have given me huge opportunities that are impossible with other systems. I play more like you do than you realize from my argument. But I explain before hand how the terrain interacts with movement and LOS.


It is not clear from the photo mut 10 people are playing a version of the LOTRBG system. I did not have a question even come up because we agreed ahead of time.


Fallen trees are on the obstacle list not trees. Woodland terrain bases count as 1/2 movement. Tree beard does not take the 1/2 penalty for woodland terrain. For rule purposes the tree models are not there just the base. Now, I did not say I like it.
My house rule is if a tree model is on a tin cap you may move it anywhere on the forest base to make room for figures. If the tree is on any other kind of base you can not move it for any reason.Tin cap based trees are decorations to make the table feel like a battlefield.
You can see some of the tin cap based trees around the river which is on a 1/2 movement marker

_________________
"the same as a duck you must be made of wood"

Just been reading through this thread and it's a reeeeeally interesting discussion, contains a lot of things I'd never really thought about.

For clarity, whenever I say 'wood' below I mean a defined base with several trees placed arbitrarily on top that has been designated difficult ground.

Firstly, I'd say that Treebeard can move through a wood without penalty. I'm honestly not sure if this has ever come up in a game I've played but certainly up until now if my opponent using Treebeard (I don't have the model painted so have never considered it myself) had just moved him through a wood I wouldn't have given it a second glance and I wouldn't have even considered the position of the trees. Similarly, when playing against Wood Elves I've never even stopped to consider if their bases could fit between the trees.

However, if an orc on foot's base couldn't fit between a gap in two rocky outcrops then I certainly wouldn't allow my opponent (or attempt myself) to move through it. After all, the specific positioning of bases and scenery has a huge impact in SBG (@Cereal - our recent game in Preston comes to mind where your warg charge was blocked by the edge of a wood and another warg's base).

This is of course a huge contradiction on my part that I'd never really considered before and in fact, playing by my own rules, Treebeard shouldn't be able to move through a wood if his base can't fit between the trees. I think perhaps the reason behind my thinking is that Woodland Creature is a special rule that allows them to essentially ignore woodland and it fits fluff-wise, whereas the orc doesn't have a special rule allowing him to ignore rocks.

However, reading the Woodland creature rule it makes it very clear the model:

"can move through woods classed as difficult ground as if they were open ground...Note that this doesn't mean they can...move through tree trunks"

As far as I'm concerned that's clear, treebeard can only move through woods if there's space for his base.

The reason I don't like this is that, assuming the two players are setting up the terrain together "In a mutually agreeable manner", it's never going to be mutually agreeable. The treebeard player will want the trees spaced far apart whilst his opponent will want them close together. It's the same frustration I have with the new water rules "This river is shallow water" Says the all-mounted Rohirrim player, "no no no, it's deep water" says the all infantry dwarf player etc.

I also think it's frustrating as it renders Treebeard's rule all but useless, as I'm fairly sure the majority of players that have modelled woods will not have left 60mm between each tree.

Which brings me onto my final point...




Then I'm kind of silly!

This is absolutely the way I like to play, I have somewhere in the region of 40 trees all stuck onto individual bases and play most of my games with them dotted loosely around the table.

When growing up playing Warhammer I always hated the fact that 'A wood' was represented by an 8" base with 4 trees on it and none surrounding it. One of the things that first drew me to SBG was the more realistic terrain. Having all the trees dotted around the table looks far better in my opinion and gives a much better impression of a woodland table for Amon Hen, Lothlorien and Mirkwood style games than a couple of bases with a few trees stuck on top. Of course this means that the Woodland creature rule almost never applies in our games and so perhaps I'm disadvantaging Wood Elves!

As I said though it's an interesting discussion, ultimately I now think that Treebeard and Wood Elves should play by the same rules as everybody else and only move where their bases can fit.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

Thank you for a clear concise response.

I think your example gandalf vs treebeard
1) gandalf can see an arm so he can see the man. This is in the rules. p8
But I agree there is a discussion here as to whether or not you can see. Agreement in the lines of fair GOOD sporting behaviour. (note, not just conceeding because disagreeing is a hassle, at worst you can roll off or ask an impartial person)

2) I get what you mean about it not coming up, it depends how you play I use LOS to my advantage.

