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.

Moved from another thread at suggestion.

I am looking for feedback on these terrain rules. I am not looking for "You don't need those," "Why have them?" because some people do and that's the why. :0

I am looking for pieces of terrain for which these five simple rules will not work for. I am looking to see whether these guidelines break the existing AT-43 rules where applicable. Mostly, I am looking for whether or not these rules would work for most everybody, which is the goal - to try to define standards.

The actual rule is followed by the thinking behind it in brackets.


Rules for incorporating 25mm-28mm terrain into AT-43


1) All terrain on the table must have a Size characteristic.

[Size characteristics are an integral part of AT-43 and I think a good idea design-wise, so I think this should remain in place as "official" AT-43 terrain all have size characteristics, I believe]


2) Any terrain which is considered “Area Terrain” in other game systems will provide a standard 5+ Cover Save, improved to 3+ as normal with a “Take Cover” drill. Any such terrain will also halve the Combat Movement of any units if even a single model moves through the terrain. You may not perform a Rush Movement through Area Terrain. Area Terrain is not considered WYSIWYG for purposes of blocking Line of Sight.

[This is a compromise between various systems people are using to handle things like forests, a typical example of Area Terrain. Because the terrain has to have a Size characteristic, this will determine whether it blocks Line of Sight or not, and for whom, by reading the unit cards]


3) Rivers or other waterways will halve a Combat Movement if even a single model moves through the terrain, but will not provide a Cover Save. You may not perform a Rush Movement through a body of water, river, or other waterway.

[This just seemed reasonable - the best cover you will get is the banks, but even then it may be way too thin for modern weaponry as substantial river banks are more likely found in larger and rougher rivers which may be uncrossable by AFVs or infantry, which may get too restrictive. Rivers and bodies of water would also certainly slow movement]


4) For all buildings, points of entry must be discussed and specified. AFV’s may not move through building walls. For purposes of vertical movement, units may move an equal horizontal and vertical distance in their turn. An intact building will not hinder movement. A ruined building will be considered Area Terrain as above.

[These are just borrowed from other systems, and they seem to work there so work here.]


5) All terrain in the terrain pool should be discussed prior to placement upon the table. If it does not match any of the types above, it should be determined whether it is WYSIWYG or Area terrain, whether it provides cover, whether it is intended to block LOS, and whether and how it hinders movement.

[Again, basic to other systems. Just talk about it beforehand if you are not sure, BEFORE it goes down on the table]



I really feel like these five rules cover anything we could think of to put on a table during an AT-43 game. Pick them apart, please, if you can - but proffer a suggested change if you do so.

I like what I see it works well with somethings we been doing in regard to the first one....we had a old school mech warrior (wiz-kids) approach to terrain, AT43 has such a good source of terrain Incorporated into it Ive always thought its a waste not to use it but sometimes when setting up a game at a venue the tables are already populated this might be good to have during those times. The idea of setting up terrain "values" is something Ive been attempting the following is from a mission we do have fun with it....

TERRAIN: Each person brings with them 4 to 5 terrain elements* and adds them to a "terrain pool" before the game starts each person takes a turn placing terrain up to a total of eight terrain elements from the terrain pool...say each player had 5 for a total of ten only 8 terrain elements are deployed.

Each element has the same value*

*Container

*Four small walls

*Two tall walls

**Bunker - counts as two.

Each person takes a turn putting one terrain element* on the table,

Saint Anuman wrote:
Each person takes a turn putting one terrain element* on the table,

My favorite way. Every warhammer player i know loves it too.

This is how the system my friend and I are working on handles placement:

Step 4 – Terrain placement

For No Man’s Land terrain placements, players roll a d6 and the player with the highest roll may choose who places first. Terrain placement then proceeds clockwise around the table. Containers may never be placed more than two high.

The rules for Prepared Position placements are different and taken straight from the rulebook.



That system you posted, Saint, was one of many shared with the AT-43 community and something that we looked at. It ultimately was rejected for two reasons:

1) It makes no allowances for various table sizes. What size table are those guidelines meant for? 3' x 3'? 4' x 3'? 4' x 4'? 6' x 4'?

