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.

Unfortunately, I don't get to play Warhammer 40,000 very often. When I do get to play, I play at one shop with the same group of people month in and month out. Our group of guys are pretty competitive, but they're pretty laid back about it as well. People want to be competitive without simply copy-pasting net lists from sites like Dakka or what have you. As our groups play has gotten better, I've noticed that a large percentage of our core group play "aggro" lists for lack of a better word.

When I use the term aggro, I mean lists that hope to close with you quickly and present multiple, strong assault elements. Popular lists around the shop include DoA angels, FateCrusher Daemons, Draigowing, etc. I've also noticed that we tend to use a lot of terrain - especially LOS-blocking terrain. I'm wondering if the success of lists that aren't seen as top tier competitive are seeing success due to the terrain. What does Dakka think about terrain? Will a maximized GK list win regardless of terrain? Will LongFang/ Grey Hunter spam get owned by a more assault-oriented list because of terrain?

Terrain or the lack thereof certainly is a major metagame consideration. Any kind of static, long-range shooty unit decreases in value as the amount of LOS-blocking terrain on the table goes up.

About 25% of the table should be terrain.

I think this is pretty self evident, though more so if your choice in terrain is limited in one way or another.

Lack of terrain options is the obvious reason here, but having a couple of impressive set-piece items is going to effect the terrain too.

Lots of bunkers or re-enforced cover is going to push things towards infantry, huge pieces of blocking terrain is going to encourage deathstars and CC.

It can even effect the type of games played. I've seen stores where cities of death is very common and others where many players haven't even heard of it. Some stores see tons of apacolipse. My first store never even bothered due to lack of 'encouraging' terrain.

I think this is more subconscious than intentional on the players part. It effects how they think about the game,.

At my store the others always berate me for using a lot of terrain. Yet when I set a table up I set out each piece of terrain on a quarter, and don't stop until that quarter is filled. At that point I spread out the terrain. Always a mixture of large, small, LoS, ruins, barriers, craters, etc. Most game others play have 2 big pieces and a crater or two. And of course the army who wins the most is the Imp.Guard leafblower. He refuses to play against me on any table I set up due to the terrain. Eh.

Simply put; terrain plays a significant factor in the efficiency in many army builds.

So for the more experienced tourney goers here. Do you factor in a tournament's reputation for terrain when you design a list for a tournament?

If I have repeated experiences at a place, it can come into consideration.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:So for the more experienced tourney goers here. Do you factor in a tournament's reputation for terrain when you design a list for a tournament?

Not neccesarily the specific tournament, but whenever I've designed lists for tournaments in general, I've gone on the assumption that the tables will be criminally short on terrain...

ArbitorIan wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:So for the more experienced tourney goers here. Do you factor in a tournament's reputation for terrain when you design a list for a tournament?

Not neccesarily the specific tournament, but whenever I've designed lists for tournaments in general, I've gone on the assumption that the tables will be criminally short on terrain...

I do the same thing. When I played BA, I was not without a libby toting Shield of Sanguinus. In my Wolves list now, I usually have a RP with Storm Caller. In a meta where terrain is lighter than it should be, I carry my own cover saves around!

I hope in 6e we get some more clearly defined rules regarding terrain setup. It's that unknown element that can really force you to use strategy instead of point and click.

With that said, yes, terrain really effects the metagame. It effects all games. My footslogging guard for example. If you put a forest in the middle of the map, my tactics shift. Really if you put terrain anywhere my tactics will shift.

Perhaps eventually we can get a special "bog" rule for terrain, where vehicles suffer immobilization on a 1-3, kind of giving you the idea that if your going to go through it you better go flat out or end up sinking and getting stuck.

Jirin wrote:At my store the others always berate me for using a lot of terrain. Yet when I set a table up I set out each piece of terrain on a quarter, and don't stop until that quarter is filled. At that point I spread out the terrain. Always a mixture of large, small, LoS, ruins, barriers, craters, etc. Most game others play have 2 big pieces and a crater or two. And of course the army who wins the most is the Imp.Guard leafblower. He refuses to play against me on any table I set up due to the terrain. Eh.

Players can take turns picking out terrain pieces until 25% of the table is full, then take turns setting the pieces up in their final position. Nothing for any player to have any legit gripes about. As an ig player the pieces of terrain I would grab 1st would be rivers, ponds, and swamps. They crap for cover and blocking los + chimera are amphibious. You would on the other hand get to dump a big los blocking piece of terrain on the table.

Terrain is a large influence on a game. It effects movement as well as casualties. With a heavy mech list they do well to avoid difficult terrain else they risk being immobilized. As is the same with my bike army. Though I can ignore the difficult terrain movement modifier, I still must take dangerous terrain tests. Probability coming up with one of every 6 suffering a wound it can make a heavy difference. Also the terrain can effect your shooting by blocking LOS or even providing cover saves, which can be taken against wounds that would not normally provide a save. Terrain can also effect normal movement by limiting it through difficult terrain tests as well as in assault moves.

This all being said complaining about the terrain that is on the board in my opinion is never a valid complaint. Each player is responsible for his fair share of the terrain picked and placed. Also in placing your terrain you don't guarantee any heavy advantage since your deployment isn't decided until after your terrain is chosen. If you place all your bets on one spot on the table you could be rewarded by being lucky enough to snag that spot, however it could end badly with your opponent snagging the same advantage you worked so hard to construct.

Terrain changes the game but does not guarantee that it will tip in either players hand regardless of how he attempts to place for his advantage.

Necroshea wrote:I hope in 6e we get some more clearly defined rules regarding terrain setup.

Isn't this one of the gripes of 8th Ed. WFB?

ArbitorIan wrote:Not neccesarily the specific tournament, but whenever I've designed lists for tournaments in general, I've gone on the assumption that the tables will be criminally short on terrain...

This, a thousand times this.

I accidentally voted no because I'm high and misread it. I meant yes. Happy new year everybody!

For the longest time at my club, we left the center of the table wide open, and armies with high volumes of firepower tended to dominate....however, now we've taken to putting a big building or hill, right in the center (Nova-Open style) it's changed the way games go. Most games were either a charge down the middle or a shoot out...but now its more complex

Also, we have some Tau terrain that everyone both loves and hates. We love it because its detailed and well done and just, generally good looking. We hate it because the buildings are round or sloped, so if you make them difficult, its impossible to get a model to stand on them. Most of the time, we just call them impassable. A lot of us have gotten into the habit of hiding behind terrain rather than standing models on it as a result.

puma713 wrote:

Necroshea wrote:I hope in 6e we get some more clearly defined rules regarding terrain setup.

Isn't this one of the gripes of 8th Ed. WFB?

Some players love it some players hate it.

The problem most players have with 8th ed WFB isn't the random terrain generator, it's every piece of terrain being some type of special or mystery terrain which starts to slow down the game.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:So for the more experienced tourney goers here. Do you factor in a tournament's reputation for terrain when you design a list for a tournament?

Not neccesarily the specific tournament, but whenever I've designed lists for tournaments in general, I've gone on the assumption that the tables will be criminally short on terrain...

Or, there is enough terrain, but none of it really blocks LOS to anything (forests made of felt with one or two trees on it, ruins that you can see right through, barricades etc...).

I've learned to provide my own cover saves and in fact, have built my army around going in Reserve to avoid the alpha strike that will cripple my army on turn 1.

I tend to set up terrain for most games I play, be it because I'm hosting or I tend to arrive to meet ups at the FLGS early. When I do I make sure to set the board up so that their are similar elements on both sides. And some large piece in the center. I usually ask my opponent if they think it is good and I've almost never had anyone ask me to change things in any significant way.

A good player with a good armylist shouldn't need terrain, make use of it when it is there, but don't count on it.

I play with my friends most of the time, and I'm usually the person who always sets up the board. I have certain 'criteria' to fill when I go through set up.

I try to keep it to about 25% of the board.
I try to make an "open" part somewhere on the board.
The area terrain with the biggest footprint (forests) usually get placed out of the way or along the sides to balance them out (A forest smack dab in the middle sucks when you're playing against a horde army.)
I think at least one piece that largely blocks LOS is necessary and adds a lot of fun.

And to determine if I have set up the board well or not, is when I can't decide which side I want because they both have pro's and con's.

In the end, I think a balanced list is key, then terrain has little effect on you. But if you're spamming one strategy, then I have no sympathy for oyu when the terrain isn't in your favor.

My little blue friends being an exception. =]

Sarigar wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:So for the more experienced tourney goers here. Do you factor in a tournament's reputation for terrain when you design a list for a tournament?

Not neccesarily the specific tournament, but whenever I've designed lists for tournaments in general, I've gone on the assumption that the tables will be criminally short on terrain...

Or, there is enough terrain, but none of it really blocks LOS to anything (forests made of felt with one or two trees on it, ruins that you can see right through, barricades etc...).

I think GW badly underestimated how lazy many gamers and stores-owners are. All those felt forests with one or two trees on them, or ruins full of windows, used to block LOS completely if the two units were on opposite sides of them. Per the 3rd ed and 4th ed Area Terrain rules. LOS-blocking used to be cheap and omnipresent. Way too many people have failed to build proper 5th ed terrain with more buildings and hills to approach the old amounts of LOS-blocking.

As for tournaments, I think this is basically it:

Thor665 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:Not neccesarily the specific tournament, but whenever I've designed lists for tournaments in general, I've gone on the assumption that the tables will be criminally short on terrain...

This, a thousand times this.

Mannahnin wrote:I think GW badly underestimated how lazy many gamers and stores-owners are... Way too many people have failed to build proper 5th ed terrain with more buildings and hills to approach the old amounts of LOS-blocking.

As for the OP, the reason you're likely seeing lots of aggressive armies is that people have been slowly but surely adapting more and more to 5th ed rules over time. 5th ed has LOTS of rules that favor in-your-face armies. The only reason that they're not completely prevalent in tournaments, in my mind, is because of now notorious tournaments are with either insufficient, or poor quality terrain. That a game of 40k will be somewhat skewed when a venue has to have many games playing simultaneously in a limited space with limited time is enough to make anyone who wants to win adapt to that particular meta.

Thaylen wrote:A good player with a good armylist shouldn't need terrain, make use of it when it is there, but don't count on it.

What?

That's like saying that a good army list shouldn't rely on movement, or shouldn't rely on rolling dice. Terrain is explicitly included in the game, and other rules exist explicitly because of the existence of terrain, much less the unit balances in the codecies.

In an ideal world, a person might never need to use terrain, or may never have to get into close combat, or may have any other goody notions, depending on what the person considers ideal, but making "should" statements is a reflection on that ideal, not on the rules, and thus the game itself. It would be like playing blackjack and, when your cards come up a 5 and a 6 deciding to stay, rather than taking another card because "good blackjack players shouldn't rely on face cards".

Furthermore, you only have so much say over if you're going to use terrain or not. If I bring a list that's nothing but lascannon and battlecannon spam, you're using terrain, or you're likely losing the game. Your opponent has about as much influence of if you're using terrain or not, or if you're getting into close combat or not, or if you're anything or not as much as you do.

Ailaros makes some good points (thus gets an EXALT!). I've noticed a prevalence of mobile infantry armies at our store. This includes anything with a jump pack or jet pack, and things like bikes, or beasts as they tend to have the speed to either get around the big LOS blocking terrain (while benefiting from the cover) or just jump over it completely. Alot of the deep-striking armies rely on icons or special rules (descent of angels, teleport homers, icons etc..) due to the sheer danger of deep striking on our boards.