3) I disagree about trees just being options on the woodland
Just because they are not listed does not mean they are not obstacles.
It defines what makes an obstacle and one of the criteria is a linear objects. A linear object simply means a 3D object. It does NOT have to be lay down in a straight line (a common misconception as to what linear means) .
I would say a tree fits perfectly into the description of an obstacle, one which is tall, could be climbed but it has "leafy tops" which appears in the p28 under unscalable terrain.

Thus in my view defining a tree as an unscalable obstacle.

How would you counter this point?

My supporting example. A building on a terrain base. The terrain base may be declared to be open terrain or "difficult" but you would still consider the walls to be obstacles and then refere to the book to decide what kind.

I agree that at the start of a game you need to define terrain but I would say that somethings have to be what they are. A wall is a wall, is it defendable is a talking point, are you able to shoot over it? Or jump over it? Again agree before the game.
This saves arguments and allows you to adjust tactics long in advance.

Dr Grant... yeah that stupid warg. If only it had fimbul ... then he would have got there and fialed to roll a 4+ on 3 dice in a different place

double post,
Dr Grant's random trees. They block LoS so they can have large effect. Just like the pillars in moria

I build a lot of terrain. I am forced to think what impact it will have on the game or scenario.The base won't fit argument does not come up because it is clear if the base will fit or not when I build it.
This is clearly a tournament players argument. The final judgment will be the tournament organisers call.
Dr Grant can you give me the page number in any of the Books where the fit the base rule is. Is it a tournament ruling or some such?
I use the mutually agreeable rule for terrain. I would also point out that woodland terrain is alway depicted as area terrain in all of the published scenarios.
I am not claiming the way I depict terrain is official, I am curious where this base fits rule came from.




So long as you define it as unscalable at the start of the game I would not have a problem except you might miss some fun.





In this example the road would be open. The root and rocks obstacles, the base mat 1/2 move rate. LOS WYSIWYG. We would need to clarify the base will fit for climbing rules.

_________________
"the same as a duck you must be made of wood"

On p.21 under Moving models it states "for a miniature to move past or between others, there must be enough space for its base to pass through without disrupting them"

Obviously that doesn't mention terrain but to me that ruling means that the model's base dictates where it can move, not the particular dimensions of the model. This is a rule that persists throughout the rules, you measure movement, shooting etc. from the base, not the model. It's one of the digressions from reality necessary to facilitate a tabletop game. Every player I've ever played against has read the rules this way and the 'model's base denotes where it can move' rule is one I've never seen challenged.

I don't think it's particularly a tournament player's argument, although obviously these things will become more 'heated' in the heightened circumstances of a tournament where such thing 'matter'.

If I undertand correctly we're actually arguing a very similar point - that movement through all terrain needs to be agreed upon before the start of the game. It just seems that Cereal and myself use base size to determine these things whereas you seem to have a less restrictive approach.

Perhaps this comes from the frankly gorgeous scenery you build which, with it's multi-levelled roads, paths and rocks might well require some more laid-back rules. I'd certainly love to play a game over terrain like that, even if I had to leave my base-predudice behind for the day

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

Another example of separated by a common language
Ok I see where you are coming from. I would argue that page 21 refers to models with control zones. The forest feature has a base but no control zone
Using the word model causes the confusion.One warrior model per warrior base. A warrior model can not pass between two warrior models if there is no room for the base. Two warrior models can not occupy the same space. However, A warrior model can pass over a terrain base at 1/2 rate and end it's move on the base. They are clearly not the same.

We agree center to center or front to front.
But if a figure is standing with it's base touching a area of terrain one foot wide would you measure to the base of the terrain or the target. I hope you said the target. In some game systems the combat take place when the unit contacts the terrain. Thankfully that is not the case with the SBG

Now that I understand how you have interpreted the rule. I understand that is something else that needs to agreed to before the game.



I make a great deal of effort to be laid back. I think you would have fun. That is the point.

_________________
"the same as a duck you must be made of wood"

Treebeard has woodland creature which allows him to move through forests.
Woodland creature says the base must fit to be able to move.
Treebeard's base is too big in most instances, therefore he can't.

I really don't see why that's so hard to understand

You can still be laid back and play by the actual rules

_________________
12th GBHL 2013.
13th GBHL 2014
9th GBHL 2015


Mid Sussex Wargamers