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.

What is you favorite terrain to play with?

Skysheild Landing pad. Not the Fortification rules, but just as a piece of Terrain. Anything similar that adds "levels" to the table is fun

-

 Galef wrote:
Skysheild Landing pad. Not the Fortification rules, but just as a piece of Terrain. Anything similar that adds "levels" to the table is fun-

Agreed, I enjoy ruins that add some vertical terrain and block LOS, creating more dynamic battlefields with open corridors and funnels. Also while you can spend time and make them a work of art, they seem to be table ready fairly quick after some dry brushing.

 Galef wrote:
Skysheild Landing pad. Not the Fortification rules, but just as a piece of Terrain. Anything similar that adds "levels" to the table
-

Something that adds levels? Like multi level buildings?

Any combination as long as the terrain is part of the game and provides challenges. Heavy forested areas that block line of sight, acid oceans, fences which hinder infantry but can be crushed by vehicles, etc. A good table should have terrain areas that benefit various battlefield roles or types of units. There should be places large vehicles can't go...and places where units benefit heavily from <FLY> etc.

People complain way too much about terrain 40K because they simply put zero effort into creating quality tables or simple terrain rules (which is literally what GW says to do in the main rule book). You want a bunker to give you an old school invulnerable save? Just decide that before the game. Want a minefield? Roll a D6 per model scoring a mortal wound on a '1' etc. Need more LOS blocking terrain? State at the outset that wooded areas block it. How about a large vehicle exploding while on a bridge? Remove the bridge. Does that create an issue for other units trying to get across? Good.

A rich and interesting table also forces players to make more balanced and interesting armies. If you bring Knights to a busy multi-tier urban board...they're going to struggle and rightly so. An "active" table also lets you make use of other sub-par units which may not be super durable or deadly...but suddenly become more useful due to the terrain.

Terrain and the gaming table are 100% the "third army" and it's the most oft-ignored thing because people want to play a 2 hour game at a local game store with little to no terrain...and no one wants to be assed to spend time making one worthwhile.

Part of the game should be negotiating a well-build table with your army - for better or worse.

PS: We also add remote weapon stations inside bunkers, and opening/closing bunker blast doors, etc. Any game is only as good as you make it. If you're lazy and put zero effort into making a game more interesting, you have no one to blame but yourself.

I voted "other".

Years ago GW/FW released a huge full color heavy weight paper battle mat depicting city roads, craters, & areas of ruins/rubble/clear where building go. The roads & craters were scans of the resin FW pieces of the time.
We had two of these laminated at a printers. 1 lives at my local game shop & has been used constantly since I furnished it. The other is used frequently at my place.
$ well spent as we've enjoyed many years of use out of both.

Other: the old modular trench system forgeworld sold.

All sorts under the sky, as long as it's plentiful and affects the game. I very much agree with Elbows about terrain 100 % being the third army, if all participants take ownership of their game and make it better instead of lamenting how it sucks. Just using the CoD rules for obscuration, heavy and light cover etc. makes a world of difference. And I'm the one in our group who actually suffers from charging penalties, it's fun to make your own life harder

If I'd have to pick distinct favourites, I do love me some claustrophobic corridor assaults and forlorn hope operations. Insides of space ships, bunkers, industrial complexes and whatnots have always felt interesting to me.

Forest as in Catachan Death World.

My terrain collection also includes a river, hills, ruins and three different kinds of dangerous plants.

I love terrain filled tables of all kinds. It makes me sad when I look at a local table and see that the players have opted for light terrain.

It bothers me even more when I look at the tables that my group sets up for tournaments and they're 'fairly' set up, with terrain evenly spread and huge bare spots everywhere. I don't think I've ever had a really fun game on a table with so little terrain.
Most of the time I end up building a nice looking table using all sorts to have a good game.

 Elbows wrote:
Any combination as long as the terrain is part of the game and provides challenges. Heavy forested areas that block line of sight, acid oceans, fences which hinder infantry but can be crushed by vehicles, etc. A good table should have terrain areas that benefit various battlefield roles or types of units. There should be places large vehicles can't go...and places where units benefit heavily from <FLY> etc.

People complain way too much about terrain 40K because they simply put zero effort into creating quality tables or simple terrain rules (which is literally what GW says to do in the main rule book). You want a bunker to give you an old school invulnerable save? Just decide that before the game. Want a minefield? Roll a D6 per model scoring a mortal wound on a '1' etc. Need more LOS blocking terrain? State at the outset that wooded areas block it. How about a large vehicle exploding while on a bridge? Remove the bridge. Does that create an issue for other units trying to get across? Good.

