Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 auticus wrote:
As I said, most of the complaints aren't about people using this excuse because they feel you need to use GW terrain, it seems to be because they feel you are modeling for advantage by blocking line of sight when the official terrain doesn't block line of sight.

Its gotten very gamey.

Blocking line of sight used to be the thing that made 40k interesting. So that's really sad.

Good for GW's bottom line either way though. They want to sell terrain and a gamey element of the community wants no home made terrain because they think it's unfair. Perfect storm.

 auticus wrote:
As I said, most of the complaints aren't about people using this excuse because they feel you need to use GW terrain, it seems to be because they feel you are modeling for advantage by blocking line of sight when the official terrain doesn't block line of sight.

Doesn't it amount to the same thing?

So is this like the only LOS blocking terrain they sell for 40k?



Or have big huge walkers become so prevalent that this doesn't block things anymore? Or are these destroyable (and thus removable)? There are storm bolters mounted on them, so perhaps these need to be bought as part of the army list? Has GW found a way to make shipping containers a codex entry? (I haven't played 40k since late 4th or early 5th edition).

 Vermis wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I think you've hit on the core issue here. I think it's fair to say that the designers generally assume you are using Citadel miniatures. I think it's also fair to say that the designers generally assume you are building your Citadel miniatures per the included instructions. As an extension, I think it's fair to say that the designers generally design the rules with the assumption that players will be using Citadel Miniatures built using the included instructions.

I think you've hit on the core issue... if you substitute 'assume' with 'railroad'.

And does a piece of terrain, which is more or less neutral in most if it's use, count as a miniature?

So... given that the rules are 'tuned' for use with official models, it's very reasonable for a player to challenge the use of unofficial models,

I've seen you use the 'R' word before, in this topic. I didn't much agree with it then, either. I'd see it more as a conditioned response, than 'reasonable'.

An unofficial wall blocks line of sight from both directions. An unofficial hill can be climbed from both sides Etc, etc. If the impact is roughly equal, usually nobody cares. It just makes the game different, but not lopsided.

You're right of course, but I still can't help but boggle at the mindset of 'unofficial' walls and hills. Especially after this bit:

If you build terrain that doesn't more or less match the size/shape/line of sight transparency/etc of the official models, you run the risk of being challenged on your choices.

I know you're trying to justify things, but from where I'm sitting it's inadvertently adding to the case of the toxicity of GW gaming culture. In what other company's games do players get so wound up about terrain - thanks largely to how it's written into the rules, especially about using official terrain pieces? Even in Warmahordes, AFAIK, the worst millimetre-measuring nitpicking takes place over randomly-sized cardboard shapes. (Unofficial cardboard)

I don't think this has anything to do with the toxicity of GW gaming culture. GW started out with generic terrain. ...then, they added special rules to terrain that both sides could benefit from. ...then, they added special rules to terrain that only one side could benefit from. They effectively weaponized terrain. Color me unsurprised that players in a competitive game are using weaponized terrain as weapons. If anything, this shows a lack of foresight from GW. Terrain taken as a part of your army should be treated no differently than any other model in your army. If you do a custom conversion that grants too much in game advantage, be prepared for some push back. GW has always been willy-nilly about clearly defining what is and what isn't allowed. I think they really want everyone to be reasonable and casual. That works most of the time, but doesn't work at all with super competitive players who are looking to min/max every opportunity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 frozenwastes wrote:
So is this like the only LOS blocking terrain they sell for 40k?



Or have big huge walkers become so prevalent that this doesn't block things anymore? Or are these destroyable (and thus removable)? There are storm bolters mounted on them, so perhaps these need to be bought as part of the army list? Has GW found a way to make shipping containers a codex entry? (I haven't played 40k since late 4th or early 5th edition).

Yes. Shipping containers now have a datasheet and can be selected as part of your army. Ludicrous, but true.

Doesn't it amount to the same thing?

One indicates the only reason people would complain is because they have a burning need to only have GW official terrain on their table because thats the only thing that hsould be official simply because its GW terrain.

The other indicates that people aren't as interested in who creates the terrain, but rather that the terrain match the line of sight blocking that the official terrain does, to prevent "screwing shooty players over".

The ends may be very similar, but the thought process between the two are not.

Here you go...

https://yourlordandmaster.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/munitorum-armored-container-cache1.jpg

40pts and you too can have metal boxes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

Doesn't it amount to the same thing?

One indicates the only reason people would complain is because they have a burning need to only have GW official terrain on their table because thats the only thing that hsould be official simply because its GW terrain.

