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.

With the change to cover I see Raven Guard needing a rewrite to their rules.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Serious question: how wide are people making their river terrain? The ones I've made are about as wide as a Rhino. A +1 to be hit only effects you if you stop in it, so wouldn't that only have a major impact on models that both move slowly AND have larger bases? ( Thinking Obliterators/ Centurions here) And that would only be if you can't charge after moving. For most models it would only be a minor inconvenience in deciding between a minor loss in movement, or loss in durability.

Well, it does depend on how much of a penalty you impose. -2" is pretty common these days but halving movement is the traditional norm and people love to slap on additional penalties like limitations to advance or charge. -1" probably isn't too bad though, just not what I was expecting.

One of the interesting issues with movement penalties in general though is how they cascade. If you fail to cross something, you then suffer that penalty again the next turn. When I say it has an outsized impact on the game flow, what I mean is that often what this results in is it impacting both turns 2 and 3, which in a 5 turn game that's largely decided by turn 3 or 4, can kind of be everything. That's not to say I don't think rough terrain has a place and -1" is WAY better than what I usually see, just that people always seem to get caught off guard with how little it takes to have a big impact.

Like one of the easy bits to miss is how impactful base size is. A 32mm base is about 1.25 inches. A Rhino is about 3" wide, which means it takes 4.25" of movement to clear it in one go. At -1 that means you need to be move 6 to walk across in one go and a -2 penalty makes it advance only for most models. 40 mm goes up to about 1.6" and it only gets more impactful as you go. This is why being able to move through flyer bases has never solved the problem they create either, as a lot move models are simply physically unable to do so.

Mostly its just interesting to see WHY this sort of terrain has fallen out of favor over the years. I've regularly seen terrain over the years that due to the rules a lot of models simply cannot cross during the course of the game. In some ways that worse than impassible.

I think the limited amount of movement that a five-turn game allows for is the core issue. At 6" move, a basic infantry unit already needs the entire game to get from one side of the board to the other, let alone do anything along the way. There's only so much that terrain can restrict movement before it becomes functionally impassible.

Large terrain effects on movement work better in something like Battletech where your battle might go 10+ turns, or in a system that allows for greater movement (eg running = double basic move = 12").

 catbarf wrote:
I think the limited amount of movement that a five-turn game allows for is the core issue. At 6" move, a basic infantry unit already needs the entire game to get from one side of the board to the other, let alone do anything along the way. There's only so much that terrain can restrict movement before it becomes functionally impassible.

Large terrain effects on movement work better in something like Battletech where your battle might go 10+ turns, or in a system that allows for greater movement (eg running = double basic move = 12").

While I agree with you mostly, the board did get smaller in 10th edition, down from 72x48 to 60x44. Add into that deployment zones, and more units now have some kind of infiltrate, pregame move, or deep strike ability. Heck, back in the day there wasn't even advance, and the game worked. Infantry is more mobile now than ever.

 catbarf wrote:
I think the limited amount of movement that a five-turn game allows for is the core issue. At 6" move, a basic infantry unit already needs the entire game to get from one side of the board to the other, let alone do anything along the way. There's only so much that terrain can restrict movement before it becomes functionally impassible.

Large terrain effects on movement work better in something like Battletech where your battle might go 10+ turns, or in a system that allows for greater movement (eg running = double basic move = 12").

When reserves let you enter from the sides, advance adds 3-4" per turn and theres an abundance of 10" move transports in the game, it's really not hard to get across no mans land (which in reality is 24" or less usually) quite quickly.

 catbarf wrote:
I think the limited amount of movement that a five-turn game allows for is the core issue. At 6" move, a basic infantry unit already needs the entire game to get from one side of the board to the other, let alone do anything along the way. There's only so much that terrain can restrict movement before it becomes functionally impassible.

Large terrain effects on movement work better in something like Battletech where your battle might go 10+ turns, or in a system that allows for greater movement (eg running = double basic move = 12").

One of the reason Infinity is able to get away with the terrain interaction it has is just because you can spend additional orders to continue movement as needed. It's also why a lot of games like MCP, Shatterpoint, Legion and the like have shifted to dramatically abstracted rules for things like climbing that enable models to use the terrain without missing the battle.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/lxzwueun/new40k-terrain-objectives-make-the-battlefield-your-mission/

Objectives. Nothing earth shattering.

The one tidbit I picked up was not related to scoring, but vehicles are not slowed by light terrain.

So with the new terrain rules can you play on entirely flatpack terrain so long as terrain features are marked on the terrain footprint as areas vehicles can't traverse and infantry can't stand in?

HidaO-Win wrote:
So with the new terrain rules can you play on entirely flatpack terrain so long as terrain features are marked on the terrain footprint as areas vehicles can't traverse and infantry can't stand in?

Maybe? We know the deployment maps specify shape and type. So flat pack but marked would be fine for that. But we also know there are rules for elevated terrain. We do not know if any of the missions/maps require those. If they do, you would need to figure out a way to designate/elevate models on the upper floor and keep them apart from those on the ground level.

I mean. Yeah. You could.

But then you’d still have no cover or LoS blocking.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I mean. Yeah. You could.

But then you’d still have no cover or LoS blocking.

If we are still using true LOS for blocking

With area cover if you are on the template, you get cover.

Before true LoS was a thing, there were rules for blocking it with area terrain. You could see 6” into or out of areas, but could not see if you crossed 2 borders of the area.

It will be interesting to see the full rules for terrain. While it might not be perfect, I think you could fake it enough for basic games based on what we know now. Obviously, a full table of various features will add more depth. Litterally.

