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.

The theory is: complete obscurement is now a lot more rare than it use to be.

Having played a good deal of 5th rules and traveled to a few events this year this theory of mine has been gaining momentum. The 5th edition rules set is so different from 4th in the handling of terrain that the game is warped because the physical terrain everywhere was built for 4th editions concept of area terrain. Furthermore I suspect that if terrain were built with 5th edition rules in mind it would change the meta game a great deal. Whole sections of the 40k 5th rules go unused because no one has built the terrain yet it seems (roads and buildings).

For example:

Buildings (NOT ruins) that can be deployed into like vehicles? Has anyone ever seen one?
Roads that offer the move bonus to vehicles?
Tall hills that can actually hide an entire skimmer or Landraider etc.
Trees that are so thick they can not be seen through (box trees essentially).
Impassable terrain patches (like tar pits or lava).

The main point is basically two fold, nowhere does there seem to be any totally blocking terrain and no one seems to have any whole buildings for the new rules built yet. I think if adequate terrain were built, to accommodate these two factors it would change the game a lot, and armies that don't do so well would have a better chance, if for example:

Indirect fire units of all sorts could hide
Soft T3 style infantry could deploy into buildings/bunkers to avoid CC
Skimmers could hide
Powerful long ranged units like Lootas could not run the table
Indirect fire would be more valuable to hit defalade
Assault dependent units and foot sloggers might be able to cross the field with hide places
and a whole host of other play issues for variety, like roads and impassable stuff
regular tanks could have an easier time getting 50% obscurement (or 100%)

I am currently working on a 5th ed. terrain project to construct 4 inch thick hills, complete multi story buildings, roads, impassable terrain, and box pattern trees (with a box wall perimeter and lid) that should block LOS entirely to some degree, and I think it will change the game a lot for the better! What do you think and what has your experience been in your area and at events?

Personally, I'm a big fan.

Regardless of the army type I play, I feel that having a large variety of terrain types with different cover save values and degrees of LOS blockage makes for a much more interesting game.

People who don't like terrain can stay at home and play on their dinner table.

Some of us at the FLGS have noticed this as well.
In fact Mephisoles1 has made some terrain and left it at the store just so we do have hills that block line of sight.
It changes the game a lot to actually have hills to use as over to maneuver around.
AS far as buildings go I have yet to see anyone make a single piece to use but a new guy showed up with a giant Imperial factory that he had kit bashed.
Maybe I can convince him to make some killer fortified buildings.

My experience, even at GTs (LVGT) was that the same old wireframe terrain is still the rule of the day and the best thing it does is provide the standard 4+ cover save, because it was meant for 4th edition, even the ruins, with true LOS vs area terrain are very different.

As Commisar already mentioned I started making some terrain to help fix this in our FLGS. I mad 4 hills (as high as 4" in places, teired and usually completley hide most vehicles from some angles). I also built a 7" tall "Mountain" for our tan tables that is about 5" thick.

I also have some 4th edition "bunkers" that I will be bringing in to use as buildings since not everything has to be a bunker now. One of them is a two tiered tower that has removable roof's for both the bottom floor and the tower.

I also bought one of the rolls of christmas brickwork for the little christmas house displays to make some road sections. When I need a break from my tzeentch army that is what I'm breaking out next.

The only problem with fixing terrain like this is that assault armies only get better ... gunline armies losing LOS to assault based armies is not a good thing. But even on a flat plain assault armies have an advantage right now since most assault armies benefit greatly from run/fleet/infiltrate/outflank. However, I think barring gunline armies, terrain adapted to 5th edition benefits everyone and enhances the gameplay.

@Agustus: When you say a boxed forest you literally mean a box with trees glued on the walls? That is an interesting idea ... have you seen any pics of that?


Meph

My FLGS has pretty good intact city terrain so when we drag it out there's plenty of big buildings to deploy in. Some of the other stores around though are more limited in what they can offer, but they're getting better all the time.

I have an allergic reaction to too much difficult terrain and impassable terrain.

However as a Fantasy player, this is quite common!

Good thread. If you are not playing with a mix of LOS and non LOS blocking terrain, you are not really playing 5th ed.

Anyone used the new intact destroyable buildings rules yet? Any insights on this? I have been slacking and just using ruins mostly...

my FLGS uses mainly only ruins and some of the old tree bases and a some hills etc, i still don't find it a problem, some of the solid walls block LOS and there is a giant building made from COD stuff that generally gets plonked in the middle of the table to block LOS completely,

of course at GTs it is a slight problem, there isn't alot that blocks LOS however, if you are careful and clever, hills on low ruins will provide you with the cover save you need or if a unit is standing right being a workshop hill, (the old kind) the cannot be seen if you are careful with the placing of the models, apart from Warhammer Worlds Hamster Balls (they take half a hamster ball fill it with expanding foam and stick some bits on it to make it look like a house like Luke and Obi Wans house on Tatooine) they block LOS pretty well

still more would be nice. blocking LOS, however using lots of LOS blocking terrain pieces again helps Horde Orks and Nids etc

I thought there was too much terrain at the GTs.

