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.

An issue I've had with AOS is the weak terrain rules, which causes weak battlefield management requirements (one of the key tenants of war and one of the things I enjoy a lot with "traditional" wargames).

I have heard from the AOS faithful that not only is AOS battlefield management strong, but in fact SUPERIOR to traditional wargames because they don't have to run away from terrain so it doesn't "screw them over".

I am having a very difficult time wrapping my head around that statement (that its superior) other than they prefer terrain not having a meaningful impact and so to them that makes it superior. (which would be a preference and I couldn't disagree with personal preference)

Some however seem to genuinely believe that current terrain rules impact the game moreso than traditional terrain rules. I do not understand this, and am looking for some guidance to understand that perspective.

Note: my use of the term weak indicates that I acknowledge that terrain does have a presence, just a very minor one that in many places is more decorative than mechanical or impactful. This can be circumvented by using a high volume of large (often scratch built) pieces that block LOS, but that also causes tournament purists to squak because thats not standard.

It's not? It's way stronger than in 40k 8th but nowhere near what one would expect in a wargame.

That is my opinion as well but I've been hit with a strong wave of several players on twitter that believe that its superior and I'm trying to get a better understanding.

Twitter is a bad place to try and have a conversation.

Tell them to play more games. Or just don't engage. They are obviously just looking for an echo chamber.

I'm not quite clear on what you mean by 'battlefield management', are we just talking terrain? Placement, movement, auras and the like? How they all interact?

And while I can't speak for whoever these faithful people are talking about (you should take it up with them, rather than Dakka), insisting one way a game handles terrain is 'superior' to some other (or all others) is highly subjective.

 DV8 wrote:
Tell them to play more games. Or just don't engage. They are obviously just looking for an echo chamber.

Yes. That kettle is black.

"Superior" is a subjective term. Without both parties defining what you are looking for in scenery rules a wargame, it is not to tell which is superior and this becomes a senseless discussion.

Battlefield management is a term defining battle line control over the field of battle. Using the battlefield to your advantage. Reducing the battlefield's impact on your forces while increasing the impact on your enemy.

It is a standard skill taught in military academy's, and was something I was fortunate to get to be a part of in my time as a tanker in the army.

In a wargame, the more impactful the terrain is in the game, the more battlefield management comes into play. The less impactful or negligible the terrain is in the game, the less it matters.

In AOS, as my current stance rests, battlefield management has been pretty minimal. You can teleport around the table with no penalty and charge. You can charge across the table in one turn. You can turn on a dime. Getting out of position is pretty minor issue to correct. Maneuver and battlefield management are minor skills at best in AOS (and 40k).

Terrain for the most part does not really hamper you short of things like sylvaneth woods, due to them not only blocking line of sight, but buffing sylvaneth, killing your guys, and being summon points. So you avoid them.

The sylvaneth player employs battlefield management to maximize those woods because they have a heavy impact on the game.

Tables that have a lot of large terrain that is both wide in footprint and tall in stature so that it can actually block line of sight would also be meaningful in AOS, but requires you to both build it siince there are no kits that do this, and then deal with the potential player backlash that will complain you are building a table to screw their army over and is most definitely not standard.

I posted it on dakka because as i mentioned above, twitter is not a good place to conduct a conversation. This being a discussion forum is.

I am also not interested in an echo chamber. I am interested din a discussion to engage with someone that feels that AOS is superior in battlefield management so that I can better understand why that is.

"Superior" simply means that the way Battlefield management is handled is "better". To me, Battlefield management being superior simply means that it has a fairly moderate impact on the game. Don't get hung up on the term "superior" to mean morally better.

I read the question and my first thought was "it is?" So that sums up my opinion on the matter. I would really like to hear from someone on the opposite end though. Where's Bottle when you need him...

