Switch Theme:

Opinions on vertically oriented terrain  [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
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

I am looking at making some new terrain. I have a bunch of gothic buildings with flat tops, and I was thinking of making overhead walkways to make pedestrian bridges from rooftop to rooftop. I was also going to make an Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom inspired wood/rope suspension bridge to connect some of my cliffy hills. I was also thinking about making a large hill with a tunnel about 6 inches long, and just wide/tall enough for a dreadnought to slip through.


Is vertical terrain like this fun? Does add or take anything away from the game? I can see it being abused by camping Devastator squads to keep out of assault range, and would make jump pack troops worth their weight in gold.


How much of this kind of terrain would you put on your board?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/03 03:00:11


 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




I find it overly fiddly and obstructive when it comes to moving models around, and yes, people exploit the living crap out of vertical terrain. It becomes another skew to exploit.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I think it's awesome, but care has to be taken when selecting armies and choosing missions/ theatres of war.

It's not the type of table that lets you bring any army and play against any army.
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

It's great for Kill Team size games, less so the larger the game gets.

It never ends well 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/03 22:45:13


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





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


Locally I'm infamous for forgetting some of my models lying around in terrain to be picked up later.

Enclosed tunnels forget models. Entire units might end up there!

2021 painted/bought: 538/575 
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut






For me, as long as it doesn't obstruct things physically, it's awesome! It's just annoying when there are areas where troops can be packed that are hard to reach because you don't want to accidentally knock figures off these walkways.. especially certain metal ones...

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




You'd need to make sure it doesn't just get in the way of moving models below them. These kinds of terrain look great and really add some interesting options to the game but they can be impractical. You also need to make sure they're designed in such a way to avoid models falling off them constantly.

Vertical terrain is one thing a lot of boards lack and it makes for a better game when done well. It might provide a better vantage point for snipers and heavy weapons but it also reduces mobility because you're constrained by the layout of the bridges and walkways so drawing LoS is often more difficult. I say go for it.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

You need to be really careful with vertical terrain.

Every time my opponent gets to place a squad in the top of a building or something over 5" tall, rendering them invulnerable to melee attacks, I want to scream.
At least GW added that 5" rule making it a little harder to achieve.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/03 09:47:25


 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

I love vertical terrain and a big part of my home made terrain ideas are about making sure there's a second level to the battlefield. I just think it looks awesome! I think if you make terrain like that you should be generous with access points and not make vertical movement too punishing so that it isn't interfering with play too much.But it adds so much to the spectacle of a battlefield that in my view it vastly outweighs any impracticality.

   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





@OP:

Don't let naysayers prevent you from building awesome terrain. However you need to be extra careful concerning what kind of mini you bring to the game. I am just thinking of my metal daemon prince from 3rd who I gifted with metal wings. This guy will break apart whenever he falls down.
So it becomes even more important against whom you are playing. Avoid any clumsy people as much as you can.
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

Yeah and you need to think carefully about the sturdyness and form factor. I try to make everything about 7.5cm or 3" across to make sure models can stand on it including large minis like dreadnaughts and so on.

   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Terrain needs to be functional first and look great second. Our group has a huge terrain collection (we can cover 100% of our eight tables in terrain and then some), but some of the most beautiful pieces are rarely used because they cause problems in the game.

As for bridges and galleries there is the issue that they block movement of taller models which simply can't pass them anymore. Some of those are cool and fun, but make sure that people can still move tall models like monoliths, nauts, defilers or similar models across the board. Depending on your floor height even banner carriers could run into trouble.
Also keep in mind that bridge fights don't really work well in 40k - you are now thinking of marines fighting marines up there, but your terrain also has to work for a unit of genestealers or ork boyz.

As for tall buildings, I have found that these just cause problems. Essentially they just provide flat benefits without any drawbacks to long-ranged infantry units and anything that has fly. These buildings are never tactical elements because climbing just wastes too much time. A unit of plague marines deployed on the first floor of a building needs to spend two turns to get into range of something should they find themselves out of targets.
Instead, they will merely act as gun platforms that make eldar hover tanks, doomsday arks or snipers immune to melee. To avoid this, any building's floor should be climbable by a unit with 5" movement and the top floor should be no taller than 9".
This is a flaw of 9th editions terrain rules IMO, as it lacks rules to properly climb buildings, but still something you need to consider.
We implemented an action called "use elevator/ladder" a unit can perform instead of moving, which allows them to "embark" and then "disembark" from any point of a ladder, elevator or similar object instead of moving.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/08/03 17:08:11


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 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.


I'm glad there's no middle ground between those two points.

