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.

My proposition is made with the intent of making vehicles a little more reliable on the battlefield when it comes to movement. The change would simply be that any vehicle that moves through difficult terrain (or dangerous as it gets upgraded to this when the vehicle moves through it) rolls a D6, on a 1 the vehicle suffers one HP of damage. The controlling player then rolls a second D6 and on a 1,2,3 the vehicle is immobilised and on a 4,5,6 the vehicle is unaffected (but still takes the 1HP damage).

Alternatively change the immobilised effect as a result of dangerous terrain for vehicles to only last 1 round and then the vehicle is considered to have gotten un-stuck after that and is no longer immobilised (but it still takes the HP damage).

Lastly We could do away with the HP damage from dangerous terrain to vehicles all together and instead on a 1 the vehicle is immobilised for either 1 turn or the rest of the game (whichever sounds more balanced in this case).

This is just a small change but I feel it would let people who run vehicles in their army feel more secure with their movements as currently vehicles suffer more from dangerous terrain than infantry (at least infantry gets their armour save) and they suffer much more from difficult terrain as opposed to their MC counterparts.

So what do you guys think? Any of these options seem appealing? None of them and keep the current system? Any alternatives you think would be better?

I'd have it set at "get stuck for a turn", but no HP loss. Seriously, this is pretty dumb.

I wouldn't go so far as to give every vehicle Move Through Cover, though certainly some should have it. (Land Raiders, Monoliths at the very least.)

I'd drop Dangerous Terrain for vehicles entirely. All it does is make every vehicle that isn't a Land Raider 5pts more expensive and make us sit and roll a few extra dice that do nothing 97% of the time but the other 3% of the time get to drastically alter the outcome of the game. (Also whose idea was it that Land Raiders needed to have an easier time getting stuck than everyone else?)

Difficult terrain needs a rework itself, nevermind interaction with units/vehicles.
At worst it should slow a vehicle down. Maybe strip a HP if a 1 is rolled.

Thanks for the replies Ratius and AnomanderRake. My thinking was that any vehicle that had wargear for re-rolling dangerous terrain would just auto-pass the dangerous terrain check instead.

AnomanderRake I feel you're right about how much it affects the game. I can't even count the number of time a transport carrying important troops for me got stuck and so it's payload was never able to make it to the fight (either got shot while footslogging or were simply too far away to be of use) especially in the case of melee units. Or a vehicle with only a front firing arc get stuck facing in some silly direction and so it can't fire it's weapon all game due to lack of targets. Getting immobilised can really dampen a vehicles effectiveness and in turn your ability to put up a good fight in the match. It is really punitive considering all you did wrong was take a vehicle instead of a MC.

I like the idea of difficult terrain slowing a vehicle down a bit. What do you think would be a good method of representing this?

Personally I'd like to see difficult terrain changed from a random move distance to a simple -2 inches for everything. It would simplify the movement phase (it's already implemented in the assault phase) and could just be a blanket rule for all models. Less dice rolling to slow the game down, no getting screwed by random dice distance and only moving 1 inch sometimes. It also allows you to tactically pre-empt where you or your enemy will be because the movement is no longer randomized. Would this be fair?

Half movement while in terrain (the Warmachine approach) is probably too complicated to implement with 40k's treatment of units. I'd be on board with -2" movement to infantry and most vehicles, but it might let Bikes/Jetbikes and Skimmers off too easily. I'll think about it and get back to you.

What if the amendment was made that if you move more than 4" in difficult terrain then you impose a dangerous terrain check? So jump infantry, vehicles, bikes. The option to go fast through it 10" (12" movement -2" for DT) exists but then you run the risk of hitting something and have to roll dangerous. Since most models have an armour save then a roll of 1 is a wound and vehicles would go by one of my options where they lose a HP and may be immobilised for 1 round? That also means that if a vehicle moves 4" in DT that it doesn't risk hurting itself, that way it doesn't punish vehicles trying to re-position while in DT.

Does anyone really like dangerous terrain , where units randomly get destroyed for no sensible reason what so ever?

Why not just have difficult terrain and very difficult terrain?