As far as generic terrain rules (fences, rivers, hills, etc.), I think you're absolutely right. AoS could use a lot more rules for such things that actually impact the flow of battle. What AoS does have, though, is some really good rules for faction terrain (even though it's basically DLC for wargaming IMO) that can have a massive impact on the flow of the battle. You've mentioned the Sylvaneth, but the Nurgle trees, Herdstones, the new Moon cave thing, etc. all created areas on the board that you either want to control or avoid depending on the bonuses they give to their respective factions.

I feel like terrain that reduces movement should be more of a thing than just obstacles. It feels so strange that water features do nothing (other than cover). I also don't like the mystical terrain rules, I can't put my finger on it but they just aren't fun to me. Love the new forest rules though (even if I think it should be 2").

The problem GW has with terrain rules is not only the terrain rules, but the fact that some armies like IDK, Nighthaunt, are just gonna ignore every terrain piece on the board for there movement.

If you are going for a cinematic wargame experience, AOS is lacking and very bad imho. Scenery and cover rules often really make no sense in a cinematic point of view. On the other hand, If you are going for something anyone can understand and remember in 5 min and that can be easily judged on an event without to much of a fuss AOS scenery rules will be superior most of the time. For me AOS has more of a board game then wargame feel.

Terrain rules are one of the old “bad ideas”

My 2 cents on the subject is initially I thought the terrain rules (or lack thereof) in AoS 1.0 was so far into the realm of idiocy that it hurt, but after playing the game ad nauseam, we figured some ways to make it more of a pain in the ,..... to each others armies, while allowing some really off the wall battlefield options. I would hazard to guess the folks who believe it superior have a tendency to have some pretty "Fantastical" battlefields. add in the mysterious terrain rules and you can have a game where the terrain can make life a living hell if you are not careful. It is easy to theme it as well. AoS to me focuses a lot more on the "Gamey" side of things than a realistic (even for fantasy/sci fi) wargame.

Indeed. It bets the farm on its gamey mechanics.

I was just wondering, what do you mean about not being able to build custom terrain? What is "standard" terrain? Are there specific guidelines for how big stuff has to be, or do you mean that everything has to be a games workshop plastic kit or people will not accept it?

For me and my experience, scratch built terrain brings out the rage in certain people of the more competitive tournament bend that want things to conform to a standard.

Standard is seen by a lot of people these days as coming from a GW kit. If its not from a GW kit... OR its altered in any way (by filling in windows so it blocks line of sight for example) then it can bring out complaining that you are building to advantage and then forcing your terrain on other players to influence the game unfairly.

auticus wrote:
For me and my experience, scratch built terrain brings out the rage in certain people of the more competitive tournament bend that want things to conform to a standard.

Standard is seen by a lot of people these days as coming from a GW kit. If its not from a GW kit... OR its altered in any way (by filling in windows so it blocks line of sight for example) then it can bring out complaining that you are building to advantage and then forcing your terrain on other players to influence the game unfairly.

This is why I am sooo glad to play with a group of friends, we got out of our way to make some wild pieces and we also use terraclips and construct cities for urban scraps.

auticus wrote:
For me and my experience, scratch built terrain brings out the rage in certain people of the more competitive tournament bend that want things to conform to a standard.

Standard is seen by a lot of people these days as coming from a GW kit. If its not from a GW kit... OR its altered in any way (by filling in windows so it blocks line of sight for example) then it can bring out complaining that you are building to advantage and then forcing your terrain on other players to influence the game unfairly.

I honestly think I would rather not play than have to play in your meta.

Ive seen this complaint / discussion on scratch built terrain in several face book groups. Thats why I don't think its just isolated to the tournament crowd here, but that its a mindset that is if not common, certainly not super rare either.

Actually, if you want to make an argument for it, the terrain rules in WHFB were some of the most impactful I've seen. A ranked unit that charged/moved out of position, potentially into a bog or woods, was out of the game. That was it (chaff + doom and darkness to feed a Frenzied unit out of position, that then had to overrun away into woods? GG).

AoS has none of that.

That is my thoughts as well. I think that that really goes against the design ethos of AOS as user-friendly unfortunately.

While I loved that level of management because its more realistic to me, I am not advocating for that level to be put in AOS.