The other indicates that people aren't as interested in who creates the terrain, but rather that the terrain match the line of sight blocking that the official terrain does, to prevent "screwing shooty players over".

The ends may be very similar, but the thought process between the two are not.

Agreed. Anecdotally, it seems like the second version is the more common. In decades of playing, the only times I've seen someone challenge terrain was over a rules advantage. I've never seen an official v. unofficial conversation that wasn't centered around actual in game advantage.

It seems more like powergamers trying to say that their shooty Tau/Eldar (because let's not pretend here...) should have LOS to everything or "waaah it's not fair I can't shoot you".

Seems to be the fact that auticus plays with extreme WAAC powergamers that hate anything which doesn't give them an advantage.

GoblinChow wrote:

(BTW, funny thing playing at Kirk's place... His cat jumped up on the table and laid right down in the middle of it on turn two. We immediately declared the cat to be impassible terrain that blocked LOS. At the very last turn of the game, after Kirk had his harlequin glass cannons hidden behind the cat, his Wife came in the door. Apparently, she is the primary feeder of the cat, because it jumped right up and ran into the kitchen, meowing loudly, leaving me wide open to mow down Kirk's last units. There are times when going second can be an advantage!) (Yes, we do take 40K seriously, but sometimes it's just too much fun to roll with the moment.)

I think this is the best thing I've read all week!

Most of the guys I play with are in it for fun, but when we run public campaigns there are always a small handful of guys that give a lot of stink over these things, essentially trying to meld the campaign into a competitive tournament style event as well.

Wayniac wrote:
It seems more like powergamers trying to say that their shooty Tau/Eldar (because let's not pretend here...) should have LOS to everything or "waaah it's not fair I can't shoot you".

Seems to be the fact that auticus plays with extreme WAAC powergamers that hate anything which doesn't give them an advantage.

I've almost exclusively seen the complaints coming from casual players who are tired of the WAAC players trying to modify terrain to their advantage. I've never actually seen a Tau or Eldar player complain about terrain. Of course, I'm the Tau player in the group and recognize that line of sight blocking terrain works both ways. I can jump/shoot/jump my way across the board while remaining out of sight on your turns. Or, I can just stand and shoot. All the same to me. Depends on what the board looks like.

Mainly, I hear non-Sylvaneth players complain about Sylvaneth players abusing Wyldwoods. That army's power level swings pretty dramatically based on how many of those woods they have and where they're placed.

 Kriswall wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
It seems more like powergamers trying to say that their shooty Tau/Eldar (because let's not pretend here...) should have LOS to everything or "waaah it's not fair I can't shoot you".

Seems to be the fact that auticus plays with extreme WAAC powergamers that hate anything which doesn't give them an advantage.

I've almost exclusively seen the complaints coming from casual players who are tired of the WAAC players trying to modify terrain to their advantage. I've never actually seen a Tau or Eldar player complain about terrain. Of course, I'm the Tau player in the group and recognize that line of sight blocking terrain works both ways. I can jump/shoot/jump my way across the board while remaining out of sight on your turns. Or, I can just stand and shoot. All the same to me. Depends on what the board looks like.

Mainly, I hear non-Sylvaneth players complain about Sylvaneth players abusing Wyldwoods. That army's power level swings pretty dramatically based on how many of those woods they have and where they're placed.

To be fair though, the fact they can place 1-3 forests as one terrain piece, every turn, is pure bullgak. I played a game the other week where literally half the board was covered in sylvaneth woods the very first round (1 set at deployment, 2 during his turn). It is a bit ridiculous.

Wayniac wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
It seems more like powergamers trying to say that their shooty Tau/Eldar (because let's not pretend here...) should have LOS to everything or "waaah it's not fair I can't shoot you".

Seems to be the fact that auticus plays with extreme WAAC powergamers that hate anything which doesn't give them an advantage.

I've almost exclusively seen the complaints coming from casual players who are tired of the WAAC players trying to modify terrain to their advantage. I've never actually seen a Tau or Eldar player complain about terrain. Of course, I'm the Tau player in the group and recognize that line of sight blocking terrain works both ways. I can jump/shoot/jump my way across the board while remaining out of sight on your turns. Or, I can just stand and shoot. All the same to me. Depends on what the board looks like.

Mainly, I hear non-Sylvaneth players complain about Sylvaneth players abusing Wyldwoods. That army's power level swings pretty dramatically based on how many of those woods they have and where they're placed.

To be fair though, the fact they can place 1-3 forests as one terrain piece, every turn, is pure bullgak. I played a game the other week where literally half the board was covered in sylvaneth woods the very first round (1 set at deployment, 2 during his turn). It is a bit ridiculous.