I know this isn't your system such that you cannot answer that question, but if someone is going to get into delineating amounts of terrain as specifically and strictly as that system does, that person has to tell you what size table they are talking about. Adequate terrain for a 3' x 3' is not going to be adequate terrain for a 6' x 4' - at which point this system falls apart for consistently providing balanced tables while also giving the players the freedom to play on varied table sizes.


2) It only considers official AT-43 terrain, which in part defeats the purpose of the pick-up play rules we're working on, i.e. to be able to use whatever terrain and table you have on hand.



There was another system in the thread you took that one from which was much better about delineating terrain amounts. It used a chart broken down by table size, which is what we're working with right now as the basis for testing. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like you can easily create tables on these forums, but here's one example

4’ x 4’ table size
Low walls: 20
High walls: 6-8
Bunkers: 0-2
Size 6 terrain elements: 3
Area Terrain elements: 2

This is where it gets tricky. If you get into this kind of a chart and "regular" 28mm terrain is involved, then you require the following statement, which we have in the rules right now:

"When using the suggested amounts of terrain, try to make the best comparison possible between the piece of terrain you wish to use and official AT-43 terrain choices."

So, a set of dragon's teeth which are the size of a Low Wall (Size 1) and which are also 6 inches long, may be equivalent to three Low Walls laid in sequence. So, if you used that terrain piece, you would have to subtract 3 Low Walls from the total for the table.

This is clunky beyond belief - but it is the sort of thing we may have to go with if we want to stick with a chart like the system we based this off of does.

Now, perhaps, you can see why I have been asking what percentage of terrain table coverage people think is adequate for AT-43 tables. If you can recommend that, then you can skip a lot of this. I would probably stick with the Size 6 terrain elements and Area Terrain limitations just to prevent tables from getting choked with them. Too many Size 6 pieces and long-range shooting gets screwed. Too many pieces of Area Terrain and it may become too easy to maintain cover, maneuvering for cover being an integral part of AT-43.



The way we handle containers is different than any system I've yet seen, but I think my friend and I are onto something. He's a long-term, avid fan of AT-43 as well as someone with a decades' worth of experience playing a metric crapton of tabletop wargames, so if he says we're onto something I tend to listen to him.

I don't know any AT-43 player who doesn't have a boatload of containers, so this is the one type of AT-43 terrain I am comfortable making integral to any pick-up play system. They also provide an easy way to show where the Secondary Objectives, which generate RP, are and are not.

This is how we handle containers:

Containers are considered to be RP-producing Secondary Objectives by default. Each player is assigned their own pool of containers which they may place at any point during the Terrain placement step.

This ensures that no player ever gets screwed for RP in a pick-up game - and the ability to place them allows you to strategize with them to some degree. Do you want to place them closer to another player's container because you think you can rush and take their position and get twice the RP? Or do you want to hold them back and make sure you can hold them for a while without worrying about their becoming contested too early?

The number of containers each player gets, we determined, has to be somewhat dependent on the AP for the game and the table size.

The pick-up missions for the system, just like in published AT-43 missions, tell you how many RP you get for Capturing and Controlling Secondary Objectives. So, in a high-AP game, having only a few containers could really slow down bringing in your reinforcements to the point of utter frustration. Too many would make it too easy to bring in reinforcements on any table.

Table size also needs to be taken into account, as too many containers chokes a table.

The system we're developing also uses a table for suggested table size, for instance:

For 2 players:

1,500 AP - 3' x 3'
2,000 AP - 3' x 3'
2,500 AP - 4' x 4'
3,000 AP - 4' x 4'

As table size was related to AP, it made sense that the number of containers in each players' pool would also be related to table size:

Containers per player:

3' x 3': 2
4' x 4': 3
4' x 6': 4



All of this needs a LOT of testing...once I have the okay from my design partner I'd like to just start handing the whole system out for people to use if they want, and report their experiences with it. I know that once we're done, my partner who is known on the AT-43 English forums is going to post it up there.

