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.

One of the big things about 40K for me is cool models and cool terrain. However, the terrain also needs to be playable. I've found myself on many a table at the FLGS or event where the terrain is a pain in the rear to place models. I've got my own terrain and gaming mat and the stuff is playable, but it gets a bit cumbersome to bring my own stuff to a local game shop. Not impossible, but not as easy as grabbing my army case and going.

Is your local terrain more in line with 7th edition?

Looking at the rules for terrain reminded me of 4th edition's area terrain. The current rules for 'rubble' are simple; if a model is in the rubble, it gets a 4+ save (minus vehicles who still need to be obscured). For ease of gameplay, one can simply place a piece of gray felt, for example, and cover is set up. It doesn't look pretty, but it is playable. But, I can easily make 'rubble' with very little material and with a little work, make it visually appealing. For whatever reason, I have several of the Warhammer Fantasy movement trays that you could customize the size. I'm using them as the base, since they are relatively flat and sturdy as the basis for my rubble; sturdy being the key as I travel with my stuff.

While GW wants us to buy their specific kits in which GW wrote rules for, they did give us generic rules so we can still do our own thing. I've found that over the years, our terrain collections morphed to such a point that a lot of terrain I see are 'ruins'. Combine 'Ruins' with the Strategic Warlord Table (and CAD Warlords for a reroll), and having 'ruins' be this massive piece of terrain, where area terrain exisited, getting Conqueror of Cities is simply a no brainer.

I can definitely see the need for a couple of LOS blocking pieces of terrain, but I also see the need clean up some of massive city block style terrain pieces which have two detriments: difficulty to game on and providing too much of an incentive to roll for Conqueror of Cities.

Am I the only one that experiences this?

7th is balanced around tables cluttered with tall, line of sight blocking terrain, enough of which to allow for more dynamic games versus static gunlines. Area terrain works in concept, and worked quite well before True Line of Sight was implemented in 6th. True Line of Sight makes abstract terrain somewhat useless, and Area terrain is still abstract terrain. Sure, its great that your infantry get a goid cover save while in the open, but it's not so good when a WraithKnight gets the same save in the open.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
7th is balanced around tables cluttered with tall, line of sight blocking terrain, enough of which to allow for more dynamic games versus static gunlines. Area terrain works in concept, and worked quite well before True Line of Sight was implemented in 6th. True Line of Sight makes abstract terrain somewhat useless, and Area terrain is still abstract terrain. Sure, its great that your infantry get a goid cover save while in the open, but it's not so good when a WraithKnight gets the same save in the open.

SJ

Sadly my club limits the terrain to a very small amount per table. Guardsmen. On an open field. Ha ha.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
7th is balanced around tables cluttered with tall, line of sight blocking terrain, enough of which to allow for more dynamic games versus static gunlines. Area terrain works in concept, and worked quite well before True Line of Sight was implemented in 6th. True Line of Sight makes abstract terrain somewhat useless, and Area terrain is still abstract terrain. Sure, its great that your infantry get a goid cover save while in the open, but it's not so good when a WraithKnight gets the same save in the open.

SJ

This is false. 7th ed isn't balanced around anything other than making GW more more. Piling in more terrain can make you even more vulnerable to move shoot move shenanigans from the power lists of Tau and Eldar. Most clubs and groups don't use or even have tall, LOS blocking terrain anyway.

In my experience, all of the stores, clubs and tournaments I've been to around my current city have enough variety in their terrain to make for enjoyable games of 40k.

There's everything from giant LOS-blocking rock formations, to forests [official and homemade], to the ubiquitous ruins [I've seen and even used ruins that were five levels high], bastions, and bunkers [even some neat scratch bunkers].

The one thing I haven't seen around here is any really amazing boards where the board itself is built to convey a certain type of environment - i.e. no canyons or trenches cut into the foam, or sewers/docks right on the board itself. I can understand why, I guess - it's time consuming, not so easy to store, and not as customizable.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Sadly my club limits the terrain to a very small amount per table. Guardsmen. On an open field. Ha ha.

Can you make and bring your own terrain? Because 7e 40k is just a strategy-less dicefest without quite a bit LOS blocking terrain to maneuver around and disrupt long-ranged shooting.

Don't make this mistake:

If it comes down to it, stack some books and boxes on the table.

Martel732 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
7th is balanced around tables cluttered with tall, line of sight blocking terrain, enough of which to allow for more dynamic games versus static gunlines. Area terrain works in concept, and worked quite well before True Line of Sight was implemented in 6th. True Line of Sight makes abstract terrain somewhat useless, and Area terrain is still abstract terrain. Sure, its great that your infantry get a goid cover save while in the open, but it's not so good when a WraithKnight gets the same save in the open.