How did shooting armies do vs. assault armies? Assault armies dominated. The shootting armies of Space Marines, Tau and IG did the worst. The assault armies of Orks, Demons and CSM did well.

I think that there was a great panic going from 4th edition to 5th over the fact that area terrain no longer blocked LOS, but the deployment rules now make it so that you do not have to worry so much about true LOS blocking terrain.

If you go first, then you do not have to worry about it. Why would you need to completely block LOS to a vehicle? If you go second, and you are worried about getting shot, just start in reserve. Problem solved.

Blackmoor wrote:
If you go first, then you do not have to worry about it. Why would you need to completely block LOS to a vehicle? If you go second, and you are worried about getting shot, just start in reserve. Problem solved.

Well, what if you are a Basilisk? Or a Whirlwind, or a raider or a truck trying to get close.

I think LOS blocking terrain (with moderation) ads a lot to shooting and assault armies.

Mephistoles1 wrote:@Agustus: When you say a boxed forest you literally mean a box with trees glued on the walls? That is an interesting idea ... have you seen any pics of that?

Yes "Box trees" is a term I use loosely for a tree patch that essentially is a box with a detachable leafy top and a solid perimeter wall, modeled like trees. I have seen these in historical games before, in many scales and they work great. Ideally it would't be a shoebox or cubic cardboard box but instead an organic shaped 2D base with a curved perimeter wall with tree trunk trunks decoratively applied on the edges and the leafy top. I don't have an image, I'll try to find one.

EDIT: I couldn't find any images of these online easily despite having seen them before. I'm going to make some over the break and I will post the images of them in the modeling section, and probably here as well.

I think I need to learn some about terrain building and bring some fortified buildings for my guardsmen to play in
Also before I forget again, we do have some Toxic waste pits and every once in a while someone puts up a counts as chasm with bridges to use as crossings

Maybe I'm dim, but I don't understand the big difference for terrain between editions, particular when it comes to LOS blocking. 4th edition I still wanted to make sure that my trucks were out of sight, with 5th it's pretty much the same.

Your comments about intact buildings are very interesting, I think I might make some of those next.

I like that there's a much more robust terrain system in place in 5th, and I agree that it's still at the mercy of people actually building the appropriate terrain. I've always thought, however, that noone bothers with full buildings because honestly, unless you're playing some kind of fight-inside-a-mall fully enclosed map (which would be neat), I don't see how full buildings can do anything besides bog down gameplay and be impractical terrain pieces to build and manage.

building rules work fine. i have tried them many times. all you need is an intact building and opponets agreeing its building and not ruins. fun but not gamebreaker. good rule imo

Terrain supplied by GW never changed over 4th ed to 5th ed, why do you think that is? Now you should create specific terrain that you can hide behind? Wasnt the whole purpose true LOS that it would become alot harder to hide?

Dont really see the reason to create specific terrain for you purpose and think the standard buildings works just fine.

So basically gamers need to build some new terrain... really. I know GW has put a lot of work into their existing terrain and I respect that a lot. Give them time.

Personally I have no problem with the new TLOS rules.

G

Prometheum5 wrote:I've always thought, however, that noone bothers with full buildings because honestly, unless you're playing some kind of fight-inside-a-mall fully enclosed map (which would be neat), I don't see how full buildings can do anything besides bog down gameplay and be impractical terrain pieces to build and manage.

QFT

This is something else I spend a lot of time thinking about when designing terrain. I seldom see people go back INTO vehicles, why would buildings be any different? Maybe a bunker or two would be interesting, but I would think that that would be about it....

This has been one of the chief complaints I have seen regarding the new rules set, the problem of TLOS versus the difficulty in procuring enough LOS blocking terrain to make the game playable. When both armies are deployed and the table is more or less a free fire zone, then it completely negates the usefulness of some units.

I kind of think that if they had left area terrain rules in place, or had adopted some sort of area terrain rule, then the game would be imminently better. Just MHO.

I'll post some pictures of the terrain I've created in the last few months. Mostly hills, right now, but I just did a total of 3' by 2' long grass terrain.

Actually tall enough to hide skimmers and thick enough, in parts, to hide infantry. Especially, through two stands of terrain.

The hills were done a lot like the LOTR style with clumps of rock as opposed to the "tiered" type used, in the past.

Hello from Scotland
I agree totally! Over the years i've played in some
horrendous battle because of poor terrain. Hills have
tended to be smaller than the figures ,and to vehicles
they just become speed bumps! I think some players
play with WFB in their minds where they think you should be able
to shoot at everything on the table. Idon't think GW do enough to fix
this problem.Instead of how to make scenery maybe some articles or even
a codex on scenery dealing with how it affects the game.Too many games
are spoiled by scenery that allows total long range shooting where both
sides are pulverised inturn 1