I feel like we're along the way of coming up with actual rules that are balanced, not difficult to follow, and which would be acceptable to any AT-43 player, which is the ultimate point and goal.

Slow down the amount of feedback, everyone. I can't keep up.

Sorry Cairnius, I have some responses but I want to settle down and do a thorough job, probably expect a reply sometime over the weekend.

I'm just frelling with you, I know it's only been a couple of days. Not everyone likes to have purely-theoretical conversations like I do. Experience through testing is what I need, just am curious as to who else actually cares about trying this stuff out. Not many people posting in any of these AT-43 conversations anyway so the potential sample size is small to begin with.

I realized something else today in conversation with a friend who I was discussing these terrain rules with.

You need a rule about indirect fire weapons and different floors of buildings, a la 40K. I think the "one floor at a time" rule works fine for the templates, but would need to be added to the ruleset.

Just measure the distance in three dimensions and use the rules for destroying buildings/obstacles/etc., where`s the problem?

You always assume there's a problem, Duncan. Take up meditation.

The question was in how you handle templates for different levels of buildings. When you play AT-43 on one of those tables you posted, if a squad of Steel Troopers were on the bottom floor of a building, and a unit of Star Troopers were on the roof, and there were two floors in between them, how would you resolve a Cobra shooting its mortar into the
building? Do they all get hit? One or the other?

Anyone building a comprehensive set of pick-up play rules needs to think about stuff like this. I'm just taking the project more seriously than others might have so that when we start playing AT-43 games using real terrain at my club, the system holds up and people might stick around at the table when a game is being played rather than walking away like they do when we use the stupid tiles...

As written in the rules you center the template over the chosen miniature and then look down at the building. Miniatures covered are hit. For size of the explosion we allign the template vertically and what is not behind protective scenery gets hit. For your example this would mean if it is an 7cm explosion the second unit only gets hit if the roof is within 7cm and no obatscles are in the way.

All of this easily can be derived from the core rules.

Point me at the page in the rulebook where you get that from, Duncan? The part that would have you hitting the guys on the roof the same as the guys on the bottom floor of three? Honest question.

Some folks simply use their brains and put 1 and 1 together from what´s written in the rules.

Don't be so butthurt, Duncan. It makes me cry. Why can't you just say "It isn't in the rules, I just made it up?" There's nothing in the rulebook that would cover the hypothetical situation I presented, therefore you cannot extrapolate this from the rules, and you're not mature enough to just admit it.

If there's a building with three floors and a roof, Unit A on the roof, Unit B on the first floor, there's no way a template placed on Unit A is going to do anything to Unit B. If that's how you do it, you're doing it wrong. 40K does it right, so use their rules for templates and buildings.

Just another example in proof of my argument that Rackham didn't think about things like this because they don't intend you to play with anything other than their official terrain. It gets very tiresome when otherwise intelligent people continue insisting on idiocies like "Rackham only meant you to use the tiles/their terrain at the beginning," which is just making stuff up to try and explain how Rackham somehow didn't figure out that tabletop wargamers might want to move past the boardgamish noob terrain they produced themselves.

If Rackham wrote rules for stuff other than their terrain, that would lead to beginning AT-43 players who have never otherwise played tabletop wargames looking at building terrain, which would lead them right into Warhammer 40,000, which is precisely why Rackham did what they did. Seriously - you don't have to be a genius businessman to figure this out.

If you can´t see it, your problem. I am not going to travel to your place and showing it to you. According to you the whole of europe is making things up.

Or maybe they can just read and don´t need a legal-text-like rulebook.

this thread is closed for just a minute while posts are reviewed.

I am reopening this thread as its a wowrhty topic but the noise factor is too high. Posts after this need to be:

1. non combative and not personal
2. to the topic.

Consider this a public warning. Postings after this will be dealt with if they violate the above.

You're right.