SJ

This is false. 7th ed isn't balanced around anything other than making GW more more. Piling in more terrain can make you even more vulnerable to move shoot move shenanigans from the power lists of Tau and Eldar. Most clubs and groups don't use or even have tall, LOS blocking terrain anyway.

Your anecdotal statement is a contradiction. How can you be subject to move-shoot-move shenanigans whe most clubs and groupd don't have tall, LoS blocking terrain? I know it's the fear of change that is revealed in your post, but do you see that?

SJ

It doesn't need to be that tall for jetbikes or warp spiders or crisis suits to hide behind it. It needs to be ginormus to block my BA from an IK. Do you see that now? There is some LoS blocking terrain, yes. But it just seems to make things worse and move shoot move lists, imo. Also, the more things that TWC have to hide behind also makes them more and more invincible for my list. There's no winning for BA when it comes to terrain. This makes me doubt whether it balances anything at all. Some units are just way too durable for their cost (TWC) or way too killy for their cost (scatterbikes). Period.

Christ that Tau Vs Tyranids farce of a game was devastatingly depressing. Highlights just how important terrain is, especially with so much OP non-sense going on from some factions.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Christ that Tau Vs Tyranids farce of a game was devastatingly depressing. Highlights just how important terrain is, especially with so much OP non-sense going on from some factions.

It doesn't fix the game, just skews from one OP unit to another. If your units aren't OP to start with, the terrain won't save you. For example, if my BA do make it to the Eldar units, they lose in assault because the WKs kill everything in my list trivially.

Martel732 wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
Christ that Tau Vs Tyranids farce of a game was devastatingly depressing. Highlights just how important terrain is, especially with so much OP non-sense going on from some factions.

It doesn't fix the game, just skews from one OP unit to another. If your units aren't OP to start with, the terrain won't save you. For example, if my BA do make it to the Eldar units, they lose in assault because the WKs kill everything in my list trivially.

Aye I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just reckon having terrain will help a bit when it comes to that sort of nonsense.

In this particular matchup, that's clear.

But what if the Tyranid player wants to get some shots on TWC before they start Pacmaning all his big bugs? Oops, there's terrain in the way.

I don't know why you're questioning hypothetical scenarios - I said I don't disagree with you.

 Wulfmar wrote:
I don't know why you're questioning hypothetical scenarios - I said I don't disagree with you.

I'm pointing it out for others. I'm just making it clear why I think this for non-posters. In case of confusion.

Martel732 wrote:
In this particular matchup, that's clear.

But what if the Tyranid player wants to get some shots on TWC before they start Pacmaning all his big bugs? Oops, there's terrain in the way.

Well, a wall is the smallest maze you can get stuck in ... if you don't bother to go around.

SJ

7th E has to be played like Cities of Death. If you can drive a rhino anywhere, you are doing it wrong

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
7th E has to be played like Cities of Death. If you can drive a rhino anywhere, you are doing it wrong

That seems like TWC automatically win, then.

Martel732 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
7th E has to be played like Cities of Death. If you can drive a rhino anywhere, you are doing it wrong

That seems like TWC automatically win, then.

Not so much. You can position your ranged units to take advantage of lanes of fire, and take apart deathstars that approach predictable opennings. The major benefit to tall terrain is it prevents one side from killing other in a single turn at 72". It stops Superheavies and Gargantuans from deleting units each turn without effort. Sure, it also forces gunlines to stop being point and click, but that's a feature, not a flaw.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
7th E has to be played like Cities of Death. If you can drive a rhino anywhere, you are doing it wrong

That seems like TWC automatically win, then.

Not so much. You can position your ranged units to take advantage of lanes of fire, and take apart deathstars that approach predictable opennings. The major benefit to tall terrain is it prevents one side from killing other in a single turn at 72". It stops Superheavies and Gargantuans from deleting units each turn without effort. Sure, it also forces gunlines to stop being point and click, but that's a feature, not a flaw.

SJ

"Lanes of fire" means you can drive a Rhino. Lanes of fire mean that Tau and Eldar abuse said lanes of fire with move shoot move to never take any damage in return. And you need more than one firing opportunity to stop TWC. I don't see how this does anything but play kingmaker to units you like better.

Basically you are giving mobile gunlines, death stars, and drop lists advantages over static gun lines. I don't see the improvement except I get to lose to a slightly different field.

Martel732 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
7th E has to be played like Cities of Death. If you can drive a rhino anywhere, you are doing it wrong

That seems like TWC automatically win, then.

Not so much. You can position your ranged units to take advantage of lanes of fire, and take apart deathstars that approach predictable opennings. The major benefit to tall terrain is it prevents one side from killing other in a single turn at 72". It stops Superheavies and Gargantuans from deleting units each turn without effort. Sure, it also forces gunlines to stop being point and click, but that's a feature, not a flaw.

