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.

Cover actually does something for lightly armored units now!

Behold, the bullet point list of exciting and varied terrain to be arranged in a perfectly symmetrical layout to forge an evocative, narrative-driven game

Four large rectangles – 7” x 11.5”

Two large right-angle triangles – 8” x 11.5”

Four medium rectangles – 6” x 4”

Two long lines – 10” x 2.5”

Four short lines – 6” x 2”

But maybe this is the way to at least make individual terrain pieces look good, even if the arrangement is still deranged - here's a neoprene square that defines most in-game interactions, now put whatever you want on it to make it pretty, and burn those unpainted mdf corners please.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Behold, the bullet point list of exciting and varied terrain to be arranged in a perfectly symmetrical layout to forge an evocative, narrative-driven game

Four large rectangles – 7” x 11.5”

Two large right-angle triangles – 8” x 11.5”

Four medium rectangles – 6” x 4”

Two long lines – 10” x 2.5”

Four short lines – 6” x 2”

But maybe this is the way to at least make individual terrain pieces look good, even if the arrangement is still deranged - here's a neoprene square that defines most in-game interactions, now put whatever you want on it to make it pretty, and burn those unpainted mdf corners please.

Much agree, frankly hate it and the ramifications it indicates for the game in my eyes.

About what I expected.

I’m sure the change from +1 save to 1- to hit will impact different armies in different ways; we’ll see how that shakes out. Also if they will change flamers/torrent weapons now that auto-hit is basically ignore cover.

Not especially happy with fixed layouts. Should in theory make more balance, if less cinematic games. Glad we have a list of easy templates. Makes intro floorhammer games possible with a few sheets of paper and a pair of scissors.

<shivers> Getting Warmachine flashbacks....

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Behold, the bullet point list of exciting and varied terrain to be arranged in a perfectly symmetrical layout to forge an evocative, narrative-driven game

Four large rectangles – 7” x 11.5”

Two large right-angle triangles – 8” x 11.5”

Four medium rectangles – 6” x 4”

Two long lines – 10” x 2.5”

Four short lines – 6” x 2”

But maybe this is the way to at least make individual terrain pieces look good, even if the arrangement is still deranged - here's a neoprene square that defines most in-game interactions, now put whatever you want on it to make it pretty, and burn those unpainted mdf corners please.

"Of course, if you are playing a casual game with friends, you are welcome to set up your terrain in any way you like."

"In our diagram, these are represented by Mechanicus barricades and field generators, but you can fill these areas with whatever terrain suits your collection – do you prefer trees? Ruins? Strange xenos growths? You can build your battlefield your way, even while using these tournament-approved layouts, meaning your games will look great and tell a compelling story."

If anything, generic footprints help to make terrain more visually appealling than before. We're no longer expected to have mirrored arrangements of ruins as the only features of importance.

Now you can have any combination of ruins/woods/barricades/craters/statues/etc. I could probably dig through my collection now and put together a board using old wrecked tanks scattered among a growing Tyranid infestation, without it looking obviously symmetrical.

Seems ridiculously easy to take a photo/scan portions of your favourite battlement and print off some terrain footprint makers to sit your existing L-shaped ruins on.

I personally like the new terrain rules. I really like the hidden rule, as that makes it so much more impactful to be in a piece of terrain instead of always and I mean always deploying on the other side of it. I am a little worried about stacking modifiers, that is really going to hurt some lower BS armies but we will see how they balance it out. I don't mind the pre-set terrain rules as that is basically the way everyone in our area plays now anyway with the same ruin set ups that are symmetrical. At least now there can be some trees etc. Also if you want to play a more narrative game in a friendly match up there is nothing stopping you from using your own terrain set up. Personally I think boards are going to look better, as there is now incentive to include terrain that is not just all L shaped ruins, and there is an actual reason to go onto upper levels. I am excited.

I do love how many people will see Ruins and Terrain Features as fundamentally different things.

