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.

Having now had the opportunity to get games of 9th under the belt, I am struggling to find ways to deploy terrain properly.


The main issue is that the wonderful new terrain rules beg for intricate and immersive boards.

However our group has found this practically means many vehicles have very few options for movement around the board.

Anyone else found their armoured lists are shockingly less mobile in 9th?

It is of course needlessly exacerbated by GWs penchant for excessive model designs, which make them terrible “game pieces”. That’s another story all together

Between this problem, the fact that vehicles don't get any benefit from cover, and the increased damage inflation we're seeing I'm left thinking maybe GW doesn't want people playing vehicles in 9th.

Outside of troops, I'm running almost nothing but vehicles :confused:

It probably depends on which army you are running.

Yeah, not everyone plays SM.

Good, terrain should force you to make decisions on where to move your vehicles, just like it does in real life.
Being able to simply move your tanks into range with no further thought to it is boring.

I want rules for ramps that can be used by light vehicles and bikes though.

 Jidmah wrote:
I want rules for ramps that can be used by light vehicles and bikes though.

And walkers to not be penalized by low walls/pipes/barricades.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I want rules for ramps that can be used by light vehicles and bikes though.

And walkers to not be penalized by low walls/pipes/barricades.

I don't really agree with that. Most GW walkers obviously can't deal with pipes and barricades other than by destroying them.
Almost nothing looks like it can climb any distance at all, the legs simply aren't articulated in any meaningful fashion (also they tends towards aggressively short and stumpy in the leg).

Agree with Voss on this. None of the ork or DG walkers look like they could easily cross a pipe or barricade.

Voss wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I want rules for ramps that can be used by light vehicles and bikes though.

And walkers to not be penalized by low walls/pipes/barricades.

I don't really agree with that. Most GW walkers obviously can't deal with pipes and barricades other than by destroying them.
Almost nothing looks like it can climb any distance at all, the legs simply aren't articulated in any meaningful fashion (also they tends towards aggressively short and stumpy in the leg).

I had a contemptor, wraithlord and knight on my desk as i commented this. I agree that it would make less sense for boxnaught and deffdreads to be able to pass over pipes. I'd still like for walkers/grounded/hover vehicles to be differentiated somehow. Adding a "clearance" stat could provide that.

In my first game of 9th Ed, I set up scattered jungles across the board.

After deploying my Carnifex, I realized that the terrain rules meant that my monstrous creatures couldn't enter any jungle, because they need to be able to physically fit within the terrain, and the tree bases (removable for situations like this...) were too thickly packed for a monstrous creature to fit.

Remember in the Jurassic Park movies where they escape the T-Rex by sauntering into a small grove of trees, completely impenetrable to the apex predator? Yeah, me neither.

It gets even worse when you take things like Knights into account. There's just not many places they can go on a properly dense battlefield.

I don't see why terrain needs to lock out vehicles entirely- have them limit line of sight, maybe incorporate a difficult terrain mechanic (halve their movement?), and then if someone really wants to send their expensive tanks into forests where they move 5" and can't see anti-tank troops gathering 12" away, let them. Better for them to be heavily disadvantaged than completely incapable of even entering.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Having now had the opportunity to get games of 9th under the belt, I am struggling to find ways to deploy terrain properly.


The main issue is that the wonderful new terrain rules beg for intricate and immersive boards.

However our group has found this practically means many vehicles have very few options for movement around the board.

Anyone else found their armoured lists are shockingly less mobile in 9th?

It is of course needlessly exacerbated by GWs penchant for excessive model designs, which make them terrible “game pieces”. That’s another story all together

I mean, it’s entirely possible to set up a board and have room for vehicles to move and infantry get cover and have tactical challenges. Vehicles shouldn’t be able to go everywhere, or get cover from a smol shrub, but should have ways to get around. May need better terrain options or better collaboration setting up a cool board.