SJ

"Lanes of fire" means you can drive a Rhino. Lanes of fire mean that Tau and Eldar abuse said lanes of fire with move shoot move to never take any damage in return. And you need more than one firing opportunity to stop TWC. I don't see how this does anything but play kingmaker to units you like better.

Basically you are giving mobile gunlines, death stars, and drop lists advantages over static gun lines. I don't see the improvement except I get to lose to a slightly different field.

I can't help you be a better player, I can only point out the box you are stuck in and encourage you to look outside of. Your "in a vacuum" arguments are not based in facts, just fear based analogies and anecdotes. Restricting points of contact does, by definition, restrict the points at which contact is made. Scatterbikes can be cornered, JSJs can be boxed in, 8" tall D-cannons can be hidden from. A person suck in a box can only see the box they are stuck in. I've already offered you a hand out of your mental prison, but I'm not going to pull you out.

SJ

Okay, whatever. You are getting insulting and condescending. The terrain you describe is not going to be used in my play group anyway. It both doesn't exist and will not be accepted as reasonable.

BA can't box anything in because they die getting there or lose the assault to WK. But keep on telling me how much terrain will help.

Most of my argument are based off facts, actually. I've watched an Eldar player dissect assault lists with a terrain heavy board. JSJ is only made stronger by heavy terrain. Just to be clear, even 8" terrain wouldn't stop Eldar from shooting, only being shot in return. I don't see how that's helpful. You can't box in JSJs with dead models. I just don't think I'm getting through on that point.

I prefer lots of terrain for the reasons you stated, I want you to have to move in order to shoot, assault, and take objectives. I find that combined with maelstrom objectives you reward players for taking a flexable list that can move.

I also find that lots of terrain hurts deathstars to a degree. Sure it's harder for them to be shoot off the board, but if you have lots of terrain that is solid and can't be moved through they waste time walking around things. Spread your units out and have guys ready to sacrafice as a road bump, play to the objectives and win.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I prefer lots of terrain for the reasons you stated, I want you to have to move in order to shoot, assault, and take objectives. I find that combined with maelstrom objectives you reward players for taking a flexable list that can move.

I also find that lots of terrain hurts deathstars to a degree. Sure it's harder for them to be shoot off the board, but if you have lots of terrain that is solid and can't be moved through they waste time walking around things. Spread your units out and have guys ready to sacrafice as a road bump, play to the objectives and win.

Exactly.

SJ

Terrain is an important factor in a game. The video posted above is a good example of how it can impact the game; and I found it painful to watch as well.

I think it comes down to two main areas. What terrain you have, and how you set it up.

GW offers a large number of kits for sale, of which a large number are area terrain ruins. However they do offer bunkers, fortress' , and scatter terrain as well. Depending on your play group you may have more of one type than another. I do understand what the OP is getting at when he says that too much ruins makes Conqueror of Cities appealing. But really in the end the onus is on you and your play group to have a diverse set of terrain. Of course if you play at a store you might be limited to what they have available. Luckily my local GW has a very large and wide range of terrain available for use. And since my wife and I bought our house, I have delved more into building terrain as I have more space to store it. And as the OP mentioned, when I make terrain I try to make it have character but also make it playable as well.

When it comes to putting it on the table, more is better in my opinion. And there is a strategic element when placing terrain as well; consider your army, your opponents army, and the mission you'll be playing.

GW's city kits are also pretty awesome. They don't cost too much and they are very customization.

On top of the concept of all battles being fought in incredibly crowded areas being patently absurd, many death stars fly, move through cover or use gate of infinity. Heavy terrain makes it so lists like ig and ba have even less of a chance because our individual units suck and we need the units to be able to support each other.

Again, use solid terrain Aka, no moving through anything. Further a Board with heavy terrain would be a nightmare for GOI. Again impassible terrain means a mishap.

The topic was not about the amount of terrain. It was the overusage of ruins as opposed to other terrain and how challenging large ruins can be to actually game on. Ease of placing models and getting away from the no brainer choice of fishing for Conqueror of Cities because I see so many tables in which most of the table is covered in Ruins. All ruins don't necessarily provide LoS blocking and one could just as easily use the rules for Rubble to mitigate the Warlord Table one sided choice. And they could be completely flat for ease of game play as there is no 25% obscured requirement. There are a few pieces like this and even ruins don't require 25% obscurement (outside of vehicles).

For BA players, there is a BA triple Stormraven formation that allows turn 1 or 2 assaults. Folks initially argued it could not turn 1 assault but both NOVA and ITC allows it. I play Eldar and can attest it hits hard.

I dislike the 7th terrain rules, in most of the games I still use 6th rules for most of the terrain.