Though somewhat confusing since I was thinking of the ITC rules and its magic walls as part of the exploit.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Voss wrote:
I'm glad there's no middle ground between those two points.
When I see someone talking about vertical terrain as a "skew to exploit", that kind of language immediately makes me think the poster is someone who views everything through a tournament lens.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







The danger is that you can end up with a few different bad situations:
- Positions where certain models become immune to the other player's attacks.
- Positions that a large portion of models can't reach in five turns or less.
- Areas of the board that you want to move a model through but that the models can't stop in the middle of.
- "We're going to need two tables and a side board for this" terrain. The problem with buildings with interiors is that you really end up needing two copies of the terrain piece. Removable ceilings and removable upper floors sounds great until you try to remove a ceiling that someone is standing on top of.

   
Made in gb
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot




Scotland

I can only advise to go with simplicity and practicality first as you can always add a little something creative as you decorate and finish it.

After a few games I don't think vertical terrain helps anyone except those with FLY keyword really. You're using your movement to stay in the same place as you go up and down floors if you haven't got it. That kills some armies in this game.

I'm currently updating my scenery for 9th and I've noticed that there are a few types of things you just need such as LOS blocking ruins but you also need variety or it will get boring quick. I have loads of cool scenery but it just isn't practical for the game anymore. I'm also finding the more unique it is the more problems it causes and more discussions are needed regarding its rules.

I had a similar plan as yourself OP before and I suppose I can still do it but I'm covering the basics first.

Hope this helps in some way.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Voss wrote:
I'm glad there's no middle ground between those two points.
When I see someone talking about vertical terrain as a "skew to exploit", that kind of language immediately makes me think the poster is someone who views everything through a tournament lens.


I understand where you are coming from, but despite that choice of words they are kind of right. Here is a picture of this super-awesome city fight table our group has:

Spoiler:


The top floors of the building behind the battlewagon to the left as well as the one to the right of the morkanaut are both over 12" tall and frequently cause problems in games. If they are deployed in anyone's deployment zone they will definitely put artillery tanks with fly, snipers or squads with long-range weapons on top of them, since they provide awesome line of sight while also effectively making them immune to getting charged. There is no decision to be made here, it's just automatically the right choice.
Even when deployed in the middle of the board, they allow units to deep strike into the middle of an enemy army - while 9th improved the issue in regards to charges, the issue still remains.

As for the channels and bridges - those work surprisingly well, but while building the table we took great care to make those functional. The channels are no more than 3" deep and there are plenty of ramps to get out of the channels without needing to climb 3 " a step. The board also is modular, so you can re-arrage how the channels flow from game to game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 11:40:25


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Vertical terrain had already been implemented in 3rd with the City fight supplement. I mainly played city fights during that edition because a friend of mine had built a terrific city with lots of buildings. The matches were Dark Angels or Imperial Guard vs. my Night Lords force.

If people start to complain about units being invulnerable to attack upon roofs then I have the following response to them:

"Your army just isn't good enough."

Apart from close combat troops you also need ranged firepower and jet pack troops in order to remove units with heavy weapons on the top of buildings. It's not an alien concept but common sense.

Another feature could be implemented to allow swifter movement up/down buildings or the restriction of placing tall buildings outside of the deployment zone. So a havoc squad would need a rhino and maybe a turn on foot to reach a very good firing position. If that is feasible depends on game length.

   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Strg Alt wrote:
Vertical terrain had already been implemented in 3rd with the City fight supplement. I mainly played city fights during that edition because a friend of mine had built a terrific city with lots of buildings. The matches were Dark Angels or Imperial Guard vs. my Night Lords force.

If people start to complain about units being invulnerable to attack upon roofs then I have the following response to them:

"Your army just isn't good enough."

Apart from close combat troops you also need ranged firepower and jet pack troops in order to remove units with heavy weapons on the top of buildings. It's not an alien concept but common sense.

Another feature could be implemented to allow swifter movement up/down buildings or the restriction of placing tall buildings outside of the deployment zone. So a havoc squad would need a rhino and maybe a turn on foot to reach a very good firing position. If that is feasible depends on game length.



"If terrain is a problem, you just need to ignore it, duh!"

Sorry, but not every army gets to ignore terrain and has myriads of options for everything. There are plenty of armies without noteable fly units and many armies have no way of removing 2+ armor marines from 30"+ away.
If your terrain doesn't work just as well for orks, tyrandids and daemons just as well as it does for eldar or marines, it's a bad table setup.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 12:01:28


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Tyranids and Orks had no problems with city fight terrain in 3rd. Daemons only existed in the CSM codex back in the day and were very good at removing troops from rooftops. Seems you never played a proper city fight back in the day.
   