Do not understand this way of wanting to set the games... Don't understand that somebody want only one game, one topic, one system. A monopoly perhaps ? But its kill this kind of game. You don’t understand ? Real players need to know the other universes...
The variety is the security of the quality... I love AT43, Warmachine, and Helldorado... and I play Eldar and Inquisition armies in 40K also, i can say that rules are often bizarre in W40K also. Well then??? The more there is of armies, the more there is new situations of game. It is inevitable, it’s simulation.

The players adapt rules as they want, and pass of good time.
As I read it on another closed post, nobody in Europe says himself " ah it is british ! ah it is American! pouah "
A true player is delighted at the variety. GW needs competitors, you believe not?
Needs to calm down!
I hope that I am not the only one to think as it on this forum, or I made a mistake about place.

Let us accept the differences, the other sci fi game, and enjoy

Excuse bad English. In more I am a little annoyed.

Mod Frazzled -

I hear you and am trying to follow your dictums...I'd like to discuss the role of rules, generally-speaking, in tabletop wargames, and then address some specific questions about AT-43 game rules in that context.


There are many of us who feel that the rules are everything. We're gamers first who mostly enjoy playing games.

If there's anything that slows down a tabletop wargame match, it's not knowing the rules, or having disagreements about the rules, or not knowing how to solve rules questions using the rulebooks. We have little patience for this because they all detract from playing the game.

In the case of using non-official AT-43 terrain in games of AT-43, we are presented with all three issues simultaneously.

If you read the AT-43 rulebooks, the only terrain whose existence they recognize are:

- 2D terrain markings
- Low walls
- High walls
- Containers
- Nanogenerators
- Karman crystals
- Bunkers
- MedTec stations

That is a fact, so please don't argue it. That's the end-all, be-all of terrain rules for AT-43, because the game is only designed around using this sort of terrain - and these terrain types cannot be extrapolated into everything we might use in a game of AT-43 if we start using the huge array of terrain available to us in other 28mm tabletop wargaming systems.


Back to a general point: if we look at some other game systems like 40K and Flames of War, we will see that terrain is a subject of much inquiry and explanation, so as to account for just about anything you could put on the table. There are specific types discussed like woods or buildings or ruins or craters, there are general types discussed like difficult or dangerous terrain, but taken in their entirety the terrain rules allow players to handle just about everything. I have never, ever in 4 years of playing 40K had a serious debate over how to handle a piece of terrain. Identify it, name the cover save it imparts, play the game.

What is the advantage of this?

1) It allows people to be very creative in how they build terrain.
2) It provides some measure of balance in setting up tables.
3) It creates a common language for the players anywhere in the world.


Specific point: as AT-43 does not give us rules for this terrain, we have to make them up on our own. I feel that it is somewhere between dismissive and ignorant to suggest that everyone just make up their own rules independent of one another. This does not help create a community of players. This does not promote "free play" of AT-43 outside published scenarios, or the two "unstructured" scenarios in the main rulebook.

The fact that a few people have their own, disparate systems which work for them does not adequately address this problem for me and for many others. For some, they just walk away from the game at this point as they feel the rules are inadequate to the task. I have chosen not to walk away, but to try and address the problem definitively because others have taken some steps towards that goal, but haven't addressed the big picture.

Players adapting rules is usually a very bad thing to do, because those rules don't always make sense. House rules come into existence usually to either address inadequacies of the rulesets which ruin play for some, or which make no sense whatsoever and are expected to be FAQ'ed or changed in the immediate future such that the players do not want to wait - but these house rules have justifications and reasons. They are not haphazard, as that just exacerbates the existing problem.

Players adapting the rules as they want is haphazard. It does not lead to a good time for those of us who take the gaming very seriously. It can lead to frustration, arguments between players about one person's rule versus another person's, and marked changes in the dynamics of play. This is why rules matter - because players should be able to focus on the tactics and strategies of a wargame, not worry about adapting the rules that govern the use of those tactics and strategies and hope that, in the process, they don't break the game mechanics that allow the game to function properly as a tactical and strategic exercise.

Thus, in the case of AT-43, we require house rules - but in order for these house rules to not be haphazard, or to break gameplay, they need to be discussed, justified, and codified.