Difficult terrain halves movement ,(rounding up)

Very Difficult terrain means you can only move up to standard rate, or shoot counting as having moved.(You can only assault units you are in contact with in the assault phase!No running or moving into assault in very difficult terrain.)

Lanrak wrote:
Does anyone really like dangerous terrain , where units randomly get destroyed for no sensible reason what so ever?

Yes, I like Dangerous Terrain. But, Dangerous Terrain is not "units getting randomly destroyed for no sensible reason whatsoever". Dangerous Terrain is you are going through something that MAY damage you to the point you cannot operate in the fight as effectively as before. If your unit goes through a deadly gas field and it gets past some of their respiration, then they will die. It is a question of risk and reward. Is the reward of taking the shorter path worth the risk imposed on your troops? If something is not risky, it is not Dangerous. If it is instantly deadly, it is Impassable.

The reason why some Difficult Terrain changes to Dangerous Terrain is because somethings are difficult to some things and dangerous to others. An infantryman or animal can navigate tank traps relatively easily (and may be slowed down by it), while a Vehicle will not. It is easier for a person running and walking to negotiate a ruin then one falling out from the sky after having their jump boosted by a rocket or jet burst.

If you don't like the risk of Dangerous Terrain, don't use it, and avoid it. You and your opponent are game organizers who determines the classification of Terrain on your battlefield. Live up to it.

@Charistoph.
Fair point, if you like this sort of randomness that is fine and dandy.

And it would be great as an optional house rule players could use if they wanted to.(Like Andy Cs optional 'creature feature' rules, with man eating plants and optional mounts for units etc.)

But if you want straight forward rules for a tactical war game I think the 4 states of terrain , open, difficult, very difficult ,and impassable , works better.

As each has a proportionally more severe effect on tactical choices.

I understand some people like to roll the dice and see what random stuff happens, and they can sort of make up a story afterwards about what happened.
'Forge the narrative' tm GW plc.

As this needs very little investment from the player and so it has mass appeal to collectors and children.(GW s target demographic according to Jervis and Rick.)

But I would like proper tactical war game rules for 40k.(I may be in the minority here obviously. )

I think the only time something should take DAMAGE from terrain is if the terrain is inherently deadly.

Like a Mine Field or some equivalent. If the tank dropped off a cliff then it would take damage. etc...

Not "Oh no, we hit a pot hole! tank died!"

Lanrak wrote:@Charistoph.
Fair point, if you like this sort of randomness that is fine and dandy.

Yes, I know, you think randomness is bad rules design. Life has loads of randomness to it, though, or at least the culmination of thousands of decisions that stretch back beyond remembrance from the quality inspector of the equipment to spending just that one more minute with a child on development, to the exact second a shot is fired etc, which ends up in an otherwise random result.

But you missed the single key point I made, it presents a concept of risk vs reward. Do you dare move that Vehicle into the Ruins for better cover with the possibility that it may not be able to move itself out? Do you run your men through that field of gas/explosions/minefields so they can get in to a better engagement zone quicker and hoping their equipment doesn't fail partway through, or that they trip and fall exposing them to the dangers?

Randomness helps portray that concept of providing the element of risk (even though for some it is less a danger than others) that you literally cannot portray through any other method. And leaving out that element of randomness makes the entire system even more abstract than is the target of the game.

Lanrak wrote:And it would be great as an optional house rule players could use if they wanted to.(Like Andy Cs optional 'creature feature' rules, with man eating plants and optional mounts for units etc.)

Since both players have to agree on what the Terrain is and does before Deployment, then it is not House Rules.

Lanrak wrote:But if you want straight forward rules for a tactical war game I think the 4 states of terrain , open, difficult, very difficult ,and impassable , works better.

As each has a proportionally more severe effect on tactical choices.

I understand some people like to roll the dice and see what random stuff happens, and they can sort of make up a story afterwards about what happened.
'Forge the narrative' tm GW plc.

As this needs very little investment from the player and so it has mass appeal to collectors and children.(GW s target demographic according to Jervis and Rick.)

But I would like proper tactical war game rules for 40k.(I may be in the minority here obviously. )

You can't have a "proper tactical war game" without realizing there are elements out of both player's control, because that is not how war works. War is not clean like Chess is. It is filled with events which are not under complete control by either party.