Great changes overall though. Don't love how it impacts setup for tournaments, but I like the effort to promoting more diverse tables, even if its ultimately up to players to create terrain that takes advantage of it.

 xeen wrote:
I personally like the new terrain rules. I really like the hidden rule, as that makes it so much more impactful to be in a piece of terrain instead of always and I mean always deploying on the other side of it. I am a little worried about stacking modifiers, that is really going to hurt some lower BS armies but we will see how they balance it out. I don't mind the pre-set terrain rules as that is basically the way everyone in our area plays now anyway with the same ruin set ups that are symmetrical. At least now there can be some trees etc. Also if you want to play a more narrative game in a friendly match up there is nothing stopping you from using your own terrain set up. Personally I think boards are going to look better, as there is now incentive to include terrain that is not just all L shaped ruins, and there is an actual reason to go onto upper levels. I am excited.

I like the look of things so far too. On stacking modifiers, it seems to work both ways which looks good - a traditionally terrible BS army like Orks can hide their Lootas in ruins which now get +1 BS for plunging fire (at 3" height not the current 6"), and +1 to hit for heavy, very nice.

I'm probably in the "this doesn't sound great" camp.

I guess I'll have to see it in person.

I guess gaming stores and tournaments can just commit to buying or building the relevant bits. But for casual garagehammers? Seems a bit questionable. GW can say its a "fun hobby project" until blue in the face. Building an army is a huge investment in terms of time and money before I need 16 bits of terrain as well.

It's fundamentally the same system as 10th. You could always put trees down as your "ruins". The mechanical changes seem solid too. Changing terrain each opponent might be a serious headache though.

 Nevelon wrote:
I’m sure the change from +1 save to 1- to hit will impact different armies in different ways; we’ll see how that shakes out. Also if they will change flamers/torrent weapons now that auto-hit is basically ignore cover.

Roughly 98% of torrent weapons were already ignoring cover, so I'm not sure this is a huge problem.

Not a fan of -1 to hit for orks, but it's only for infantry and maybe orks get a rule to ignore that.

Having mechanically-consistent, straightforward terrain rules that facilitate a wide range of modeling options, offering prescriptive table layouts and terrain sizes for competitive players while encouraging casual players to deviate, is the best of both worlds.

I've had a lot of terrain that's gone unused because it just didn't work with how 40K handles LOS and obscuration that's now going to be seeing the table again. I doubt it's going to break anything that my woods are on a 12x8 instead of a 11.5x7. And if nothing else, having a recommended table layout will make it easier to gauge whether the density and types of terrain are appropriate.

 Nevelon wrote:
About what I expected.
Not especially happy with fixed layouts. Should in theory make more balance, if less cinematic games. Glad we have a list of easy templates. Makes intro floorhammer games possible with a few sheets of paper and a pair of scissors.

This is no different than current.
Tourney = USE THIS
Non-tourney = do whatever you like - maybe use this, maybe use something else....

Looking forward to these terrain footprint kits! While I've always wanted to "base" my terrain pieces, there aren't a lot of ways to do it in a way that both looks "flush" and doesnt warp over time.. Premolded HIPS plastic FTW!

As for the terrain rules themselves, I like all else besides only needing 3" height for +1 to BS. Marines with a lot of dice are going to have a field day with their 2+ to hit..

 Jidmah wrote:
Not a fan of -1 to hit for orks, but it's only for infantry and maybe orks get a rule to ignore that.

While it doesn't specifically say in this, I think -1 to hit will be the general cover thing.
This article is only saying what happens to certain units in terrain.

Dat Article wrote:Infantry, Beasts and Swarm units in terrain areas also gain the benefit of cover

It then explains cover is -1 to BS.

These two points are pertinant I think.
1. I think being obscured will also give cover and is how vehicles etc will get it, just like now, whereas infantry etc can be in clear view, but still get it if in terrain.
2. -1 BS is different from -1 to hit, so possible stacking which could be bad for orks.


HOWEVER! Last edition they capped cover saves to never improve beyond 3+, so perhaps they will go the other way and say cover caps at BS5+?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Am I reading that article correct that the exact same layout could be completely different?

Example: Game 1: All ruins, with multi levels allowing plummeting fire

Game 2: All trees and hedges. Everything is ground level

Games 3: All rocks. Most terrain is board level, but some are large rocks, almost hills which on top are above 3" allowing plummetting fire.

