Switch Theme:

Adapting age of sigmar 3.0s excellent terrain system to 40k  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hApiX3XRFMtTK0Bv3pqddMr9R-k3n9MF6-Skp_4Wkcw/edit?usp=drivesdk

Changes:

-in order to account for the much longer ranges and ubiquity of powerful ranged weapons in 40k, I decreased the requirement to gain normal Cover and changed most of the restrictions from "models with 10+ wounds" to Vehicles/Monsters and Aircraft/Titanic

-widened the definition of Dense Cover (renamed from Wyldwoods, GW someone please stop the Mad Vowelsmyth among your ranks) to include representative area terrain as well as porous walls and ruins

-added in a negative to-hit modifier to shots that pass through < 3" of Dense Cover, and also defined Dense as cumulative, for those shots whose line of sight passes thru a window, a gap in a ruin, and around a tree.

Otherwise I think the aos 3.0 structure is pretty solid unchanged, cutting away the bloat from 9th 40ks massive unwieldy list of usrs and finally allowing a somewhat more abstracted way for units to enter and leave buildings.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 23:34:46


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




That mostly seems fine. Going off of how many inches of terrain are in your way might add a bit of depth and some flexibility to how several layers of terrain work. That said, I'm not seeing huge differences between this and the existing terrain rules. A piece of terrain that happens to be both dense and obscuring, for instance, seems to achieve a lot of similar results. Could you spell out some of the main benefits you're seeing compared to the 9th edition 40k rules?

Defensible terrain/garrisoning doesn't make sense to me as written. A few things that jumped out at me:
* Not being able to garrison a building because half an inch of one wall is outside your deployment zone seems like it could be a pain. I get that you're trying to avoid using defensible terrain as a speed boost though.
* Garrisoning seems like it's basically embarking in a vehicle or fortification. This makes me think you ought to be able to embark/garrison after you finish moving.
* Garrisoning means that my unit functionally isn't on the table, but the benefits of garrisoning include getting bonuses to the unit's saves. So how does that work exactly? If my farseer and some guardians are garrisoned inside a building, does that mean my opponent can declare he's shooting the farseer and functionally snipe him out? Does garrisoning with a farseer mean he can't use his psychic powers? How does the blast rule interact with a garrisoned unit?
* Can a garrisoned unit shoot?
* How about melee involving garrisoned units? Is my opponent considered to be within engagement range of every garrisoned unit if he's touching any part of the terrain's base? Do the garrisoned units count as being in engagement range of all enemy units? Does that mean that Jain Zar's rule that lets her make attacks based on how many enemy models are within 2" of her could potentially let her make an attack against 100 ork boyz that have surrounded a garrison?
* Really seems like leaving a garrison should be similar to disembarking: exit within 3" and then move normally.

Also:
* As written, it seems like terrain grants a save bonus against both melee and ranged attacks (similar to being light and heavy cover in the 9th edition rules). Just confirming that that's intentional.
* Definitely agree that swapping out "10 or more wounds" for the vehicle/monster keywords is the right way to go.

Overall, I'd be willing to try these out. I'm just unclear on how the garrison rules work, and I'm not clear on the advantages of this system over the current rules. Also, and you probably already know this, there were rules for terrain features as buildings in not-so-old editions of the game. Being able to destroy terrain features raised some questions, but those rules might be worth looking at for figuring out how garrisons work.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Wyldhunt wrote:
That mostly seems fine. Going off of how many inches of terrain are in your way might add a bit of depth and some flexibility to how several layers of terrain work. That said, I'm not seeing huge differences between this and the existing terrain rules. A piece of terrain that happens to be both dense and obscuring, for instance, seems to achieve a lot of similar results. Could you spell out some of the main benefits you're seeing compared to the 9th edition 40k rules?

Defensible terrain/garrisoning doesn't make sense to me as written. A few things that jumped out at me:
* Not being able to garrison a building because half an inch of one wall is outside your deployment zone seems like it could be a pain. I get that you're trying to avoid using defensible terrain as a speed boost though.
* Garrisoning seems like it's basically embarking in a vehicle or fortification. This makes me think you ought to be able to embark/garrison after you finish moving.
* Garrisoning means that my unit functionally isn't on the table, but the benefits of garrisoning include getting bonuses to the unit's saves. So how does that work exactly? If my farseer and some guardians are garrisoned inside a building, does that mean my opponent can declare he's shooting the farseer and functionally snipe him out? Does garrisoning with a farseer mean he can't use his psychic powers? How does the blast rule interact with a garrisoned unit?
* Can a garrisoned unit shoot?
* How about melee involving garrisoned units? Is my opponent considered to be within engagement range of every garrisoned unit if he's touching any part of the terrain's base? Do the garrisoned units count as being in engagement range of all enemy units? Does that mean that Jain Zar's rule that lets her make attacks based on how many enemy models are within 2" of her could potentially let her make an attack against 100 ork boyz that have surrounded a garrison?
* Really seems like leaving a garrison should be similar to disembarking: exit within 3" and then move normally.

Also:
* As written, it seems like terrain grants a save bonus against both melee and ranged attacks (similar to being light and heavy cover in the 9th edition rules). Just confirming that that's intentional.
* Definitely agree that swapping out "10 or more wounds" for the vehicle/monster keywords is the right way to go.