Randomness in a game is tied to certain actions to reflect that, and GW has stated as such. Now, this isn't to say that there isn't too much randumbness in 40K, but the interactions with Terrain is not one of them. If anything, it is too easy for things to survive something that is designed (in most cases) to kill soldiers and mire tanks on the battlefield.

By removing such situations of randomness, you make the game more abstract. The more abstract a game is, the less it reflects the "proper tactical" situations war provides. One cannot reduce randomness to increase the level of "proper" when it comes to representing war.

Now, are you going to properly reference those "statements" so that we can research what Jervis and Rick actually said, or are you just going to continue name dropping and hope no one calls you on it?

Engine of War wrote:I think the only time something should take DAMAGE from terrain is if the terrain is inherently deadly.

Like a Mine Field or some equivalent. If the tank dropped off a cliff then it would take damage. etc...

Not "Oh no, we hit a pot hole! tank died!"

And that level of detail can be determined by the game organizers, i.e. YOU. Scenery is set up to taste, and "can be placed upon the battlefield in any way the players find agreeable". The rules for each piece can either be the set rules that come from GW, they can just be purely ornamental and to block Line of Sight, or they can be set up as exotic as you want (i.e. Tank Trap field vs a lava flow crust).

My argument is not ,there should be no element of the game out of the control of the players.

But war game development should not focus on the exclusive goal of reducing player control (and in game decision making).

From my experience it is much harder to write rules that generate complex tactical game play, with levels of imbalance that do not impede the enjoyment of random pick up games.While clearly defining the intended game play,as briefly as possible.

Compared to just writing down cool sounding ideas randomly,and rolling a D6 to see if something happens.

You can enjoy playing YOUR version (eg what you agree with your opponent how to interpret/implement ,) a game of 40k.

But people wanting a war game with a quality of rules writing and game play on a par with other war games .Are very often dissapointed with the lack of tactical depth , clarity and brevity 40k offers in comparison.

Lanrak wrote:
My argument is not ,there should be no element of the game out of the control of the players.

But war game development should not focus on the exclusive goal of reducing player control (and in game decision making).

And Dangerous Terrain is NOT one of them. Aside from when movement/deployment uses Scatter, every single instance in which Dangerous Terrain is a conscious and deliberate choice of the player. This is a an opportunity for players to make a risk/reward decision.

Lanrak wrote:
From my experience it is much harder to write rules that generate complex tactical game play, with levels of imbalance that do not impede the enjoyment of random pick up games.While clearly defining the intended game play,as briefly as possible.

Compared to just writing down cool sounding ideas randomly,and rolling a D6 to see if something happens.

None of which Dangerous Terrain falls in to. You want an example of that, look at the craziness that Chaos Marines deal with in "Chaos Boons". Ask a Necron player why he doesn't field more C'tan or the Tesseract Vault. Ask an Ork player how they feel about the current version of "Mob Rule". All of those fit that concept of "a rule sounding cool and rolling a D6 to see what happens". Dangerous Terrain does not, and Dangerous Terrain is the subject of this thread.

Lanrak wrote:
You can enjoy playing YOUR version (eg what you agree with your opponent how to interpret/implement ,) a game of 40k.

But people wanting a war game with a quality of rules writing and game play on a par with other war games .Are very often dissapointed with the lack of tactical depth , clarity and brevity 40k offers in comparison.

Do you have a poll representing a proper study from a legitimate research group on that, or is that just the opinion of you and your local group?

I don't disagree on 40K's lack of clarity, that is why YMDC has a constant influx of posts. Brevity is a matter of opinion, some like all the rules, some do not, some think there should be MORE rules. Some feel it has sufficient depth, some do not. I do not believe that any group of the last two thoughts are in any actual majority as there are quite a few who just take it as it comes because they want to play with their toy soldiers. But otherwise, you are projecting without reference.

@Charistoph.
I was responding directly to your argument.

''By removing such situations of randomness, you make the game more abstract. The more abstract a game is, the less it reflects the "proper tactical" situations war provides. One cannot reduce randomness to increase the level of "proper" when it comes to representing war. ''

I totally agree good war games offer players risk and reward tactical decisions in every part of the game play.

EG
A choice between mobility and fire power.(Made in the command or movement phase.)

A choice between ease of hitting and direct threat loading in the to hit with shooting.

A choice between trying to destroy/disable one unit or suppress multiple units.

A choice between withdrawing from assault with the unit still functioning.Or sacrificing the unit to buy other units time.

To name but a few...

If you look at Epic SM or Epic Armageddon , both these games have much more tactical depth than the current 7th ed ruled for 40k.
But have a fraction of the pages of rules .

My point is 40k has such a lack of tactical depth at its core it has to resort to gimmicky 'risk or reward ' rules.

Other games tend to reduce mobility or actions available in different types of terrain.This is perhaps a more subtle risk and reward system GW plc sales think their target demographic will not understand?

My opinion about falling interest in 40k from war gamers , is simply down to two things happening over the last decade or so.

Using GW plc own financial reports they have lost over half of their sales volumes .Coupled with the expansion and growth of new war game systems that are growing in support despite an alleged failing market.

If you agree clarity is important.(Proper proof reading and editing.based on the correct use of the English language, and establish bench marks in lay out of information )

Then surely you can agree it is important to use proper use of things like game mechanics, resolution methods and stats , deliver a well developed game.
As this reduced the amount of information needed to tell the players how the game works in the first place.

You are aware that the number of words used in a rule set is not directly proportional to the amount of tactical depth in the game?

A rule set like any instruction is supposed to be clear as possible and in such should just give enough information to get the job done.

Lanrak wrote:
If you look at Epic SM or Epic Armageddon , both these games have much more tactical depth than the current 7th ed ruled for 40k.
But have a fraction of the pages of rules .

I disagree. There are subtle things you are allowed to do with the placement and disposition of the individual troopers that cannot be reflected in Epic because it doesn't have the nuances involved, to name one. The only thing Epic allows is a greater "field of manuever" when compared to 40K because of the scale.

Lanrak wrote:
My point is 40k has such a lack of tactical depth at its core it has to resort to gimmicky 'risk or reward ' rules.

Explain instead of just making declarations. Give examples. Dangerous Terrain rules are only "gimmicky" to those people who dislike randomness and detailed instructions.

Lanrak wrote:
Other games tend to reduce mobility or actions available in different types of terrain.This is perhaps a more subtle risk and reward system GW plc sales think their target demographic will not understand?

You mean like Difficult Terrain? What does this have to do with Dangerous Terrain, which is usually Difficult as well? Other games also have terrain that have a chance of damaging a unit that tries to go through it, and that damage is randomly determined.

Lanrak wrote:
My opinion about falling interest in 40k from war gamers , is simply down to two things happening over the last decade or so.

Which are?

Lanrak wrote:
If you agree clarity is important.(Proper proof reading and editing.based on the correct use of the English language, and establish bench marks in lay out of information )

You stopped in the middle of a...

Lanrak wrote:
Then surely you can agree it is important to use proper use of things like game mechanics, resolution methods and stats , deliver a well developed game.
As this reduced the amount of information needed to tell the players how the game works in the first place.

And you fragmented your sentences. And those things are used in 40K, at least for those who are looking for the type of game that 40K provides, i.e. detailed interactions and allowing for extensive characterizations of interactions. Something that cannot be done in a sentence.

Lanrak wrote:
You are aware that the number of words used in a rule set is not directly proportional to the amount of tactical depth in the game?

Who said it did? I see tactical depth in what options I am allowed to do in the situation. This thread is about certain environmental factors which allow one to guide their decisions and provide a layer to tactical depth. This is because your environment is part of what determines your tactical decisions.

Lanrak wrote:
A rule set like any instruction is supposed to be clear as possible and in such should just give enough information to get the job done.

Is there something unclear about Dangerous Terrain? How would you reword it so that it did exactly the same job without all the words?

If you are not talking about Dangerous Terrain, go somewhere else that IS talking about this line of thought you are addressing. Otherwise, keep things relevant to the discussion.

If something, terrain needs to have more effect on the game. Like no saves for bikers.