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.

GHB2019 really reduces variables in matched play when it comes to terrain. A table is six by four and has 10 pieces of terrain split into primary and secondary terrain types.

I'll be interested to see how the terrian rules firming up affects the game; to my mind the terrian rules in the core book were one of the very weak areas so its good to see GW stepping up to give some more guidelines. Heck just putting down enough line of sight blocking terrain significantly changes the game experience.

Oh? I haven’t heard about that. Sounds interesting!

Glad to hear about the terrain. I've been arguing that for Matched Play there needs to be more strict rules about terrain in general if they really intend on making AoS(and 40k as well) tourney games.

A lot of cranky Maggotkin players as this badly hurts the garden.

 frozenwastes wrote:
GHB2019 really reduces variables in matched play when it comes to terrain. A table is six by four and has 10 pieces of terrain split into primary and secondary terrain types.

Until you look at all the official terrain from GW and see some of it is literally 2" big, depending on you and your opponent 10 pieces could cover the table or it could only fill a tiny bit up.

Here are some example

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Walls-Fences
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Baleful-Realmgates
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Dominion-of-Sigmar-Timeworn-Ruins-2019

Here is a table mat with terrain sold together, terrain makes up like 5% the table lol. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Realm-Of-Battle-Blasted-Hallowheart-2018
Edit: That kit has "9" terrain pieces, so if you looking to add 1 more piece, this is what GW has in-mind for terrain

The GHB spells out like one pick is two wall pieces or one of something else or whatever. Its going to be on the sparse side but not as empty as the bundle/set. Less than I'd prefer but enough to matter. Enough that if you're not careful you could get your army terrain like a ship or moon shrine blocked from being placed. So it's not an empty table.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
GHB2019 really reduces variables in matched play when it comes to terrain. A table is six by four and has 10 pieces of terrain split into primary and secondary terrain types.

Until you look at all the official terrain from GW and see some of it is literally 2" big, depending on you and your opponent 10 pieces could cover the table or it could only fill a tiny bit up.

Here are some example

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Walls-Fences
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Baleful-Realmgates
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Dominion-of-Sigmar-Timeworn-Ruins-2019

Here is a table mat with terrain sold together, terrain makes up like 5% the table lol. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Realm-Of-Battle-Blasted-Hallowheart-2018
Edit: That kit has "9" terrain pieces, so if you looking to add 1 more piece, this is what GW has in-mind for terrain

They also released recently Dominion of Sigmar which is a very sizable kit. Then you have the Sigmarite Mausoleum, Numinous Occulum, and Warscryer Citadel which are all of decent size. Sadly they don't sell the Dreadhold anymore. Those were decently sized kit albeit way too expensive. Could also be that Azyrite Townscape is considered one "terrain feature".

Yes they do have larger ones for sure! But im just pointing out that 5 smaller pieces on a table isnt going to fill up a table at all.

Being able to have smaller pieces is something players dont normally do or think of.

"No terrain within 6" of a board edge" kind of breaks Skaven Gnawholes, doesn't it? Unless I'm missing something where Faction terrain rules trump GHB2019 rules, so then the rule doesn't even really matter.

Personally, I don't think the minumum terrain piece requirement will effect the way I set up tables at all, since I generally have 10 or more, between big set pieces and smaller scatter terrain, and I've not heard any complaints about my method. I show up first, or host at my home, and let my opponent whoever it may be, pick their Territory once we've rolled up a mission.

The issue with the Gnawholes is easy to Errata. "This rule overrides the general restrictions on terrain placement." Honestly, since specific override general (battletome vs. GHB), I don't think there should be an issue in the first place. I've spent enough time on the internet to know that won't be the case, though.

 EnTyme wrote:
The issue with the Gnawholes is easy to Errata. "This rule overrides the general restrictions on terrain placement." Honestly, since specific override general (battletome vs. GHB), I don't think there should be an issue in the first place. I've spent enough time on the internet to know that won't be the case, though.

Yep, their FB page has said there is a GHB FAQ coming out shortly after launch.

Relevant quotes:

this feedback has been passed on and it will be addressed. For now, we recommend carrying on using the rules as they appear in the battletome. Thanks!

and

Hi Jordan, guys. This will be addressed in the General's Handbook FAQ, which will land soon after launch. At present, continue using the terrain rules as they appear in your Battletomes for any unusual army-specific terrain.

Do you have the link? So i can at least show my local.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Do you have the link? So i can at least show my local.

Should work, just click on the chat icon and you'll see the relevant quotes down the thread:

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FGWWarhammerAgeofSigmar%2Fposts%2F1063248077205318&width=500" width="500" height="356" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media

Thanks

 Eldarain wrote:
A lot of cranky Maggotkin players as this badly hurts the garden.

