35 replies to this topic

[urion]

Is there any reason a burrowing model can't come up next to another model on a piece of natural terrain, not a building, that is on a higher elevation plane then it is? ie. Can you pop up next to a model who is higher up than you if there is room?

[airhead]

that is the whole purpose of burrowers. pop up in base to base with the archers in the rear.

Much like flyers land to be in b2b, burrowers have to surface.

[Stubbdog]

you would have to expend the same upwards penalties as someone above ground would for going up elevations. Otherwise, as far as I know its legal.

[wildbill]

One cool thing about a burrower is that they can't be the target of shooting until they surface. So, your opponent can see them coming, and can't do a darn thing about it.

Wild Bill

[grey wolf]

Only problem is there are so few.

[ecs05norway]

you would have to expend the same upwards penalties as someone above ground would for going up elevations. Otherwise, as far as I know its legal.

Can you provide a rule reference for that?

As far as I know, Burrowing models treat all terrain as 1x movement cost, and surfacing is explicitly a zero-inch movement - just like flying but inverted.

[spiritual_exorcist]

I would agree, I believe a model would surface at any elevation for free. Surfacing, like landing is a free in movement cost.

[Shadowhunter]

I would agree, I believe a model would surface at any elevation for free. Surfacing, like landing is a free in movement cost.

I would agree with that, you don't pay for what elevation a flyer lands on so you shouldn't have to pay for what elevation a burrower surfaces on. You know me I like consistency. Think of flying and burrowing as a state and not a distance.

[spiritual_exorcist]

I would agree, I believe a model would surface at any elevation for free. Surfacing, like landing is a free in movement cost.

I would agree with that, you don't pay for what elevation a flyer lands on so you shouldn't have to pay for what elevation a burrower surfaces on. You know me I like consistency. Think of flying and burrowing as a state and not a distance.

The only argument that can be made is that drops in elevation are free when a model moves, and increases in elevation cost movement, so one could infer that landing on any elevation level does not cost movement because it is a drop in elevation, while surfacing is always an increase in elevation so surfacing on high levels of elevation should cost movement. I don't believe this holds true though, I think a model surfaces on whatever elevation it is under, so long as it is passable terrain. The concept of depth and elevation levels when burrowing and flying is just too abstract in Warlord to begin assessing charges to movement like this.

[urion]

That sounds about right to me. The Warlord rules have specifically ignored elevation and angles of trajectory when it comes to flying and burrowing.

[Gus Landt]

That sounds about right to me. The Warlord rules have specifically ignored elevation and angles of trajectory when it comes to flying and burrowing.

Thank goodness for that! One of the things I love about Warlord is that it is willing to sacrifice some realism for simplification. I agree with the earlier comments that surfacing to any level is free. A burrower is already coming up from who knows how deep, what's an extra level?

[Stubbdog]

forgive me, I was not clear in my statement ealier. I was referring to tunneling underground at an upwards angle, not the actual surfacing.

For example:

my mole is burrowed under my house which is on level 0. As long as it continues to dig its tunnels in a horizontal direction it continues to move at a regular pace.

Say in my back yard, I had a mound of dirt level 3 high.

If said mole wanted to stay under ground, while tunneling upwards to the top of said mound, it would have to go "up" 3 levels. Whereas me standing on top of the ground, may not be able to go up to the top of it due to the steep slope of the incline might be too steep for me, that steepness has no bearing on a burrowed unit as it only has to tunnel upwards. But, I would assume that upwards movement would fall under the normal guildelines that moving up levels takes an extra inch for every level up traveled.

I equate it to a non corpreal unit that is not afftect by terrain but is still also affected by the same upward movement penalties. A non corp unit could travel from the level 0 yard to the top of the level 3 mound without worry about the steepness of the slope, as long as it has the extra 3 inches worth of movement to allow for the upwards penalty.

So, I hold the same true for the mole.

No, I do not charge the mole any more for tha actual act of surfacing.

Hope that makes my argument more clear.

[Gus Landt]

I understood your statement from the start, and I got the impression that everyone who replied did too.
I think every reply still stands. Wether you come up from underground on top of a Level 3 hill, or in a level -3 valley, you pay no extra cost of the vertical movement.
I believe what everyone meant by 'surfacing cost' was mearly the vertical movement, no matter how far. Burrowing is a very expensive SA, and I think the extra movement is included in the cost.

Taking your mole example, your mole is obviously below Level 0. Say level -1. Since coming up from -1 to 0 doesn't cost it a 1" movement penalty, why would coming up from -1 to 3 cost it 3"? Why not 4"? What if the mole was 50 feet below ground?

[Stubbdog]

point taken.

My position conceded.

This time.

he he

[wildbill]

What if the mole was cute and cuddly like the groundhog from Caddyshack? And was a really good dancer to boot?

Would anyone care?

Wild Bill