There is not a single set of rules for 28mm terrain in AT-43 games that I am aware of. None. I don't know how to make that more clear. They do not exist.

If you don't see this as a problem, then hopefully we will not hear from you in this thread. If there are not enough people who care about AT-43 to bother having the discussion then perhaps we will hear from no one further in this thread, and people can interpret that as they will.

I think I'd like to play AT-43 without using the 2D terrain because it offends me as a tabletop wargamer. That's not why I got into the hobby.

I would also like to play AT-43 using any terrain I want while knowing that the rules I am using make sense, and aren't broken.

Thus, I think there is significant value in working together with fellow AT-43 players to come up with rules for using non-official AT-43 terrain in our AT-43 games such that if I take a trip down to Florida and bring my minis with me for a game, when I walk into a FLGS to play they handle things precisely the way I handle thing because we've all used the same rules and they work really well because we've tested them, and we can just play a game without discussing any of this.

I do not understand the resistance to this. There is a major gap in the AT-43 rules system. It's one that we can plug definitively.


So, here are the rules I've come up with so far, working with other AT-43 players, to handle non-official AT-43 terrain.


1) All terrain on the table must have a Size characteristic.

2) Any terrain which is considered “Area Terrain” in other game systems will provide a standard 5+ Cover Save, improved to 3+ as normal with a “Take Cover” drill. Any such terrain will also halve the Combat Movement of any units if even a single model moves through the terrain. You may not perform a Rush Movement through Area Terrain. Area Terrain is not considered WYSIWYG for purposes of blocking Line of Sight.

3) Rivers or other waterways will halve a Combat Movement if even a single model moves through the terrain, but will not provide a Cover Save. You may not perform a Rush Movement through a body of water, river, or other waterway.

4) For all buildings, points of entry must be discussed and specified. AFV’s may not move through building walls. For purposes of vertical movement, units may move an equal horizontal and vertical distance in their turn. An intact building will not hinder movement. A ruined building will be considered Area Terrain as above.

5) Template weapons may only strike one floor of a building at a time. In open ground, templates may strike models at different heights so long as they are under the template.


I am not married to these rules. They are a basis for discussion.

Think of pieces of terrain that these rules do not cover.

State how you think any or all of these rules may lead to breaking the AT-43 game system as it currently functions with the official terrain types.

Well, ever looked on a 40K table during 4th edition. Thanks to the scenery area rules there was close to zero scenery on the table. No wonder there wer close to zero discussions on terrain. And even now with LoS many still play on tables that look like during 4th edition.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:Well, ever looked on my 40K table during 4th edition. Thanks to the scenery area rules there was close to zero scenery on the table.

Fixed it for you.

I always played any all ground based gunfights on terrain heavy boards, the indication all along is that is what you are supposed to do. But GW never have given any official indications and tourney standard of half a dozen largish terrain items on a bowling geen crept in. Cityfight changed that, it also changed when Gw started introducing terrain in particular linear terrain which indicated that small pieces of scattered cover within reach of much of the board surface is a good idea.




I really have to back Cairnius up here, AT-43 only provides rules for stock terrain items and no rules for general terrain. The idea that we have to add in house rules for such a core element of the game system is not and acceptable excuse. In addition many cover rules and area effect rules need a thorough rewrite. Rackham need to square up to the truth that they dropped the ball.
House rule territory should ideally be reduced to doing things like home grown units or adapting outsourced armies like tyranids to the game, not fixing or even establishing a core ruleset.

Sorry, my table was always non-standard and had much more scenery on it. But you could go to any GW-store in Europe, many private games and especially tournaments and the absence of scenery was there. It seems like too many just go for stand and shoot.

So, you and me are the exceptions, not the rule.

Ahh, that's store games. They want them over quickly and want lots of space so 10 kids can put their badly painted space marine armies down on one side at one time. Terrain are just pretty decorative features.

