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.

Hi.

Did GW put out a recomended terrain guide, or did I dream that? I am trying to find it, but cant. In particular I am interested in recomended foot prints. I thought I saw it somewhere.

I think that one of the issues with this edition is that there isn’t one.

 Niiai wrote:
Hi.

Did GW put out a recomended terrain guide, or did I dream that? I am trying to find it, but cant. In particular I am interested in recomended foot prints. I thought I saw it somewhere.

The Leviathan Tournament Companion has what you are looking for. Go to the Downloads portion of Warhammer Community - its way at the bottom past Combat Patrol and Legends. Has the updates to the Tactical Objectives, suggested games/map layouts and suggested terrain setups. There are four terrain layouts.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/warhammer-40000-downloads/

I think the safe bet is to utterly ignore whatever GW says on this particular topic.

Thank you very much.

I actually think their layouts are not so bad. I just wish they had a size recommendation on acrylic plates beneath the structures.

 Niiai wrote:
Thank you very much.

I actually think their layouts are not so bad. I just wish they had a size recommendation on acrylic plates beneath the structures.

personally I'd go with say 60mm around the outside of the walls so stuff can hug the walls for cover, either clear or painted up as rubble

There are sizes online and indy companies sell them if you don't want to make your own.

People played on them and measured them out.

If WD battle reports are any indication of that, GW have been absolutely terrible at setting up tables for WH40K for as long as I remember (which is since the beginning of the 3rd edition).

Part of the problem is that their suggested terrain layout is the most bland and boring thing I've ever seen. It's all L-shaped ruins, nothing interesting or intriguing, just bland garbage.

Wayniac wrote:
Part of the problem is that their suggested terrain layout is the most bland and boring thing I've ever seen. It's all L-shaped ruins, nothing interesting or intriguing, just bland garbage.

have found personally terrain looks and works far better if its laid out with a purpose, e.g. its meant to be an urban area, so have a road layout, some wider roads, some narrower, drop barricades or vehicle wreaks on the roads etc.

industrial area? have some container stacks, cranes, loading docks, machinery that looks like its interconnected, tank farms etc

just dropping stuff more or less at random with no thought as to why it would be there is rubbish

also hills are a thing

Wayniac wrote:
Part of the problem is that their suggested terrain layout is the most bland and boring thing I've ever seen. It's all L-shaped ruins, nothing interesting or intriguing, just bland garbage.

Yes, but if you try to do "interesting" a good army will table a mid or low tier army in a single turn. Inovative terrain layouts have, in my expiriance, ended in super one sided games, which often aren't worth playing after turn one. The GW terrain at least lets people try to play for 1-2 turns.

leopard wrote:

also hills are a thing

In the Grim Darkness of the far future, the Realm of Battle (TM) is no longer for sale, so there are no hills, and the humble skull farmers must go hungry.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

leopard wrote:

also hills are a thing

In the Grim Darkness of the far future, the Realm of Battle (TM) is no longer for sale, so there are no hills, and the humble skull farmers must go hungry.

Besides, some of us still have an unreasonable fear of hills/sloped surfaces on gaming boards due to our experiences with unstable metal minis in past eras...

 YeeeMako wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

leopard wrote:

also hills are a thing

In the Grim Darkness of the far future, the Realm of Battle (TM) is no longer for sale, so there are no hills, and the humble skull farmers must go hungry.

Besides, some of us still have an unreasonable fear of hills/sloped surfaces on gaming boards due to our experiences with unstable metal minis in past eras...

Stepped hills are also a thing, fields of skulls optional

Karol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Part of the problem is that their suggested terrain layout is the most bland and boring thing I've ever seen. It's all L-shaped ruins, nothing interesting or intriguing, just bland garbage.

Yes, but if you try to do "interesting" a good army will table a mid or low tier army in a single turn. Inovative terrain layouts have, in my expiriance, ended in super one sided games, which often aren't worth playing after turn one. The GW terrain at least lets people try to play for 1-2 turns.

And this is a problem with the rules, not with anything else. Same with the whining about asymmetrical missions. Any proper wargame can handle that, it's just 40k that cannot.

I have, in the past, loved hilly boards. I really liked when being on a hill gave benefits to shooting, even if it was done in an abstract way.