All 3 have same foootprints, but potentially be very different games.

ccs wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
About what I expected.
Not especially happy with fixed layouts. Should in theory make more balance, if less cinematic games. Glad we have a list of easy templates. Makes intro floorhammer games possible with a few sheets of paper and a pair of scissors.

This is no different than current.
Tourney = USE THIS
Non-tourney = do whatever you like - maybe use this, maybe use something else....

It is different, there is currently tournament packs and "everything else", now there are standard loadouts for most games in and out of tournaments and everyone else.

The important shift is the layouts are made with the missions in mind, which means terrain layout is a valid balance dataslate lever to pull. That means by extension rules and units performance cam be altered as a result of the terrain layouts. So anyone not using them might be playing a wonky game in comparison.

 Jidmah wrote:
Not a fan of -1 to hit for orks, but it's only for infantry and maybe orks get a rule to ignore that.

Potential, will depend on the points of course upside? Ork Boyz at least appear to come with Slugga, Choppa and Shoota as basic equipment, going off the one shown off so far.

If that’s universal, and doesn’t reflect an option to have both loadouts? At least you can’t mis-arm them.

 Jidmah wrote:
Not a fan of -1 to hit for orks, but it's only for infantry and maybe orks get a rule to ignore that.

Depends on how much Orks will lean into sustained hits in 11th.

During the More Dakka meta, Orks basically did not care about BS whatsoever.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Not a fan of -1 to hit for orks, but it's only for infantry and maybe orks get a rule to ignore that.

Depends on how much Orks will lean into sustained hits in 11th.

During the More Dakka meta, Orks basically did not care about BS whatsoever.

It's not like Orks are a shooty army. They're certainly more quantity over quality, anyway.

 BorderCountess wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Not a fan of -1 to hit for orks, but it's only for infantry and maybe orks get a rule to ignore that.

Depends on how much Orks will lean into sustained hits in 11th.

During the More Dakka meta, Orks basically did not care about BS whatsoever.

It's not like Orks are a shooty army. They're certainly more quantity over quality, anyway.

Ork players should just get to roll buckets of dice for everything.

Most players I know wouldn't care if Orks only hit on natural sixes if they got to roll 800 dice in a game.

I think, going on the maps shown, I’m actually kinda liking the terrain recommendations.

They clearly explain and define how much terrain should be on the board, and mirror it to prevent unfair shares.

Whilst the exact method I’m happy should be open to debate? Have that strict standard I consider to be a good thing. I’m sure we’ve all had “fun” against opponents determined to stack terrain in their favour, whether only a little to suit their ranged army, or so thick a foot slogging combat army can pretty much cross the board unmolested.

Whilst I’ve no doubt playing the same terrain in the same positions in the same mission will soon prove tiresome for regular players? It should still help normalise a (hopefully!) fair density of terrain for occasions where both players agree to a more avant garde terrain placement.

So…yeah. I think I kinda like the principle here. Spesh as we can still add game to game variety by using different types of terrain.

Also, they do look to be a reasonable amount of terrain. There’s space for Big Stuff to move around, a decent amount of infantry to hug, without any obviously Completely Safe Routes to the enemy line.

Deployment zones don’t look overstuffed either, which will hopefully encourage more movement.

I wish they would bring back water terrain.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I wish they would bring back water terrain.

Crater rules generally work fine for this.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I wish they would bring back water terrain.

Standing or running?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I wish they would bring back water terrain.

You could do a fairly decent "counts as" I think with the new rules - just imagine the river or lake as being a 1" deep pit that has 1" hurdles every few inches.
If they keep the movement rules as they are, you just need to almost accommodate for depth and decide how swampy you want it. With each level of "swampyness" being how many 1" high hurdles there are in the pit for every 1" of horizontal distance (plus the inch you lose getting in and coming out of the pit).

Infantry, swarms and beasts etc will be able to use it to get obscuring or to hide - and will be needing to give up some portion of their movement to cross it, but in general it doesn't block LOS across the top of it.
Vehicles will slow to ford it as above, or you can deepen the pit to make it something they are incapable of climbing out of if you really want it to be an obstacle - however the plethora of hover vehicles kind of means it's really only a few armies that get impacted by this.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I wish they would bring back water terrain.

They will. When they have a piece to sell you.