Not to mention that there's a lot more missions with "no one's territory" and gaining Contagion Points requires you to be in your or your opponent's territory. They really should change that rule to keep up with the newer summoning mechanics.

Maggotkin haven't gotten their 2.0 update yet (their first book was basically 1.5e), so hopefully they'll see some tweaks like that to bring them back in line with the current rules.

It does make things harder for Nurgle. Fortunately we can do something about it. The tree is small enough that it may fit somewhere depending on what the board looks like, smaller territories mean your opponent is less likely to be in yours (an extra +1), and Gutrot/nurglings will rarely have trouble getting into enemy territory round 1. Still not ideal but it is something.

The indirect issue this has caused is that players are starting to get cranky with any tables that have any moderate amount of terrain on it now because "it screws them over" in regards to their free terrain.

Which is highly irritating because the push is to return to planet bowling bowl or something akin to that.

The problem isn't that there is "more terrain", the problem is the terrain must be 6" away from other terrain rule.

But that ultimately is the issue. The more terrain there is, the less room for faction terrain, because of the 6" requirement. Without the rule, it's fine as your terrain can still go where you want.

I personally think a flat 3" would have been better; 3" from the board edge, 3" from other terrain, 3" from objectives. For regular and faction terrain. One number, the same number as melee range, easy for to remember and implement.

As for not getting faction terrain... Well, I can't think of an instance where it isn't just a free upgrade*. IMO they should have cost points in the first place, and allegiances with them still function perfectly fine missing it. Had those allegiances with terrain been launched without it there would not have been complaint they were too weak and needed a boost. But because it was given and now being taken away it creates a different dynamic. Part of me wonders if this is a plan to add points to the terrain pieces; taking it away then going "OK, you can have it back if you pay points for it" could go over better than just slapping points on them in the first place.

*Sylvaneth excepted, but that is a special case.

Terrain being to close also creates other problems, Horde armies for an example are harder to play and more time comsuming.

If i was playing IDK or other armies with lots of Fly and against Hordes i could place terrain in ways to lessen their movements making getting anywhere much harder giving me an advantage, but for the other player there is no terrain placement advantage at all.

Sans the terrain pieces that simply do not function with the new rules (Gnawholes RIP, pending FAQ), it looks like a lot of problems would be resolved if faction terrain was simply placed before map terrain.

 obsidiankatana wrote:
Sans the terrain pieces that simply do not function with the new rules (Gnawholes RIP, pending FAQ), it looks like a lot of problems would be resolved if faction terrain was simply placed before map terrain.

Well for now via facebook we can ignore the rules for faction terrain.

 obsidiankatana wrote:
Sans the terrain pieces that simply do not function with the new rules (Gnawholes RIP, pending FAQ), it looks like a lot of problems would be resolved if faction terrain was simply placed before map terrain.

That works for me.

Also, is it just me or is this a real moment from GW? This whole incident feels like quite a cock up.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 obsidiankatana wrote:
Sans the terrain pieces that simply do not function with the new rules (Gnawholes RIP, pending FAQ), it looks like a lot of problems would be resolved if faction terrain was simply placed before map terrain.

That works for me.

Also, is it just me or is this a real moment from GW? This whole incident feels like quite a cock up.

I got the feeling it's intentional and they're just going to backtrack due to whining from folks who want their free special snowflake terrain.

Wayniac wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 obsidiankatana wrote:
Sans the terrain pieces that simply do not function with the new rules (Gnawholes RIP, pending FAQ), it looks like a lot of problems would be resolved if faction terrain was simply placed before map terrain.

That works for me.

Also, is it just me or is this a real moment from GW? This whole incident feels like quite a cock up.

I got the feeling it's intentional and they're just going to backtrack due to whining from folks who want their free special snowflake terrain.

Its a business choice to go back, not whining, if players cant play with the terrain then they wont buy it, simple as that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: Faction focus terrain is actually a good thing. It simple takes army rules and puts them to a piece of terrain giving a visual representation of the rules, gives players another nice looking model for a show piece, etc..

Otherwise those rules would have been modified and rolled into other units/army books. Having terrain doesnt make the army better, it would have been same power level with or without the piece of terrain.

Also faction terrain still counts as terrain, so Realm relics, spells, other spells and relics that targets terrain counts, you can force your opponent to take MW's, and it body blocks, you can use them to your advantage a bit if you wanted too.

I've since divorced myself from matched play rules and have found that the games are a little better. In that context, the gnawholes function just fine because there is no matched play mechanic preventing them from being placed "where they can't" even though its the only place that they can go.

 auticus wrote:
I've since divorced myself from matched play rules and have found that the games are a little better. In that context, the gnawholes function just fine because there is no matched play mechanic preventing them from being placed "where they can't" even though its the only place that they can go.

yeah. It could just be you can't use this is matched play. But since matched play is 99% what's played...