Weirdly using flat area markers with green/yellow markers on them is actually better than most custom terrain pieces, which is kinda funny.

 Nevelon wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/lxzwueun/new40k-terrain-objectives-make-the-battlefield-your-mission/

Objectives. Nothing earth shattering.

The one tidbit I picked up was not related to scoring, but vehicles are not slowed by light terrain.

The tidbit I picked up was that being battleshocked changes your OC to '-' instead of 0, which is significant.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I mean. Yeah. You could.

But then you’d still have no cover or LoS blocking.

The templates themselves block LOS but it would be an issue with LOS blocking while in the terrain piece. Granted, if you've decided to use flat templates you can declare the green ones block LOS, but if you want to go that far you can do that in 10th as well.

flatpack terrain.. Yall want to go back to Car Wars and Battletech of old? Cardboard counters on foldable paper maps?

I'd personally rather not. Havent spent a small fortune on 3D models just to use flatpack terrain. my Real Of Battle boards are a small point of pride for me, 3D all the way if at all possible. If its about convenience, computer games are infinitely more convenient anyways..

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I mean. Yeah. You could.

But then you’d still have no cover or LoS blocking.

Not until you put a marker/note on it indicating its height, etc.
Evrr seen a Battletech map sheet?

 tauist wrote:
flatpack terrain.. Yall want to go back to Car Wars and Battletech of old? Cardboard counters on foldable paper maps?

I'd personally rather not. Havent spent a small fortune on 3D models just to use flatpack terrain

Do I prefer it? No.
Do I want it to be a valid way to play the game? Yes.

Requiring a full table of terrain to be able to play is a high bar of entry, and may put off potential people from playing. It’s nice to have options.

(And my gaming group back in the day made 3D set ups for both Car Wars and Battletech, despite them not being needed)

 Nevelon wrote:

 tauist wrote:
flatpack terrain.. Yall want to go back to Car Wars and Battletech of old? Cardboard counters on foldable paper maps?

I'd personally rather not. Havent spent a small fortune on 3D models just to use flatpack terrain

Do I prefer it? No.
Do I want it to be a valid way to play the game? Yes.

Requiring a full table of terrain to be able to play is a high bar of entry, and may put off potential people from playing. It’s nice to have options.

Its an option right now.
In fact its always been an option.

It just requires a tiny bit of work to mark what's what.

It just looks cooler when you do it in 3d.

 tauist wrote:
flatpack terrain.. Yall want to go back to Car Wars and Battletech of old? Cardboard counters on foldable paper maps?

I'd personally rather not. Havent spent a small fortune on 3D models just to use flatpack terrain. my Real Of Battle boards are a small point of pride for me, 3D all the way if at all possible. If its about convenience, computer games are infinitely more convenient anyways..

It's more your 3d terrain if it doesn't conform to the mission will either break.immersion or ballance to some degree or another.

You can 100% play 10th with flat terrain. You shouldn't, but you absolutely can.

ccs wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 tauist wrote:
flatpack terrain.. Yall want to go back to Car Wars and Battletech of old? Cardboard counters on foldable paper maps?

I'd personally rather not. Havent spent a small fortune on 3D models just to use flatpack terrain

Do I prefer it? No.
Do I want it to be a valid way to play the game? Yes.

Requiring a full table of terrain to be able to play is a high bar of entry, and may put off potential people from playing. It’s nice to have options.

Its an option right now.
In fact its always been an option.

It just requires a tiny bit of work to mark what's what.

It just looks cooler when you do it in 3d.

With true line of sight it’s a little can get a little sketchy, but I hear you.

Dudeface wrote:
Weirdly using flat area markers with green/yellow markers on them is actually better than most custom terrain pieces, which is kinda funny.

Except when the three dimensional terrain piece has multiple levels that let you stack guns on top of each other to eke out a few more shots when those might otherwise be out of range because they have to stand in the back.

semajnollissor wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Weirdly using flat area markers with green/yellow markers on them is actually better than most custom terrain pieces, which is kinda funny.

Except when the three dimensional terrain piece has multiple levels that let you stack guns on top of each other to eke out a few more shots when those might otherwise be out of range because they have to stand in the back.

That's not a requirement though, you could easily have put tall vertical walls where you're expecting a ruin wjth floors.

I really like the hidden rule. I think that will change up game play in a big way. Also it opens the door for some abilities like spotter units, which could bring new life to some kind of scout type units as they move up and mark units for other units to shoot at, or for indirect bombardment. Also, even though I am not a big fan of it, they will probably reduce the nerfs to indirect fire, since they can't just pick off small infantry units in the back anymore if you are using terrain. I am really looking forward to trying the new rules out.

I think there are a few small tweaks to the core rules which should improve game play but hidden really does feel like a great addition. I also, as you say, can see some units getting buffed hidden (maybe things like Tyranid lictors for example) as well as units which get buffs to spotting hidden units by having an increased detection range, like snipers for example.

The whole thing of hidden and detection ranges etc just gives them another design space to play around with to give scout and stealth units more flavour.

spotters and stealth units having more or less detection range also is an area for design space. And agreed with indirect fire, spotters used to be a thing for some of those units like the old landspeeder for whirlwinds formation.

Could be very interesting if Tau markerlights don’t count as shooting.

Just can't resist saying it...

...we returned to the Moon before we got a new edition of Space Hulk!

SamusDrake wrote:
Just can't resist saying it...

...we returned to the Moon before we got a new edition of Space Hulk!

Hey at least Space Hulk got A re-release before we did that - Man O War hasn't even had 1 (no Dreadfleet doesn't count)
And still not a single Exodites model!

Sigh...GW are leaving money on the table with Man-O-War.