Right. It's bad NORMALLY. It gets even worse when the woods are modelled for advantage.

 Kriswall wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
It seems more like powergamers trying to say that their shooty Tau/Eldar (because let's not pretend here...) should have LOS to everything or "waaah it's not fair I can't shoot you".

Seems to be the fact that auticus plays with extreme WAAC powergamers that hate anything which doesn't give them an advantage.

I've almost exclusively seen the complaints coming from casual players who are tired of the WAAC players trying to modify terrain to their advantage. I've never actually seen a Tau or Eldar player complain about terrain. Of course, I'm the Tau player in the group and recognize that line of sight blocking terrain works both ways. I can jump/shoot/jump my way across the board while remaining out of sight on your turns. Or, I can just stand and shoot. All the same to me. Depends on what the board looks like.

Mainly, I hear non-Sylvaneth players complain about Sylvaneth players abusing Wyldwoods. That army's power level swings pretty dramatically based on how many of those woods they have and where they're placed.

To be fair though, the fact they can place 1-3 forests as one terrain piece, every turn, is pure bullgak. I played a game the other week where literally half the board was covered in sylvaneth woods the very first round (1 set at deployment, 2 during his turn). It is a bit ridiculous.

Right. It's bad NORMALLY. It gets even worse when the woods are modelled for advantage.

Yeah. I would say the Wyldwood needs to be the correct scale/size/dimensions, just like any other model, since it's part of the army.

 Kriswall wrote:
GW started out with generic terrain. ...then, they added special rules to terrain that both sides could benefit from. ...then, they added special rules to terrain that only one side could benefit from. They effectively weaponized terrain. Color me unsurprised that players in a competitive game are using weaponized terrain as weapons. If anything, this shows a lack of foresight from GW. Terrain taken as a part of your army should be treated no differently than any other model in your army.

I don't think it was a lack of forsight at all. I think it was intentional. They use the rules to sell the models, so if you want to sell terrain kits through the same sales process, they need the same sort of rules. Just as there are players who choose a particular vehicle kit for rules reasons, I bet there are people who choose a particular terrain kit for rules reasons. Weaponized terrain, as you put it. I just don't think it was an accident.

So what are the odds that giant skull covered fortress has a "war scroll" (or whatever)? Is it weaponized as well?

Yes. Shipping containers now have a datasheet and can be selected as part of your army. Ludicrous, but true.

 auticus wrote:

Thats my experience. If you scratch build forests, no one cares so long as they don't really block line of sight. If you scratch build a building, no one cares so long as it has windows you can shoot through like the citadel 40k buildings.

If you build a forest that blocks line of sight, a player that built a shooting army to take advantage of the fact that most tables don't have restricted line of sight will complain.

So all terrain can be seen through and shot through? Why bother with it then?
I thought the idea behind terrain was to be blocking and add tactics to the game, not just to look fancy. You might as well just keep a flat empty table.

To players that choose shooty armies, this is a large reason why they choose shooty armies. Because they can shoot with impunity on most tables typically.

Its not that terrain can be shot through its that the games employ True Line of Sight, so if you can see it from your model, you can shoot at it. The easiest way to see if this is possible is simply placing a laser pointer on the head of your model and pointing it at the target. If the red dot hits the enemy model, your model can see and target it.

 auticus wrote:
To players that choose shooty armies, this is a large reason why they choose shooty armies. Because they can shoot with impunity on most tables typically.

Its not that terrain can be shot through its that the games employ True Line of Sight, so if you can see it from your model, you can shoot at it. The easiest way to see if this is possible is simply placing a laser pointer on the head of your model and pointing it at the target. If the red dot hits the enemy model, your model can see and target it.

That still sounds like powergamers trying to eke out everything. "I play a shooting army, I should be able to shoot anything!" uh no, that's not how terrain nor shooting nor battles work.

Well unfortunately with current 40k and AOS and true line of sight, and how most gaming tables are bereft of terrain, thats the standard.

I'm Against it. Tables with plenty of LOS blocking and impassible terrain are my thing - creates more interesting spaces and situations.

 auticus wrote:
Well unfortunately with current 40k and AOS and true line of sight, and how most gaming tables are bereft of terrain, thats the standard.

And they'll sit there and take it and say 'thank you sir, may I have another?'

Recently I've been reminded of a man with a Hulkster-baby avatar who used to say 'take control of your hobby and stop slavishly following the damned book', or words to that effect. It's still very relevant.

 auticus wrote:
Well unfortunately with current 40k and AOS and true line of sight, and how most gaming tables are bereft of terrain, thats the standard.