Made in gb
Hungry Ork Hunta Lying in Wait





 Strg Alt wrote:
Tyranids and Orks had no problems with city fight terrain in 3rd. Daemons only existed in the CSM codex back in the day and were very good at removing troops from rooftops. Seems you never played a proper city fight back in the day.


Thats lovely, but
a) This is being used in modern day 40k, saying what the codex did back then has no bearing or use of the tools it has available now. hell base sizes have increased exponentially (good luck fitting modern day GD on average table roof WITH enemy models on that are spread out)
b) the game lethality is higher than ever, and with strats on top such as half movement and charge penalties, getting shot down before reaching the rooftop is higher than back in 3rd. I have played plenty of 3rd as Chaos/Daemons and nids.
c) your point of not playing city fight back in the day has nothing to do with op's question other than to put another poster down.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 12:33:45


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





I referred to 3rd in my post so he knew where I was coming from.

Besides I don't buy the outrage that "everything is too lethal now". People have whined about such things for decades and the proper solution to the problem was always to have not too many firing lanes on the board. A fact which is ESPECIALLY very easy to accomplish in a city fight because each tall building obstructs LOS. So when you consider it you have actually fewer firing lanes in a city terrain than on a vanilla 40K board.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

 Jidmah wrote:
Terrain needs to be functional first and look great second. Our group has a huge terrain collection (we can cover 100% of our eight tables in terrain and then some), but some of the most beautiful pieces are rarely used because they cause problems in the game.

As for bridges and galleries there is the issue that they block movement of taller models which simply can't pass them anymore. Some of those are cool and fun, but make sure that people can still move tall models like monoliths, nauts, defilers or similar models across the board. Depending on your floor height even banner carriers could run into trouble.
Also keep in mind that bridge fights don't really work well in 40k - you are now thinking of marines fighting marines up there, but your terrain also has to work for a unit of genestealers or ork boyz.

As for tall buildings, I have found that these just cause problems.


Yeah, my plan isn't to reach into the sky with buildings. My tallest building with a flat roof (I have a church with a VERY sloped roof that is LOS blocking for titans) only has two stories and is only 7.5 inches tall. Most only have one floor, and the walkways should be tall enough to let standard vehicles under them, although Knights, Gorkanaughts, Stompas, and tall battlewagons would be blocked. I have a reputation for over-building the sturdiness of my scratch builds, so I'm not worried about it folding under the weight of metal models. I'd just like like to have building tops connected so that troops can move from building to building without having to go up and down all the time.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Vertical terrain is the ultimate. Leave planet bowling ball for the tournament folks.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Strg Alt wrote:
Vertical terrain had already been implemented in 3rd with the City fight supplement. I mainly played city fights during that edition because a friend of mine had built a terrific city with lots of buildings. The matches were Dark Angels or Imperial Guard vs. my Night Lords force.

If people start to complain about units being invulnerable to attack upon roofs then I have the following response to them:

"Your army just isn't good enough."

Apart from close combat troops you also need ranged firepower and jet pack troops in order to remove units with heavy weapons on the top of buildings. It's not an alien concept but common sense.

Another feature could be implemented to allow swifter movement up/down buildings or the restriction of placing tall buildings outside of the deployment zone. So a havoc squad would need a rhino and maybe a turn on foot to reach a very good firing position. If that is feasible depends on game length.

What units should my Nurgle Daemons take to counter this?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
One Canoptek Scarab in a Swarm





Plague drones? I don't agree with them, but the models should work.

Setek: "My people shackled the stars, and broke mortality when the species you sprang from had barely left the slime pools it spawned in. Our wars burned reality, and the dominion of our kings is without limit. The ground you tread on is not yours; it is ours. "

Ahriman: "The Necrontyr; the sleeping ones"

Setek: "That name is not ours. Why give a name to totality?" 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Plague drones? I don't agree with them, but the models should work.
If you mean their melee, I find it unlikely they'd fit on most roofs that contain enemy models. They have trouble fitting on some walkways at my local GW (or did before Covid, at least) WITHOUT enemy models. And they might be fast for Nurgle (10" and FLY) but if the roof is large enough to fit my models in there, somehow, they'd be a prime target.

If you mean their shooting, they have 2 shots each at S4 AP0 D1, hitting on a 4+, RR1s to-wound. I'll slap a Daemon Prince nearby for RR1s to-hit.
It would take an entire squad of 9 to kill one Marine. Double that if they have cover.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The game rules just don't really work very well with restrictive terrain, whether vertical, small narrow pathways, etc.
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Necromunda on an 8x4 table with 1250 points per side would be awesome, and take a month of months to finish. I like the idea of such a setup almost like a stop motion train railway display, though. Leave the drama staged as it was left week to week, a snapshot of the moment.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: