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.

@Inquistor Lord Cathrine:

If the movement rules of 3rd are even too bad for your terrain then I would suggest putting the squad on a building's level of the player's choice as soon as the unit enters the terrain piece.
When the unit leaves the building count movement as being started from the ground floor. This should guarantee that buildings don't become traps.

Another suggestion for use of intact buildings with flat roofs which we implemented back in the day:
Jump pack units which land on them don't have to test for dangerous terrain. The same goes for units which teleport on flat roofs.

One thing I also remember was the height advantage troops receive when firing at units at least TWO floor levels below them:

- Models with infantry/vehicle stat line: receive a malus of their terrain cover saves of 1.
- Models with vehicle stats are treated as being shot from the rear because of a weaker top armour.

 JNAProductions wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Strg Alt wrote:@jidmah:

OP is building terrain for home use which means he is NOT SHACKLED BY CURRENT RULES. So any input he receives may enhance his gaming experience.

Besides if you don't like my posts just mute me.

I don't see what difference playing at home. If I make terrain at home for use in 40k, I would intend that it be useable to play 40k.

.

There was a tlme when creativity was thing in 40k. Then the tournament curse spread and there's supposedly only one way to play while players chase netlists like lemmings.

What he suggests is actually playing 40k. If you have inch of creativityx

When the rules cost hundreds of dollars, I want them to be usable as-is.

This isn't like D&D where there's a GM to adjudicate outside actions-this is a competitive wargame. There's absolutely nothing wrong with adding content or tweaking if you like, but you shouldn't HAVE to to make basic things like buildings work.

BOLDED: Cancer, malignant and boring.

UNDERLINED:
Ha
40k a competitive game????? In what freakin universe

tneva82 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Strg Alt wrote:@jidmah:

OP is building terrain for home use which means he is NOT SHACKLED BY CURRENT RULES. So any input he receives may enhance his gaming experience.

Besides if you don't like my posts just mute me.

I don't see what difference playing at home. If I make terrain at home for use in 40k, I would intend that it be useable to play 40k.

.

There was a tlme when creativity was thing in 40k. Then the tournament curse spread and there's supposedly only one way to play while players chase netlists like lemmings.

What he suggests is actually playing 40k. If you have inch of creativityx

If you're not playing by the rules of some edition of 40k, you're not playing 40k. The common, codified language of the game is what makes it a cohesive gaming environment where I can walk into my local stores in California, Hawaii, Illinois, and Indiana and play a game with anybody present.



I play 6 different miniatures games, and of them, 40k is like the only one where I've met people who show so much disdain for the published rules that they go our of their way to tell people that they shouldn't play according to the rules and hold themselves 'better' for it.

I make no secret of not liking 9th edition. My personal friend group in California plays 5th Edition for this reason. But I don't expect anybody to make changes to the game just because it's what I feel like at my house, because that would undermine the basic predication of having a system of rules in the first place. Whether we play at my house, and any of my friends' houses, or at the store, it doesn't, and shouldn't change the rules we play by.



Anyway, back around to multilevel terrain. I like multilevel terrain, it's stylish and allows for the creation of a piece of terrain that's actually multiple pieces but seems bigger than it actually is. Just be aware that you'll often find walkways and things on upper levels to be decorative, because of a variety of pressures that make it not worthwhile for units to use bridges and catwalks.

Knock yourself out making terrain. I would definitely design terrain for playability: you'll get a lot better experience from an open multifloor ruin than a Fortress of Redemption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:
@Inquistor Lord Cathrine:

If the movement rules of 3rd are even too bad for your terrain then I would suggest putting the squad on a building's level of the player's choice as soon as the unit enters the terrain piece.
When the unit leaves the building count movement as being started from the ground floor. This should guarantee that buildings don't become traps.

Another suggestion for use of intact buildings with flat roofs which we implemented back in the day:
Jump pack units which land on them don't have to test for dangerous terrain. The same goes for units which teleport on flat roofs.

One thing I also remember was the height advantage troops receive when firing at units at least TWO floor levels below them:

- Models with infantry/vehicle stat line: receive a malus of their terrain cover saves of 1.
- Models with vehicle stats are treated as being shot from the rear because of a weaker top armour.

It's not bad. We've never had a problem with the terrain, I've just observed that models rarely use the upper levels for maneuver.

[One of] my terrain sets [the one in question] is a bunch of hills that are 3" tall and stack on top of one another, with arch pieces that go between, or can be placed on ground level to make a sort of ridge-barrier. Putting them in arches looks cool, but there's no purpose in going up there for infantry when they could just move across on ground floor. Even if we made the vertical movement free, there'd still be no reason to go up there for maneuver, since there's no reason they can't cross on the ground floor and they're no faster doing it up high than down low, where they also have general protection from the terrain itself.

Racerguy180 800095 11192859 wrote:
BOLDED: Cancer, malignant and boring.

UNDERLINED:
Ha
40k a competitive game????? In what freakin universe

In any where people exist that want to make it so. Long distance spiting or bonet throw can be competitive. But to be honest anything that has a scoring system is competitive by definition. Playing house, when not compared to how others play, is not competitive. A game who has a defined winner and loser, rules how to achive either state is competitive. Now I can be hard to monetise playing it or have no sponsor support. But that doesn't make it less competitive the any sport or game out there.

@JNA Productions:

People can play 40K in any way they like. Furthermore if the current rules are bad for whatever reasons most hobbyists tweak them or go to a different edition entirely.

 Strg Alt wrote:
@JNA Productions:

People can play 40K in any way they like. Furthermore if the current rules are bad for whatever reasons most hobbyists tweak them or go to a different edition entirely.

Yes, you can. But that’s not something to excuse GW making rules that don’t work well-we should not HAVE to do game design work to play, especially not when the rules themselves costs triple digits.

And as for those who say it’s not competitive, it’s a game where one side wins and the other loses. I’m not saying it’s super well-tuned or anything, but it’s still a competition.

GW wasn't interested to publish good rules since the infamous "We are a model company and not a games company" statement. Maybe even before that.

I have a choice as a player. Either I change the rules which hinder game play or I waste my time with official rules such as hitting airplanes with flamethrowers wielded by infantry.

Concerning competition there are several layers to it and the term means different things to each person. Back in the day my friends and I tried to win the game. However none of us would field cutthroat lists. So we had a code of conduct and everybody knew each other's collection of minis. There were also no intended attempts at cheating.
This all doesn't apply when playing with strangers at a GW store. And those few 40K games in such locations were often worse than the ones I had with friends for several different reasons.

Because of this thread I went and looked at Battlezone Cityfight again. What a great book! Lots of background, cool art, a battle report, some rules, and then pages and pages about building your own city from materials you'd have at home, including a chart of materials to cut and which kind of cutting device to use.

If I compare it to the 4e Cityfight book, the thing that stands out the most is how much the release of GW's own plastic terrain took so much creativity and DIY spirit out of the game. It inspired me to go and look at Jervis Johnson's Vehicle Design Rules from Chapter Approved and all the cool scratchbuilds and vehicle variants.

City rules can be a lot of fun, start at a easy base. Then work in some more interesting stuff.
May not work entirely but a good group can make it work.

Something like.
Infantry can enter a building by touching it during the movement, no need to worry about doors and such.
A infantry unit can move to the top of a small building, but has to wait and move from inside to the top with movement on the next turn.
Units inside get a cover save, just decide something your comfy with. 3+ inside, 4+ on top.
Units inside can shoot at each other, can charge and be in close combat.
Measure range from the building.
Can give a building a toughness or wounds if you feels it, when it dies. Everyone inside is lost with it.
25 to 100 wounds based on size, they cannot hide so they can take a pummeling.

Depending on the edition change things as needed

I would ad a extra turn on a big city table as well. But that’s really up to players.
It also really plays better on bigger board slightly, as the buildings can take up a lot of space.

Inform knights players they may want to pick something else to play. Or add something extra for them to be involved in the buildings better.

I've lost games I shouldn't have because of vertical terrain giving an obnoxious advantage to powerful units that can camp on top of towers with almost impunity, which was enough to swing it. So I'm not a fan

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I wouldn't call vertical terrain a "skew to exploit". I'd call vertical terrain just terrain!

Not everything need be the bog-standard boring-as-bat-gak L-shaped ITC/NOVA/LVO approved terrain set up. That gak is toxic and anti-creativity.

Build whatever height you want. Make it as tall as you can realistically make it. Have walkways at different levels. Make it big. Make lots of them so that every side of the table can have one.

But... maybe avoid completely enclosed tunnels. That could be pretty annoying from a logistics perspective. Plus you might forget something is in there.

Agreed. To me it adds another layer of depth to a game when a table has a series of walkways and gives added viability to some sub-factions/units like my Night Lords and Raptors/Warp Talons for example.

Imo, more tournament tables should include platorms, bridges, etc so it promotes better strategy and adpative tactics for Tournament players who really are trying to prove they are good in the circut.

 Strg Alt wrote:
I have a choice as a player. Either I change the rules which hinder game play or I waste my time with official rules such as hitting airplanes with flamethrowers wielded by infantry.

Ah, there it is. Did you know that complaining about flamers hitting airplanes is the same as admitting that you have no real experience with playing the last two editions?

Why is someone who clearly has no experience with the game arguing against valid points made by people that do have experience?