I don't think True Line of Sight is really the issue. Bolt Action uses True Line of Sight, and when I think about most tables they tend to have quite a bit of terrain with the exception of ones setting up for places like North Africa and typically both players know what to expect. Deadzone also makes use of True Line of Sight yet unless it is just the starter box, most people pack the 2'x2' area to the gills with terrain (although one could make the argument that it is mostly, if not all, Mantic terrain).

I might not agree with idea of True Line of Sight being the best method to determine whether a mode can be see or not, but I don't it can be blamed for what you are describing. I think it is more a function of the players and their expectations than that particular mechanic.

I think I can agree with weaponized terrain might be one of the issues. I think games work best with terrain elements (I am most thinking of fortifications here) being part of the scenario rather than a unit that can be purchased outright with a players army point total. Fortifications have an important element to wargaming, but can definitely be something difficult to balance especially if they are not put in check. Biggest problem there is rules like that don't work get for pick up style games played at stores/clubs.

I'm sorry, but in reading through this thread I have to wonder if I am playing the same 40K as you are...

On one hand it is the standard issue "gaming the system" on the other, it comes to selling terrain, I'm not seeing the logic here.

GW's terraign doesn't last long, as far as kits go, they crank it out for awhile, then the stuff goes to the OOP. I don't see the equity.

Auticus, it really just sounds like you have a couple of ... how do you say it... clown-shoes, as vocal mutts. You just need to shut them down.

 Grot 6 wrote:
On one hand it is the standard issue "gaming the system" on the other, it comes to selling terrain, I'm not seeing the logic here.

Makes more sense when you consider that GW writes particular terrain kits into the system in order to sell them. They're not either/or problems. They're not even the primary problems.

 Grot 6 wrote:
GW's terraign doesn't last long, as far as kits go, they crank it out for awhile, then the stuff goes to the OOP. I don't see the equity.

From the disclosure in the chapterhouse lawsuit, it was shown that the vast majority of GW's releases sell strongly on release and then trickle off to near nothing. Except for Space Marine "core" type products like battleforces, tactical squads and tanks. So the terrain working the exact same way works just like the rest of the products they sell. Also, GW outright owns all of its own tooling and injection moulding equipment, so it's not very capital intensive for them to run a batch of whatever off.

I just did a quick bounce through 10 battle report videos posted on youtube in the last couple months, jumping to where they show the table, and it looks like a mixed bag. I saw some tables with homemade terrain that blocks line of sight. Others with only citadel scenery kits. Others with next to no terrain. I bet each locale develops their own tradition of how it's done and they all think their way is what's supported by the rules.

If the terrain is a paid-for item in your army list it should either be the GW model or something REALLY close to GW dimensions. I saw ork Aegis Defense Lines, a Landing pad, and a Bastion that were perfectly fine because they were made to almost the same physical dimensions as the real thing.

If it is general fill-the-board terrain, who cares? Modeling the terrain is supposed to be part of the hobby. There is a reason they give us rules for terrain that blocks line of sight.

 auticus wrote:
Well unfortunately with current 40k and AOS and true line of sight, and how most gaming tables are bereft of terrain, thats the standard.

My table on the last game we had...

Thats a pretty awesome table. Sadly the ones that I see mostly have four or five small pieces and thats it. I have a nice terrain collection for my home table.

Have to break out this image again as it exemplifies what I dislike about bad terrain usage:



On the surface it looks good, but it's actually a really gakky set up.

As it happens, this is the way we usually do forests though - a green base to show where the forest 'is' and then a few trees that can be moved around to accommodate iniatures.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Look away citizen!



You know it's good because of all the skulls! Include it in your army list! Purchase approved! £200 extracted.

Wake up people. Really.

The GW store near my work has a table set up with a full ring of this stuff. It looks incredible. Makes me want to build the stuff I own.

GW makes excellent terrain, and as someone who adores terrain and making cool themed boards I will always champion it unless it is something that guns contrary to such things (like the Ream of A Lack of Imagination™), or if it's something truly horrendous like whatever the feth these things are supposed to be:

What is that last picture of? It's a little bit... off. o.O

It's an alien tree, from the new GW Deathworld set I think.

And I'm not going to deus agree with HBMC here; tables should be filled with a variety of terrain or the games just not worth playing.

In a tournament situation I accept that there might be constraints of resources and time to consider but generally there should be as much as possible otherwise you're losing a lot of the manoeuvre and strategy in allot of systems.