A rich and interesting table also forces players to make more balanced and interesting armies. If you bring Knights to a busy multi-tier urban board...they're going to struggle and rightly so. An "active" table also lets you make use of other sub-par units which may not be super durable or deadly...but suddenly become more useful due to the terrain.

Terrain and the gaming table are 100% the "third army" and it's the most oft-ignored thing because people want to play a 2 hour game at a local game store with little to no terrain...and no one wants to be assed to spend time making one worthwhile.

Part of the game should be negotiating a well-build table with your army - for better or worse.

PS: We also add remote weapon stations inside bunkers, and opening/closing bunker blast doors, etc. Any game is only as good as you make it. If you're lazy and put zero effort into making a game more interesting, you have no one to blame but yourself.

The issue is that GW is providing rules, and some of the rules are "Make up stuff!"

That's not good-especially in a competitive game. Now, if they had a large amount of terrain rules that you could apply as you wished to terrain pieces, that'd be better-something like your minefield rule. But those aren't provided.

Elbows wrote:People complain way too much about terrain 40K because they simply put zero effort into creating quality tables or simple terrain rules (which is literally what GW says to do in the main rule book). You want a bunker to give you an old school invulnerable save? Just decide that before the game. Want a minefield? Roll a D6 per model scoring a mortal wound on a '1' etc. Need more LOS blocking terrain? State at the outset that wooded areas block it. How about a large vehicle exploding while on a bridge? Remove the bridge. Does that create an issue for other units trying to get across? Good.

I would much rather curse the darkness than light that candle thank you very much. [/s]

It seems this would be a given since the core rules regarding cover are so bare bones coupled with terrain being so encompassing. While I think that maybe the BRB could offered a little more, mostly for newer players, in ideas on how to given terrain peices mechanical effects, I kinda like the terrain rules being open-ended provided both players are interested in adding more specifically to the table they are playing on.

Even in Kill Team using 100% GW terrain I go over terrain with my opponent. Usually this includes at what point a unit doesn't have to measure vertically on ruins, make sure they are okay dropping vertically down less than 6" does not use movement and doesn't count as falling, making sure we are using the within 1" of a ledge falling rules, on the mechanius terrain if all vertical surfaces are climbable or just the ladders, do we want to use the various sector rules, etc. A lot of that stuff in the Kill Team rules, but I have seen they often get ignored and some of them I don't particularly enjoy anyways so if my opponent also doesn't want to use them it is easy enough.

JNAProductions wrote:The issue is that GW is providing rules, and some of the rules are "Make up stuff!"

That's not good-especially in a competitive game. Now, if they had a large amount of terrain rules that you could apply as you wished to terrain pieces, that'd be better-something like your minefield rule. But those aren't provided.

Wizards of the Coast provide rules for Dungeons and Dragons and some of the rules are "make stuff up." or previous editions used to anyways. And I have actually played competitive of D&D to include an actual timed dungeon run tournament. Even if Warhammer 40,000 had Gates of Antares levels of terrain rules, it still wouldn't be a good competitive game in my opinion. I don't even know if it would be any more competitive either. Just less information to process before each game.

I see the lack of rules as... well a little lazy on the part of rules writers. But, I also see it as an opportunity to have custom rules for custom tables with the intent of not gaining advantage in game but attempting to increase the enjoyment of the game for all parties involved. In the absence of hard rules for terrain it is much easier to give them rules that work in the game at hand instead of being pigeonholed into what they game says they are. I also sort of like it as very good reason to engage with my opponent before the game to try and reduce any misinformation concerning the terrain since reviewing it before hand often catches issues before they occur in game.

Opposite of what I sarcastically said to the Elbows quote, I would rather light a candle than curse the dark. It doesn't bother me negotiating terrain rules that don't exist in 8th edition if it means a better game overall. Although, I will fully admit I don't comprehend the draw of playing highly competitive games with this rules set.

D&D is a cooperative game, in most cases, though. It's also a roleplaying game, not a wargame.

I'm far more okay with D&D having open-ended rules, because of several reasons.

1) The DM. The DM is the one who has final say on the rules-so there's less arguing. (Which is not to say good DMs don't talk to players, but at least the power is invested in one person to make the final decision.)

2) It's less gamist. 40k is, when playing, a GAME. D&D is more simulationist-still pretty gamey, but it's a game designed to reflect reality (barring certain exceptions, like magic).

3) It's co-op. There's no (or at least there shouldn't be any) people who are constantly trying to get an edge on one another, just people working together to conquer the darkness. In 40k, there's a winner and a loser-now, obviously you should have fun win or lose, but still.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that they're incredibly different games, and what works for a TTRPG does not always work for a Wargame.

Edit: Also, WotC has at least proven they at least CAN write a tight ruleset. See MtG. Games Workshop... Not as much.

 JNAProductions wrote:
D&D is a cooperative game, in most cases, though. It's also a roleplaying game, not a wargame.

I'm far more okay with D&D having open-ended rules, because of several reasons.

1) The DM. The DM is the one who has final say on the rules-so there's less arguing. (Which is not to say good DMs don't talk to players, but at least the power is invested in one person to make the final decision.)

2) It's less gamist. 40k is, when playing, a GAME. D&D is more simulationist-still pretty gamey, but it's a game designed to reflect reality (barring certain exceptions, like magic).

3) It's co-op. There's no (or at least there shouldn't be any) people who are constantly trying to get an edge on one another, just people working together to conquer the darkness. In 40k, there's a winner and a loser-now, obviously you should have fun win or lose, but still.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that they're incredibly different games, and what works for a TTRPG does not always work for a Wargame.

Edit: Also, WotC has at least proven they at least CAN write a tight ruleset. See MtG. Games Workshop... Not as much.

1) I see the role of the DM being both the players when deciding how to setup the game when it comes to miniatures wargaming. I kinda like how 40k's lack of terrain rules actually give the players more power in deciding how to play rather than conforming to any rules already detailing. My experience it is much easier to convince person to terrain rules than aren't detailed in the book rather than ones that are. Wargamers seem to be super anti-house rule/custom rules. But don't get me wrong, I don't think that was the writers' intent, they just couldn't be bothered to add any. I am certain that you, and more players like you, would be happier with more detailed terrain rules than I, or players like me, would be disappointed by their existence. I am just going to make the best of the situation as it is.

2) I guess it all depends on how players approach the either game. As I said, I have actually competed in a 2nd ed AD&D tournament which was basically a timed dungeon crawl. I actually cost my party the 1st place because I actually role-played during it (the DM said it was the best run he had though) and I missed a couple of traps rushing through. I have also played with players than rule lawyered, min/maxed and bent the rules of rpgs you would think their job depending on it. Conversely, I have seem miniatures wargames so loose in rules adherence it was basically roll a die on a 4+ you get what you want/that makes sense for what is happening on the table at the moment. It is all relative, but I understand where you are coming from and majority of play agrees with your statement. Just pointing out it doesn't have to if the players don't want it to.

3) I really do see setting up and reviewing/negotiation the rules as a co-op element of miniatures wargaming. Just as much as I have seen player vs. dungeon master (the DM was really fair about his encounters) battle competitiveness. I don't think either player should be trying to get an edge during setup save maybe games like Dust Warfrare which have a battle builder mini-game to determine some elements. I think that setup is often not treated as a co-op affair and more as a pre-game element to gain an edge, but I don't think it should be. I think in both tabletop rpgs and miniatures wargames at "Roll for Initiative" the game should switch over to a more competitive element . Which is why I compared both tabletop games.

The way I try to play either makes them not as different in my mind as you state. In both I am looking for a story about conflict in which the outcome is far from known. Maybe it is due to the rpgs I have played are very similar to wargames during combat in that the players do not have an advantage unless they worked very hard to get it. The DM/GM doesn't lose every game fight and the players don't win all of them either. They very much feel like miniatures skirmish games.

You are very correct that WOTC have proved themselves much better at writing tight rule systems than GW. In addition to MTG, I would argue that D&D 4th edition was very tight fantasy skirmish game even if it was a little samey. I didn't play a whole lot of that edition, but I felt like my party was going head-to-head with the DM's forces each and every fight. I was using every trick I could think of each fight. We only won a majority of our fights (like maybe 60%), but certainly didn't win everyone of them.

You basically just made the same empty point three times lol. D&D is not 40k. They aren't even in the same genre, even of the tabletop games owned by Wizards it's not even the closest one. Having a solid set of terrain rules helps everyone, if you are someone who wants to make gak up you are still free to do so with good terrain rules.

My favorite stuff is fully modeled cities with barricades and stuff. It can be fun to get a forest board going with hills and rivers - but that takes a lot of work to make and can result in wobbly model syndrome.

For gaming, large ruins, since they make the best game.

However, I've always wanted to play on a themed board that looks like a battlefield, with trenches, weapon-pits, AT ditches, wire, craters, and a mix of ice and mud.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue is that GW is providing rules, and some of the rules are "Make up stuff!"

That's not good-especially in a competitive game. Now, if they had a large amount of terrain rules that you could apply as you wished to terrain pieces, that'd be better-something like your minefield rule. But those aren't provided.

...Except when they are, that minefield is literally in the main rulebook along with a bunch of other examples people just for some reason never seem to look at? Is "optional" so frightening a word, that most gamers just skip past those pages without a pause?