Overall, I'd be willing to try these out. I'm just unclear on how the garrison rules work, and I'm not clear on the advantages of this system over the current rules. Also, and you probably already know this, there were rules for terrain features as buildings in not-so-old editions of the game. Being able to destroy terrain features raised some questions, but those rules might be worth looking at for figuring out how garrisons work.


-the fact that you cannot Garrison after moving, or leave the garrison then move, represents the time and distance of movement that it should take you to move the models into, or out of, the building if the building were some other terrain type other than defensible. You gain a powerful defensive benefit by garrisoning, with the downside being the loss of the footprint of the unit on the battlefield for scoring and the loss of synergy from aura abilities - in this way, garrisoning works similarly to open-topped transports, except that the unit is still eligibile to manifest psychic powers and make melee attacks.

-yes, characters garrisoning may be attacked. In age of Sigmar, character protection is a -1 to hit, which Defensible terrain also conveys, so I may add a note that CHARACTER keyword units count as being within 3" of any other unit garrisoning the same terrain feature that they are. Thank you for finding that hole in the conversion.

-The charger is considered to be declaring a charge against all units garrisoning the building, and models in the charging unit within engagement range of the buliding are within engagement range of the unit within the building. In your example, Jain would be within 2" of all 100 orks, if all 100 orks were within 2" of the building Jain was occupying. A bizarre edge case, but the correct extrapolation.

-I strongly believe joining or leaving a garrison should take more movement than embarking or disembarking a transport, given the strong benefit it provides with few significant downsides.

-The -1 to hit from Dense Cover is explicitly only applicable to shooting attacks, but basic Cover can be conveyed against both ranged and melee attacks, correct. Bear in mind, charging prevents a unit from claiming basic Cover.

-AoS 3.0 features core rules for destroying a building (it remains on the table as a terrain piece but loses Defensible and all units inside essentially make an Emergency Disembarkation and are killed on roll of 1). Most notably this is keyed to a once-per-turn ability granted to all Monster units. I believe this may or may not be necessary to incorporate into 40k and I'm comfortable leaving it off for now.

The primary distinction between the aos 3.0 terrain system and current 9th terrain is a trimming down on the available types of terrain, better rules for Representative terrain pieces such as forests, a removal of some of the minutiae of the terrain rules and various traits, and an increase in the availability of impactful cover in a deadly system. In many cases as well it introduces downsides to 'turtling' in terrain features, since getting the maximum benefits from a piece of Dense Cover requires you to apply a to-hit malus to yourself as well, and garrisoning a piece of Defensible terrain removes you from scoring and auras.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 11:43:13


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I really like the idea. Something that has always been a pain for me is navigating the system of assigned rules 40k terrain goes by, the way it works just seeming to bog things down. A complicated way of reaching a simple conclusion, if you would.

Keen to see what others think.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I really like the idea. Something that has always been a pain for me is navigating the system of assigned rules 40k terrain goes by, the way it works just seeming to bog things down. A complicated way of reaching a simple conclusion, if you would.

Keen to see what others think.


I've added a few example scenarios just to make sure it's clear the way that the three mechanics interact to folks. Additionally, added notes about what type of move joining and leaving a garrison counts as depending on circumstances (basically, it counts as Fall Back if you're in engagement range when you do it.)

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Delayed response:
 the_scotsman wrote:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hApiX3XRFMtTK0Bv3pqddMr9R-k3n9MF6-Skp_4Wkcw/edit?usp=drivesdk
-widened the definition of Dense Cover (renamed from Wyldwoods, GW someone please stop the Mad Vowelsmyth among your ranks) to include representative area terrain as well as porous walls and ruins

What do you have against Wyld names, scotsman? ;D

Haven't read the new examples yet. Wondering if there should maybe be a mechanic to let the enemy instantly garrison a piece of terrain they're within engagement range of when the last garrisoning enemy unit falls back out of it? I.e. you ran away from the assault intercessors working their way through the bunker, so now the intercessors are inside the bunker rather than standing around outside of it.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Wyldhunt wrote:
Delayed response:
 the_scotsman wrote:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hApiX3XRFMtTK0Bv3pqddMr9R-k3n9MF6-Skp_4Wkcw/edit?usp=drivesdk
-widened the definition of Dense Cover (renamed from Wyldwoods, GW someone please stop the Mad Vowelsmyth among your ranks) to include representative area terrain as well as porous walls and ruins

What do you have against Wyld names, scotsman? ;D

Haven't read the new examples yet. Wondering if there should maybe be a mechanic to let the enemy instantly garrison a piece of terrain they're within engagement range of when the last garrisoning enemy unit falls back out of it? I.e. you ran away from the assault intercessors working their way through the bunker, so now the intercessors are inside the bunker rather than standing around outside of it.


I had already added that in before you suggested it, lol.

Tried a game of Admech Vs Admech using this new system and I was well pleased with how it played out.

As I'd hoped, the choice to garrison Defensible cover was a real actual CHOICE and not an auto-pick - multiple of both my and my opponents units hopped in and out several times as offense/scoring became more important than defense - and the benefits of terrain felt strong enough to keep both the winning army and losing army well in the fight until the end of the game despite both being new and deadly primarily ranged 'dexes.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: