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.

So why is 40k the only game with that problem? I don't hear any other wargame complain about "needing" that type of terrain or bullgak missions to function for pickup games. Note I'm not talking about true historical games, but mainstream games in the same vein as 40k; meant for pugs and tournaments. Eg. Bolt action, flames of war, legion, conquest, etc.

40k seems to be the only game with this problem.

Wayniac wrote:
So why is 40k the only game with that problem?

Because unlike actual wargamers and wargames 40k doesn't test terrain and manouvre skills anymore.

It chose the cheap cop out symetrical board because that was easier to get done right... Well no actually since the factions are still asymetrical by design even though gw has done ever more to dumb it down there aswell, the symetrical board gives Off the illusion of balance, and that is why people that don't want to understand or can't understand terrain prefer it.
That is not to say that a symetrical table can't work well but you are not really testing some of the most important skills of a wargame then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:
People want symmetrical terrain and missions because they get one game per week where they're having to travel 30 mins to an hour to get to their LGS, after a full day of work by the way, and they don't want to get saddled with a crap board where they got shot off the table in turn 1 because all of the cover was on the Tau players half. They want everything to be fair and symmetrical because it's a random PUG with someone they may have never played before and so the less variables that have to be discussed or argued down about can be reduced. Besides, I thought 40k was meant to be some casual beer and pretzels game? Why subject a random casual player to an incredibly unfair lopsided board and mission if they've brought an army that isn't suited for either of those things? feth all that about being "a better general" they just wanna roll some dice and have a fun, full game.

All the weird thought experiments dakka likes to do about this kind of gak is always a nightmare to read because none of you play events or have any real experience of the tournament scene. Most of you always haven't played in general since 7th or earlier.

And I remember playing games with randoms in older editions on gakky boards down at the local GW. It was this mix of getting shot off the board turn 1 because 40k has always been hyper lethal if there hasn't been enough LOS blocking terrain, getting weird whacky terribly unbalanced missions that caused arguments and bad experiences, or people just houseruled said feth it and played "pitched battle dawn of war deployment whoever kills more points wins" because that was the only way to avoid drama and give people the appearance of fairness.

The GW mission system is designed for the actual modern reality of wargaming which is not a very small circle of friends who all know each other very well and who have ample space in their own homes to set up their tables and play missions that they themselves have designed. But the thing is you can still happily do that if that is the circle/community of people you have around you.

And that currently wasn't happening with 70% winrate factions? Truly faction capability clearly was horrifically impacted by assymetric terrain.
/S

A faction hitting a 70% win rate is an entirely different issue and doesn't disprove the notion that unfair terrain match ups absolutely swing the game in a given players favour.

Themed boards are fun and I've had loads of great games on them but I've had more where I've basically deployed then lost because the terrain balance was garbage.
Oh boy did the board look nice but when I've just wasted my Saturday afternoon getting pasted by someone I've never met before at my old local club, it's not a good feeling.

That is not to say I think the tournament standard is better and I do think it could use some refinement to allow for more of an enjoyable visual spectacle but in terms of more objective balance? The tournament standard wins out purely because I know at least one factor isn't going to sink me before I've even deployed.

 Bosskelot wrote:
People want symmetrical terrain and missions because they get one game per week where they're having to travel 30 mins to an hour to get to their LGS, after a full day of work by the way, and they don't want to get saddled with a crap board where they got shot off the table in turn 1 because all of the cover was on the Tau players half.

That's garbage. Symmetrical boards are not required and making it out as if they're important for people in this fallacious example is just dishonest.

You can have plenty of LOS-blocking terrain with out everything being a perfectly symmetrical set of L-shaped ruins.

Not Online!!! 811846 11601619 wrote:

Because unlike actual wargamers and wargames 40k doesn't test terrain and manouvre skills anymore.

True. Best example of it, is trying to get a Land Raider out of the deployment zone on a GW standard table. It takes like 2-3 turns of movment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
People want symmetrical terrain and missions because they get one game per week where they're having to travel 30 mins to an hour to get to their LGS, after a full day of work by the way, and they don't want to get saddled with a crap board where they got shot off the table in turn 1 because all of the cover was on the Tau players half.

That's garbage. Symmetrical boards are not required and making it out as if they're important for people in this fallacious example is just dishonest.

You can have plenty of LOS-blocking terrain with out everything being a perfectly symmetrical set of L-shaped ruins.

If any elite army right now does not get it basic minium of LoS blocking terrain, especialy against 50% or higher win rate army, the game is done turn 1 50% of times. We are operating with specific base sizes and movments. Without those "L" shaped terrains there would be even more focus on playing only shoting armies. And no one wants to have games where one dude got 3 "L" shapes, the other got only two, then the first guy went first and blew up the second dudes army to a point where victory, aside for some loaded dice miracle, is not possible. Terrain and the slow forcing of every army in to a horde size is IMO one of the things that make 10th less fun, then 9th.

 Gert wrote:
A faction hitting a 70% win rate is an entirely different issue and doesn't disprove the notion that unfair terrain match ups absolutely swing the game in a given players favour.

Themed boards are fun and I've had loads of great games on them but I've had more where I've basically deployed then lost because the terrain balance was garbage.
Oh boy did the board look nice but when I've just wasted my Saturday afternoon getting pasted by someone I've never met before at my old local club, it's not a good feeling.

That is not to say I think the tournament standard is better and I do think it could use some refinement to allow for more of an enjoyable visual spectacle but in terms of more objective balance? The tournament standard wins out purely because I know at least one factor isn't going to sink me before I've even deployed.

That was not my point.
My point was that regardless of Terrain setup factions inherently due to their design may find advantages or disadvantages. Nvm the far more pressing balance issues due to gw's release system and lagging data input. Nvm lack of quality assurance for index and codex balance Nvm writing.

And if the terrain rules in regards to movement , cover were solid that allready would improve even the symetrical tables.

That is however not to say that symetrical prepredictable-tables with always the same layout and missions didn't stunt skill by virtue of their setup alone. Because that is what has happened in combination with pick side missions.

The key to making assymetric tables work would be a rematch on the table in an attack/defend type scenario and as a potential possibility it would force a more flexible list Type by mere existence.

Of course due to time constraints that would have to deflate points themselves on the field. Which could also open up a sideboard type deal.

 Bosskelot wrote:
People want symmetrical terrain and missions because they get one game per week where they're having to travel 30 mins to an hour to get to their LGS, after a full day of work by the way, and they don't want to get saddled with a crap board where they got shot off the table in turn 1 because all of the cover was on the Tau players half. They want everything to be fair and symmetrical because it's a random PUG with someone they may have never played before and so the less variables that have to be discussed or argued down about can be reduced. Besides, I thought 40k was meant to be some casual beer and pretzels game? Why subject a random casual player to an incredibly unfair lopsided board and mission if they've brought an army that isn't suited for either of those things? feth all that about being "a better general" they just wanna roll some dice and have a fun, full game.

All the weird thought experiments dakka likes to do about this kind of gak is always a nightmare to read because none of you play events or have any real experience of the tournament scene. Most of you always haven't played in general since 7th or earlier.

And I remember playing games with randoms in older editions on gakky boards down at the local GW. It was this mix of getting shot off the board turn 1 because 40k has always been hyper lethal if there hasn't been enough LOS blocking terrain, getting weird whacky terribly unbalanced missions that caused arguments and bad experiences, or people just houseruled said feth it and played "pitched battle dawn of war deployment whoever kills more points wins" because that was the only way to avoid drama and give people the appearance of fairness.

The GW mission system is designed for the actual modern reality of wargaming which is not a very small circle of friends who all know each other very well and who have ample space in their own homes to set up their tables and play missions that they themselves have designed. But the thing is you can still happily do that if that is the circle/community of people you have around you.

*yawn*

Play chess. Symmetrical terrain doesn't fix any of the problems you described, it just eliminates something that crap players blame for their losses as a variable and nothing more.

Also.

because none of you play events or have any real experience of the tournament scene

Lol. Okay, and? You think being a tournament player makes you special or means your opinion matters more? Sit down.

In KT me and my friends had absolutely terrible games due to very specific terrain requirements this game has. Sometimes a melee team was unshootable ever, sometimes an alpha strike was possible that decided the entire game in the first activation. Then we discovered tournament maps and it helped.

Cool looking terrain setups may be cool, but not so much when they lead to nonsensical non-games.

I don't think limiting possible setups to just a few or going symmetrical are good solutions. The best one is a VERY comprehensive list of guidelines, dos and don'ts and advice on how to set up terain for a good game. The "let's set up terrain to look cool" has the most potential for resulting in a crappy game in my (30y) experience with wargames.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, considering how crucial terrain setup is for a fair and interesting game, I am shocked how rulebooks never have comprehensive and specific advice on how to do it.

Sometimes the official sources even offer bad advice, like official Warmachine rules for terrain resulting in total domination of shooting or terrible WD battle report tables, open plains with nonsensical pieces of terrain too small to hide anything.

I wish we could have several pages of example good and bad boards in rulebooks with explanation what is wrong with them and why. And sets of principles like "half of the center line between DZs should be covered with LOS-blocking terrain" that allow some variety (variety is the spice of wargaming!) and the use of terrain from personal collections, but protect players for wasting time playing on an unfair and boring board.

chaos0xomega wrote:


This.

The tournament crowd seems to believe it improves balance, reality is that it increases the advantages of going first.

except most of the time, it favors going second.... This is why GW decided to force the winner of the roll-off to go first.

On the current table layout, shooting from DZ to DZ or turn 1 charges are relatively rare, so going second means you're letting your opponent overextend themselves because they have to complete secondaries.

Turn 1 alpha strikes that insta win the game havnt really been a thing on the new terrain layouts with recommended density (barring a few examples like Eldar that move fast enough to clear the terrain, Towering stuff or Indirect fire spam)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
So why is 40k the only game with that problem? I don't hear any other wargame complain about "needing" that type of terrain or bullgak missions to function for pickup games. Note I'm not talking about true historical games, but mainstream games in the same vein as 40k; meant for pugs and tournaments. Eg. Bolt action, flames of war, legion, conquest, etc.

40k seems to be the only game with this problem.

Because other games have plenty of mechanics to prevent alpha striking.

-SW : Legions usually only has a few guns in range of stuff on turn 1 and their cover rules are better for example
-Grimdark Future has alternating activations, so you can prevent the alpha strike
-Infinity has a reaction system, where there is always an odd of your turn 1 push to fail because of it (although a skilled player in infinity will 100% be able to gak on a less skilled player)
-AoS has very little shooting overall so terrain isnt a real problem and is mostly there to create chokepoints and give a thematic to the table.

So in my opinion, 40k should either :

- halve all the ranged on their guns (with 24" range or more) if they want to keep stuff as killy as it is right now, that way you don't need to go through 4 buildings to finally have LoS on something.
- introduce Alternating activations (oh gak , here we go again)
- reduce the overall output of everything
- reduce the number of models an army consists of

Wayniac wrote:
So why is 40k the only game with that problem? I don't hear any other wargame complain about "needing" that type of terrain or bullgak missions to function for pickup games. Note I'm not talking about true historical games, but mainstream games in the same vein as 40k; meant for pugs and tournaments. Eg. Bolt action, flames of war, legion, conquest, etc.

40k seems to be the only game with this problem.

Because 40K is unique in having a bunch of characteristics that make it a problem: high lethality, permissive unit capabilities (you can always move, cast psychic powers, prep for a charge, whatever, and still shoot at full strength), long ranges relative to the board size (with no modifiers to make shooting at your maximum range less effective), permissive target declaration (full split fire, resolve your shooting in whatever order you want), LOS rules that make units vulnerable if any model is exposed, ineffective cover rules (+1 to your save is so mild that you need to block LOS to survive), restrictive deployment rules (no good terrain at your table edge? It's already over), and a turn structure that both facilitates and rewards alpha striking exposed units off the table.

It's a combination of a ton things that all add up to mean if any part of a unit is visible, and your opponent wants it dead, it dies. So if you don't have enough LOS-blocking terrain to hide at least half your army, or if the LOS-blocking terrain isn't big enough to conceal entire units from every angle, then the game doesn't function. It's perfectly possible to make asymmetric layouts that function, but you can't just slap down terrain at random and expect a good game.

It's not that asymmetry is inherently a problem, it's that the game is so critically reliant on terrain to mask functional issues that if you decide to roll your own instead of a boring, prescriptive tournament layout, you are assuming a major role in balancing the game.

Missions are a different thing entirely, and there it's more about players expecting a consistent target to listbuild towards.

 catbarf wrote:


Missions are a different thing entirely, and there it's more about players expecting a consistent target to listbuild towards.

i think the current missions are mostly fine for anything outside of narrative. They can't really be 100% tailored to in listbuilding like they could in 9th, they require a decent amount of variety in your lists (not as much as i'd like) and apart from a few outliers (Area Denial and capture enemy outposts being doable on turn 1 and not autoshuffling) each of them brings dynamism and force players to think about the positioning of their units.

Investigate signals is a really good addition IMO as it forces you to not simply push up with everything (once your opponent's deepstrike reserve is empty) and requires you to try and take control of the corners, meaning the battle doesn't always end up in a moshpit on the center objective

Cyel wrote:
In KT me and my friends had absolutely terrible games due to very specific terrain requirements this game has. Sometimes a melee team was unshootable ever, sometimes an alpha strike was possible that decided the entire game in the first activation. Then we discovered tournament maps and it helped.

Cool looking terrain setups may be cool, but not so much when they lead to nonsensical non-games.

I don't think limiting possible setups to just a few or going symmetrical are good solutions. The best one is a VERY comprehensive list of guidelines, dos and don'ts and advice on how to set up terain for a good game. The "let's set up terrain to look cool" has the most potential for resulting in a crappy game in my (30y) experience with wargames.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, considering how crucial terrain setup is for a fair and interesting game, I am shocked how rulebooks never have comprehensive and specific advice on how to do it.

Sometimes the official sources even offer bad advice, like official Warmachine rules for terrain resulting in total domination of shooting or terrible WD battle report tables, open plains with nonsensical pieces of terrain too small to hide anything.

I wish we could have several pages of example good and bad boards in rulebooks with explanation what is wrong with them and why. And sets of principles like "half of the center line between DZs should be covered with LOS-blocking terrain" that allow some variety (variety is the spice of wargaming!) and the use of terrain from personal collections, but protect players for wasting time playing on an unfair and boring board.

This. The terrain rules in most wargames are atrocious. Terrain guidelines should be standardized - i.e. buildings shall be constructed of such that they have 1/4" thick walls and 5" height floor-to-floor. Hills shall be constructed in a terraced style of 1" height per level with a 2" lip, etc. Whatever works for the scale and nature of the game in question. The game should define the size of standard pieces (i.e. small pieces are 5"x3" and 2 levels high, medium ruins are 6"x8" and 3 levels high, large ruins are 12" square and 4 levels high), categorize them (area terrain, obstruction, rough terrain, scatter, etc.), and then define how many of each type and size you should have for a given table size and points level, etc. THEN, there should be setup rules (spacing, zones in which certain types can and can't be placed, etc.). I haven't looked at the 40k rulebook in a bit, but I'm pretty sure it still recommends that your terrain should cover about 25% of the table and thats about the extent of it - that is entirely meaningless. 25% of the table with what - line of site blockers? Area terrain? 25% of the table being covered with aegis defense lines will give you a very different experience from a game of 25% low hills or 25% ruins.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

This.
The tournament crowd seems to believe it improves balance, reality is that it increases the advantages of going first.

except most of the time, it favors going second.... This is why GW decided to force the winner of the roll-off to go first.
On the current table layout, shooting from DZ to DZ or turn 1 charges are relatively rare, so going second means you're letting your opponent overextend themselves because they have to complete secondaries.
Turn 1 alpha strikes that insta win the game havnt really been a thing on the new terrain layouts with recommended density (barring a few examples like Eldar that move fast enough to clear the terrain, Towering stuff or Indirect fire spam)

Well yeah, thats more of a nu-40k problem/phenomenon rather than the traditional nature of the game in past editions. The decision to have the winner of the rolloff go first started I think in 8th or 9th IIRC. That was implemented in response to the rise of symmetrical terrain, which in turn was implemented as a result of first turn advantagere sulting from non-symmetrical terrain in previous editions of the game where winning the rolloff gave you a choice.

The tail is wagging the dog.

So in my opinion, 40k should either :
- halve all the ranged on their guns (with 24" range or more) if they want to keep stuff as killy as it is right now, that way you don't need to go through 4 buildings to finally have LoS on something.
- introduce Alternating activations (oh gak , here we go again)
- reduce the overall output of everything
- reduce the number of models an army consists of

There are other options. Using a system similar to conquest where your models don't start on the table but advance on to your table edge over the course of the game for example, so that theres a progressive "escalation" in the game rather than two gunlines lined up on opposite ends of the table like they're civil war reenactors or recreating a scene from Braveheart, for example. In older editions many missions used night-fighting rules for the opening turn of the game in order to offset the impact of alpha strike by limiting offensive lethality while both players were still getting into fighting posture.

 catbarf wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
So why is 40k the only game with that problem? I don't hear any other wargame complain about "needing" that type of terrain or bullgak missions to function for pickup games. Note I'm not talking about true historical games, but mainstream games in the same vein as 40k; meant for pugs and tournaments. Eg. Bolt action, flames of war, legion, conquest, etc.
40k seems to be the only game with this problem.

Because 40K is unique in having a bunch of characteristics that make it a problem: high lethality, permissive unit capabilities (you can always move, cast psychic powers, prep for a charge, whatever, and still shoot at full strength), long ranges relative to the board size (with no modifiers to make shooting at your maximum range less effective), permissive target declaration (full split fire, resolve your shooting in whatever order you want), LOS rules that make units vulnerable if any model is exposed, ineffective cover rules (+1 to your save is so mild that you need to block LOS to survive), restrictive deployment rules (no good terrain at your table edge? It's already over), and a turn structure that both facilitates and rewards alpha striking exposed units off the table.
It's a combination of a ton things that all add up to mean if any part of a unit is visible, and your opponent wants it dead, it dies. So if you don't have enough LOS-blocking terrain to hide at least half your army, or if the LOS-blocking terrain isn't big enough to conceal entire units from every angle, then the game doesn't function. It's perfectly possible to make asymmetric layouts that function, but you can't just slap down terrain at random and expect a good game.
It's not that asymmetry is inherently a problem, it's that the game is so critically reliant on terrain to mask functional issues that if you decide to roll your own instead of a boring, prescriptive tournament layout, you are assuming a major role in balancing the game.
Missions are a different thing entirely, and there it's more about players expecting a consistent target to listbuild towards.

Catbarf gets it.

It's a wonder how 40k gets away with barely any terrain guidelines, when terrain is such a huge part of the game balance (maybe GW doesn't realize it? I can't imagine how, but this is GW). Now the competitive solution is just lame and boring, but the comp players don't care because they don't like themed boards anyway. Still, it's incredible how there's no guidelines when it's such a crucial thing, and GW terrain tends to suck eggs anyway.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The only rational argument I've heard for symmetrical terrain is that they are good for balance in RTS games.

My counterpoint to that is that 40k is not an RTS and the fact it's turn based has a significant impact on the impact terrain has on gameplay

I would argue this is itself a bit of a misunderstanding of RTS, with StarCraft 2 they are much more concerned with the bases and access to resources being balanced than map balance in its entirety.
You can have up to 10 bases, with often the only thing being you cannot both start on the same side. Scouting and sussing out how to engage is a huge skill.
And learning how the position can change build orders and viable openings is a big part of the game. Seen games even at pro level where a mistake or poor luck on scouting out positions have changed up the game a lot.

Even league of legends isn’t entirely symmetrical, but teams can change up how the terrain itself is used a lot.

Honestly GW terrain is a bit of abomination that feeds back into itself, with bad rules, often inadequate official terrain, that then feeds into bad rules.
NMNR is a terrain issue as well.

I personally don't see the fun in planning for everything in a pick up game or even a tournament, and being able to plan for almost everything, by knowing what terrain you are walking into, and what objectives you need to accomplish, to then knowing what army you are most likely going to be playing based on these limiting factors.

Bring some chaos and unpredictability of it. You are a Drukhari player, all loaded up on transports, cool, however you are defending a fortified beachhead in this scenario.

The good players would still perform, they just wouldn't be able to plan to the enth degree nearly everything beforehand other than their dice rolls - which are manipulated as much as possible in their favour due to strats and/or rerolls.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:


Bring some chaos and unpredictability of it. You are a Drukhari player, all loaded up on transports, cool, however you are defending a fortified beachhead in this scenario.

The good players would still perform, they just wouldn't be able to plan to the enth degree nearly everything beforehand other than their dice rolls - which are manipulated as much as possible in their favour due to strats and/or rerolls.

except thats the exact situation that is problematic, and the cause of why so much terrain is there.

No, a good Drukhari won't perform because it all relies on them going first so they can move up the board and hide their fragile transports. 40k is too lethal so if the drukhari's opponent goes first (assuming theyre not a melee only faction), they will have a devastating alpha strike on the drukhari player.

Asymmetrical terrain isn't "one side doesn't have cover and the other has plenty of it" its "Cover isnt positioned exactly the same on both sides but has a similar amount".

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Asymmetrical terrain isn't "one side doesn't have cover and the other has plenty of it" its "Cover isnt positioned exactly the same on both sides but has a similar amount".

My 10th edition games always feature asymmetrical terrain setups, but watch table quarter head roughly the same terrain features positioned to look good. The terrain should make sense in relation to the objectives (come points, radar towers, etc)

So the playing field is "symmetric" for the amount of different terrain sizes, types and densities, but not symmetric in their extract placement. Makes choosing attacker and defender for the leviathan scenarios interesting.

I imagine GW exists in a state of confusion over terrain, they keep designing and making these elaborate and often impractical terrain kits that I'd wager don't sell as well as they'd want due to the price & volume needed. But then see people complaining about terrain everywhere and can't join the dots.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:


Bring some chaos and unpredictability of it. You are a Drukhari player, all loaded up on transports, cool, however you are defending a fortified beachhead in this scenario.

The good players would still perform, they just wouldn't be able to plan to the enth degree nearly everything beforehand other than their dice rolls - which are manipulated as much as possible in their favour due to strats and/or rerolls.

except thats the exact situation that is problematic, and the cause of why so much terrain is there.

No, a good Drukhari won't perform because it all relies on them going first so they can move up the board and hide their fragile transports. 40k is too lethal so if the drukhari's opponent goes first (assuming theyre not a melee only faction), they will have a devastating alpha strike on the drukhari player.

Asymmetrical terrain isn't "one side doesn't have cover and the other has plenty of it" its "Cover isnt positioned exactly the same on both sides but has a similar amount".

Perhaps it would help to bring back some of the old asymmetric missions where you have an attacker and a defender?

e.g. something like Meat Grinder, where one player is trying to defend a fortified position for a set number of turns, and the other has infinite reinforcements of infantry.

Dudeface wrote:
I imagine GW exists in a state of confusion over terrain, they keep designing and making these elaborate and often impractical terrain kits that I'd wager don't sell as well as they'd want due to the price & volume needed. But then see people complaining about terrain everywhere and can't join the dots.

It would probably depend a lot on management having a clue about how it interacts with the game, they also have a big habit of this terrain looks good, but is super specific and doesn’t play well with the rules.
Great looking terrain that works half as well as 15 mins with a cardboard box is a issue.
Considering their Lord of the rings terrain is so good now, I think it is really just how to 40k is managed.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:


Bring some chaos and unpredictability of it. You are a Drukhari player, all loaded up on transports, cool, however you are defending a fortified beachhead in this scenario.

The good players would still perform, they just wouldn't be able to plan to the enth degree nearly everything beforehand other than their dice rolls - which are manipulated as much as possible in their favour due to strats and/or rerolls.

except thats the exact situation that is problematic, and the cause of why so much terrain is there.

No, a good Drukhari won't perform because it all relies on them going first so they can move up the board and hide their fragile transports. 40k is too lethal so if the drukhari's opponent goes first (assuming theyre not a melee only faction), they will have a devastating alpha strike on the drukhari player.

Asymmetrical terrain isn't "one side doesn't have cover and the other has plenty of it" its "Cover isnt positioned exactly the same on both sides but has a similar amount".

The problem is, that as a meassure of skill, like i said an potential attack and defend scenario would force you to consider to not just go full transport. However, an attack and defend scenario would also profit from a switch in position. And a sideboard. But on the fly adaption is as already pointed out not something many people in the current comp scene want.

Now if the faction is able to do so is a whole other debate.

I wanted to share some of my many pictures of tables I set up and played on in 9th that show both (a)symmetrical that works. I'll use mostly my autumn table so it shows clearly the differences.

Those look like tables I would enjoy playing on, personally.

The one thing that irks me though, is if you bring something like a baneblade or a knight, it looks like you're not going to have too good a time because theres no space to really maneuver.

But thats not really a terrain problem, thats a GW problem for pushing the envelope on the size of the miniatures you can field.

 vipoid wrote:


Perhaps it would help to bring back some of the old asymmetric missions where you have an attacker and a defender?

e.g. something like Meat Grinder, where one player is trying to defend a fortified position for a set number of turns, and the other has infinite reinforcements of infantry.

yes, but those kind of missions aren't ideal for pick up games, so by default we get the leviathan missions. Nothing stops you from talking with your opponent beforehand and figure out a fun mission to play

But rolling for a mission and getting the "respawning infantry" mission when one of the players brought a list with no infantry would be a pretty big feelbad.

These missions are also inherently not as balanced depending on the matchup. Respawning Guardsmen is fine , respawning Terminators isnt as much for example.

Folks who are linking them need to separate the idea that symmetrical terrain and having enough blocking terrain are connected.

There are myriad asymmetrical ways to setup a table where there is plenty of blocking terrain for both sides. There's an example of such above.

All you need is one player who is confident enough to setup the terrain asymmetrically and then either let their opponent choose or roll off for sides.

chaos0xomega wrote:
[

This. The terrain rules in most wargames are atrocious. Terrain guidelines should be standardized - i.e. buildings shall be constructed of such that they have 1/4" thick walls and 5" height floor-to-floor. Hills shall be constructed in a terraced style of 1" height per level with a 2" lip, etc. Whatever works for the scale and nature of the game in question. The game should define the size of standard pieces (i.e. small pieces are 5"x3" and 2 levels high, medium ruins are 6"x8" and 3 levels high, large ruins are 12" square and 4 levels high), categorize them (area terrain, obstruction, rough terrain, scatter, etc.), and then define how many of each type and size you should have for a given table size and points level, etc. THEN, there should be setup rules (spacing, zones in which certain types can and can't be placed, etc.). I haven't looked at the 40k rulebook in a bit, but I'm pretty sure it still recommends that your terrain should cover about 25% of the table and thats about the extent of it - that is entirely meaningless. 25% of the table with what - line of site blockers? Area terrain? 25% of the table being covered with aegis defense lines will give you a very different experience from a game of 25% low hills or 25% ruins.

Good lord. As if 40k didn't have enough rules already. No game needs terrain construction specifications. That would be just another way for GW to try and corral us into buying their own terrain kits. Is every game going to have their own terrain construction rules? Are we going to have to have separate, precisely-measured terrain sets for every game we play?
Must everything be spoon fed to players?

I would argue for less of this sort of foolishness and instead ask more maturity from players. 

The solution for terrain setups is the same solution I offer up when folks argue about competitive vs narrative games (often a false dichotomy, but I digress...). What is needed is simply for players to have a conversation with their opponents about what kind of game they want to play, how they envision the battlefield to look, how they want to get there and possibly what scenario to play. Possibly followed by a dice roll for sides.

Not Online!!! wrote:


The problem is, that as a meassure of skill, like i said an potential attack and defend scenario would force you to consider to not just go full transport. However, an attack and defend scenario would also profit from a switch in position. And a sideboard. But on the fly adaption is as already pointed out not something many people in the current comp scene want.

Now if the faction is able to do so is a whole other debate.

It's not about full transport or not, it's about one side being in the open for the opponent to shoot down in an alpha strike.

Of course asymdetric doesn't mean one side is barren.

Symmetric ls cop out for those who suck in terrain placement.

tneva82 wrote:
Of course asymdetric doesn't mean one side is barren.

Symmetric ls cop out for those who suck in terrain placement.

The argument I usually see is that both sides need the same amount of LOS blocking terrain, or one side can auto-win. Which is absolute bollocks. It's worse than symmetrical terrain, its IDENTICAL terrain, instead of having say one side with extra cover, or something, and one side with more blocking terrain; that's not seen as acceptable.

I remember the way Warmachine used to suggest it, keeping in mind that hills also gave you a bonus to defense (equivalent would be harder to hit in 40k), was something like maybe one side has an extra hill, but the other side has an extra forest (blocks LOS/gives cover) or obstacle (gives cover), so that the choice in side is a tactical one, not a meaningless one, you didn't want both sides to have the same terrain pieces, although you usually wanted them to have equivalent pieces and a similar number.

40k apparently can't do that as there is no equivalent piece to just flat out blocking LOS, so that even if one side had more cover, that wouldn't be acceptable.

Wayniac 811846 11601803 wrote:

40k apparently can't do that as there is no equivalent piece to just flat out blocking LOS, so that even if one side had more cover, that wouldn't be acceptable.

Because there is a ton of armies with expetions, ignoring cover, LoS ingoring shoting or stuff similar to it. How fun is going to be the game where one army gets more cover, but then the eldar player gets more LoS blocking terrain. The cover may as well not be there, but the LoS blocking terrain very much impacts the game. I had seen enough of 8th towers of doom, to know that no symetric terrain and w40k ends really bad in real games.

And I say this as someone who really doesn't like the 10th terrain rules and how a gigantic Land Raider can't drive through a wall.

 Gibblets wrote:
I wanted to share some of my many pictures of tables I set up and played on in 9th that show both (a)symmetrical that works. I'll use mostly my autumn table so it shows clearly the differences.

Some of those don't look bad, but since you are operating on a basic blank table, doing it symmetrically can be done, however it doesn't fit into a thematic table that looks like it should belong.

i will just use a few examples of my tables, now granted they are set up for 5th ed games where terrain works a bit differently with area terrain, hard cover saves and blocking LOS terrain, but the tables look and feel like they belong.









Additionally dependent on mission setup, because the tables are not mirrored it gives a real decision rather or not you want to deploy first and reveal your force allocation by choosing table side or deploy second. the fact it is an older edition also means there are 2 separate roll offs-set up and who gets first turn. forcing both tactical deployment and maneuver.