I'm not saying that we have too much terrain or that it's a bad thing. I've been playing Tau for years and as our shop has become more and more committed to maintaining and updating our terrain stocks, I've seen the shift in my own lists as a result. My Broadsides, long a staple of my lists, have increased competition from piranhas and hammerheads. Pathfinders, which used to be a tier 2 choice (in other words, the first thing I took after I took the "essentials") have now been bumped up to a tier 1 choice.

My nascent Space Wolf list has eschewed the traditional MSU RazorSpam at least to a degree for a large "in your face" HTH threat in the form of Wolf Guard Terminators or Thunderwolves. I've noticed that the meta at our shop now places an almost equal importance on mobility and cover ignoring or negating advantages (assault grenades, flamers etc.) as they do on melta guns and missile launchers. When you show up to a tournament at our shop, you will probably play a game on a board with TONS of LOS blocking but little in the way of area terrain, a game with alost nothing but area terrain, and a game with a mix of the two.

I'm happy with the meta and the state of the game at our shop, but I wanted to see how people's own experienced either mirrored or contradicted my own.

Thor665 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:Not neccesarily the specific tournament, but whenever I've designed lists for tournaments in general, I've gone on the assumption that the tables will be criminally short on terrain...

This, a thousand times this.

Agreed

Yes.....

But seriously it heavily impacts it. My Nids only make appearances now where I can expect 25% terrain that includes some large LoS blocking pieces. I think terrain is the single largest driving force as to why the tournament scene the last 2 years has been so heavily dominated by IG and Space Wolf shooty lists.

Indeed. I've noticed that the more people who show at our monthly tourneys, the better the "net lists" tend to do. As our terrain at our shop is used to fill more tables the sparser it gets.

Ailaros wrote:

Thaylen wrote:A good player with a good armylist shouldn't need terrain, make use of it when it is there, but don't count on it.

What?

That's like saying that a good army list shouldn't rely on movement, or shouldn't rely on rolling dice. Terrain is explicitly included in the game, and other rules exist explicitly because of the existence of terrain, much less the unit balances in the codecies.

In an ideal world, a person might never need to use terrain, or may never have to get into close combat, or may have any other goody notions, depending on what the person considers ideal, but making "should" statements is a reflection on that ideal, not on the rules, and thus the game itself. It would be like playing blackjack and, when your cards come up a 5 and a 6 deciding to stay, rather than taking another card because "good blackjack players shouldn't rely on face cards".

Furthermore, you only have so much say over if you're going to use terrain or not. If I bring a list that's nothing but lascannon and battlecannon spam, you're using terrain, or you're likely losing the game. Your opponent has about as much influence of if you're using terrain or not, or if you're getting into close combat or not, or if you're anything or not as much as you do.

I was more aiming at the point that you shouldn't count on a specific type of terrain being on the table when you build a list. Some lists may benefit from a certain kind of terrain, but if they fail w/o that specific terrain the list is kinda suspect. Kroot are halfway decent on a forest board, but aren't worth anything in city-fight.

Jirin wrote:At my store the others always berate me for using a lot of terrain. Yet when I set a table up I set out each piece of terrain on a quarter, and don't stop until that quarter is filled. At that point I spread out the terrain. Always a mixture of large, small, LoS, ruins, barriers, craters, etc. Most game others play have 2 big pieces and a crater or two. And of course the army who wins the most is the Imp.Guard leafblower. He refuses to play against me on any table I set up due to the terrain. Eh.

That's how I do it too. I find the game at it's most interesting with a good mix like that - different cover saves, area terrain, different LoS-blocking stuff, etc, and I think the 25% is a good benchmark. I think the terrain affects the meta fo sho - i know my FLGS has alot of fluffy, detailed boards, with alot of little things that demand terrain rolls, upon which more terrain is placed... making dozers more valuable. On other boards where the terrain is more... traditional, in the sense of well defined areas of terrain (hills, woods, ruins), open lanes mean vehicles often don't have to touch terrain at all, even tho there may be the same total amount out there.