Retail table games have a different dynamics to a proper game. Case in point if you go to a store which is also a 'hobby centre' you will find lots of wide open gaming tables in the retail shop space and terrain laden feature game boards upstairs, some with a LOT of terrain. Some such boards err the other way. I have seen very impressive but quite useless gaming boards including one of a gorge with a dam spanning it you had some cliffside space and the dam itself, 80% of the board was inaccessible to anything that doesnt flty.

This is entirely off-topic. How people handle 40K terrain in Europe has nothing to do with the problems with the AT-43 rulebook.

The Warhammer 40,000 rulebook states that 25% of the table should be covered with terrain. If someone choose to ignore that rule, then they are doing it wrong. Perhaps they don't have enough terrain. Perhaps they just want lots of open fire lanes so that they can go almost 100% shooty. Perhaps they don't like the tactical and strategic challenge of having to negotiate a table. If they choose to do this, however, this is no fault of Games Workshop's or the Warhammer 40,000 rules, as the rules are quite clear.

Hence this is not only off-topic, but entirely inappropriate for a discussion of what to do about the lack of terrain rules for AT-43. The blame in this case does lie solely with the company, hence the need to address it.

Now - does anyone have any constructive criticism of the terrain rules I posted? Or is this conversation going to disintegrate again?

Oh, someone does not like threadjacking? Maybe you now feel how everyone else feels when you are jacking their threads.

@Orlanth
Sadly most think that whats OK in the shop is also okay anywhere else. GW does itself a disservice. Scenery stuff does not sell very good in many european stores. Hopefully planetstrike changes it for the better.

Cairnius wrote:1) All terrain on the table must have a Size characteristic.

2) Any terrain which is considered “Area Terrain” in other game systems will provide a standard 5+ Cover Save, improved to 3+ as normal with a “Take Cover” drill. Any such terrain will also halve the Combat Movement of any units if even a single model moves through the terrain. You may not perform a Rush Movement through Area Terrain. Area Terrain is not considered WYSIWYG for purposes of blocking Line of Sight.

3) Rivers or other waterways will halve a Combat Movement if even a single model moves through the terrain, but will not provide a Cover Save. You may not perform a Rush Movement through a body of water, river, or other waterway.

4) For all buildings, points of entry must be discussed and specified. AFV’s may not move through building walls. For purposes of vertical movement, units may move an equal horizontal and vertical distance in their turn. An intact building will not hinder movement. A ruined building will be considered Area Terrain as above.

5) Template weapons may only strike one floor of a building at a time. In open ground, templates may strike models at different heights so long as they are under the template.

So, I do not (yet) play AT-43, but these rules look very logical to me. I'd be interested in seeing what others think who do play, especially if you play using your own terrain!

As for things that these rules do not cover- there's always impassable-type terrain (lava, bog, deep water) and possibly trenches (just thinking of terrain boards that I've seen / played on recently for 40k).

Nice rules I'd especially love to read about a test game trying them out and seeing what affect they have on the game!

Duncan Check your PM, sent you something fun to read.

Also, is there a thread where some battle reports for AT-43 have been posted? I'd like to read some reports where people have done their best to interpret the rules as they are to cover different terrain types, and hopefully soon one using these rules, to compare

Duncan_Idaho wrote:Oh, someone does not like threadjacking? Maybe you now feel how everyone else feels when you are jacking their threads.

Don't be a hypocrite, if you're admitting to it.

@ Ritides Nids -

I don't have battle reports, but I'll be able to report after Thursday how a game goes with the same terrain we use for 40K, to see it can be made compatible with AT-43 play.

Cairnius wrote:

Duncan_Idaho wrote:Oh, someone does not like threadjacking? Maybe you now feel how everyone else feels when you are jacking their threads.

Don't be a hypocrite, if you're admitting to it.

@ Ritides Nids -

I don't have battle reports, but I'll be able to report after Thursday how a game goes with the same terrain we use for 40K, to see it can be made compatible with AT-43 play.

What set rules from 40k terrain do you use?

Also take camera on Thursday , everyone would love to see pics of the battle. (turn by turn even )

I do have reports with pictures, but they are in German.

http://www.tabletopwelt.de/forum/showthread.php?t=103786