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.

Lately, I've been using less and less area terrain.

Try using scatter "chest high wall" type terrain (GOW terrain in my local parlance ) that counts as 4+ if you're directly behind it, but open from all other sides. I've found that it makes flanking maneuvers just that much more important.

The other thing I've been trying lately is to have large intact buildings, with roof access (either ladders or ramps), that have little or no cover on their roofs. It makes it so that both sides need to pay much closer attention to movement and unit placement, as while you have a much better vantage point on top of a building, you're also much more vulnerable. Especially if an assault unit stands directly beside the building you're on, as you can only ever shoot them with the first "rank" of troops on that building (using TLOS).

Finally, something I've been wanting to try out is the concept of "re-using" maps. I'd love to face an opponent on the same map repeatedly, and see if tactics regarding which building/location to take immediately start to emerge.

 Sarigar wrote:
The topic was not about the amount of terrain. It was the overusage of ruins as opposed to other terrain and how challenging large ruins can be to actually game on. Ease of placing models and getting away from the no brainer choice of fishing for Conqueror of Cities because I see so many tables in which most of the table is covered in Ruins. All ruins don't necessarily provide LoS blocking and one could just as easily use the rules for Rubble to mitigate the Warlord Table one sided choice. And they could be completely flat for ease of game play as there is no 25% obscured requirement. There are a few pieces like this and even ruins don't require 25% obscurement (outside of vehicles).

For BA players, there is a BA triple Stormraven formation that allows turn 1 or 2 assaults. Folks initially argued it could not turn 1 assault but both NOVA and ITC allows it. I play Eldar and can attest it hits hard.

That formation is crap because its got 1000 pts of useless models in it. You should spank that formation trivially as an Eldar player. I do as a BA player; no excuses. The Stormraven is so bad in 7th it's kinda sad.

Hunam0001 wrote:
Lately, I've been using less and less area terrain.

This is a really good point.

I understand Sarigar's meaning about Ruins being perhaps too common. But that could extend to area terrain in general. Since I started making my own terrain I have tried to apply a few concepts to my creations to make them different from the run of the mill terrain you might see at a GW or FLGS. While the GW ruins are very nice looking, easy to assemble and paint compared to home made terrain, and within my means to readily acquire; I must admit, I don't like the large number of windows and gaps on the ground floors. With a table full of see through ruins the game is less interesting in my opinion.

Recently I have been trying to make good looking, playable, Non-Area terrain for use on my table. I find using Non-Area terrain can create more situations where positioning and maneuvering is more challenging, and rewarding. When I do make Area terrain I try to give it some character. For example, a small ruin with a large intact wall on one edge. So while you can shelter a unit within, you also give up a certain amount of Line of Sight.

When I get home, I plan on taking a crack at making a couple mine fields. Which I will class as difficult and dangerous terrain, which provide no cover.

I actually make data slates for my home made terrain. That way my friends/opponents can actually read how I intend the terrain to function, and we can reference it if need be later in the game. Of course with their feedback I can adjust the rules later to suit our tastes more.

Since someone out there might find this helpful, here's an example of a set of large exposed rocks I did up. However, when we played we found the 3+ obscuring cover save to be to high, so reduced it to 4+.

Martel732 wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
The topic was not about the amount of terrain. It was the overusage of ruins as opposed to other terrain and how challenging large ruins can be to actually game on. Ease of placing models and getting away from the no brainer choice of fishing for Conqueror of Cities because I see so many tables in which most of the table is covered in Ruins. All ruins don't necessarily provide LoS blocking and one could just as easily use the rules for Rubble to mitigate the Warlord Table one sided choice. And they could be completely flat for ease of game play as there is no 25% obscured requirement. There are a few pieces like this and even ruins don't require 25% obscurement (outside of vehicles).

For BA players, there is a BA triple Stormraven formation that allows turn 1 or 2 assaults. Folks initially argued it could not turn 1 assault but both NOVA and ITC allows it. I play Eldar and can attest it hits hard.

That formation is crap because its got 1000 pts of useless models in it. You should spank that formation trivially as an Eldar player. I do as a BA player; no excuses. The Stormraven is so bad in 7th it's kinda sad.

Locally, we tone our lists down just a bit so we all have, you know, a challenging and competitive game. No excuses to ROFL stomp an opponent. I run a Guardian Warhost so that should be an indicator, but really not the point of this. It was in response to someone stating they never make it to assault with Eldar using BA.

That's not a formation that someone could use on a regular basis, so it's not a viable solution.

If you listen to the internet, then there is no reason to even play BA. But, BA merits aren't really the point of this thread. Anything to add regarding 7th edition terrain?

How about ruins being ban-worthy in my view. Free 4+ saves aren't cool.

Discuss with your local play group. The concept that many of us still use the term (including myself) area terrain when it does not exist in 7th edition may be an indicator now we look at terrain.A lot of talk and momentum happened back in 4th and 5th edition for more terrain and LoS blocking terrain due to armies like leaf blower and other alpha strike lists. Now, I am finding a bit of a swing too far in the opposite direction. Masses of ruins, roll for night fight or conquer of cities granting near army wide 3+ cover. It has been something on my mind on what is a good balance in 7th edition.

Martel732 wrote:
How about ruins being ban-worthy in my view. Free 4+ saves aren't cool.

What don't you like about 4+ cover saves?

 DanielBeaver wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
How about ruins being ban-worthy in my view. Free 4+ saves aren't cool.

What don't you like about 4+ cover saves?

The fact that they don't cost my opponents anything and the rules for ruins are far too generous. And that MCs can get them. Pretty much nothing about them.

Then why do you not discuss this with opponents? Build your own collection or to augment existing terrain is another option.

Locally, we rule that GC need to be obscured 25% to gain a cover save and we limit armies to a single GC/SH. Combine that with a bit less 4+ cover as the defacto standard and some armies get toned down a bit. Things like a Scatterfield for a Wraithknight becomes a more difficult choice to not take. A few small changes like this have made for much more enjoyable games for both players.