But rivers or things slowing you down a little bit would be great. Would give a counter to turn 1 charges at the very least and add some tension to key charges that have to happen over key pieces of terrain.

Wow, that blows my mind. People adapted this sort of mindset this quickly?!

Making scenery and playing on different tables with different stuff was one of the coolest parts of wargaming! It is a big part of how you make it more than a bunch of fancy counters.

I hope that sort of approach is not too common, jeez. The GW kits are nice and all, but they are also pretty limited in terms of what is available!

 DV8 wrote:
Actually, if you want to make an argument for it, the terrain rules in WHFB were some of the most impactful I've seen. A ranked unit that charged/moved out of position, potentially into a bog or woods, was out of the game. That was it (chaff + doom and darkness to feed a Frenzied unit out of position, that then had to overrun away into woods? GG).

AoS has none of that.

I prefer AoS' lite terrain rules to 8th's, those were just really bad. From forests to buildings to mysterious, it just wasn't fun at all.

I'm not asking for that much, just something like water features block run moves for non-monsters while ruins block run moves for monsters would be cool. By which I mean a model moving into/through such terrain does not benefit from the run bonus to it's movement characteristic. So for example; a unit that has move 5 and runs an extra 3, models that remained outside the terrain their whole move could go 8" while models that moved through it could not go further than 5".

It would benefit flying models, but not tremendously so. The biggest benefit of fly right now is being able to move over enemies anyways.

Buuuut the issue is that GW does not make a water feature kit or an area-terrain ruin kit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidenote: AoS does do obstacle and building rules in a simple but really effective manner IMO.

 EnTyme wrote:

auticus wrote:
For me and my experience, scratch built terrain brings out the rage in certain people of the more competitive tournament bend that want things to conform to a standard.

Standard is seen by a lot of people these days as coming from a GW kit. If its not from a GW kit... OR its altered in any way (by filling in windows so it blocks line of sight for example) then it can bring out complaining that you are building to advantage and then forcing your terrain on other players to influence the game unfairly.

I honestly think I would rather not play than have to play in your meta.

About 99% of my terrain is scratch built. I never knew it also acts as a deterrent for douche bags. Thanks for the info.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 DV8 wrote:
Actually, if you want to make an argument for it, the terrain rules in WHFB were some of the most impactful I've seen. A ranked unit that charged/moved out of position, potentially into a bog or woods, was out of the game. That was it (chaff + doom and darkness to feed a Frenzied unit out of position, that then had to overrun away into woods? GG).

AoS has none of that.

I prefer AoS' lite terrain rules to 8th's, those were just really bad. From forests to buildings to mysterious, it just wasn't fun at all.

To each their own. 6th edition was still my favorite rules-set for WHFB/AoS, period. I enjoy AoS now, but not to the degree that I enjoyed 6th.

Now, a game like Flames of War? Loved it! Shame the local community for it died off over the years.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

auticus wrote:
For me and my experience, scratch built terrain brings out the rage in certain people of the more competitive tournament bend that want things to conform to a standard.

Standard is seen by a lot of people these days as coming from a GW kit. If its not from a GW kit... OR its altered in any way (by filling in windows so it blocks line of sight for example) then it can bring out complaining that you are building to advantage and then forcing your terrain on other players to influence the game unfairly.

I honestly think I would rather not play than have to play in your meta.

About 99% of my terrain is scratch built. I never knew it also acts as a deterrent for douche bags. Thanks for the info.

Not sure if that was directed at me, but I meant that every time auticus talks about his local group, it sounds like its full of grognards that take the game way too seriously. If they really make that big a deal over using scratch-built terrain, I would rather not play than have to play against them.

Pancakey wrote:
Terrain rules are one of the old “bad ideas”

Seconded.

Unless you pay points for them like any other model. Then they're the same as 40k Fortifications.

Are you stating that you feel terrain that impacts the game is a bad idea unless you pay points for it?

I think he means allegiance terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DV8 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 DV8 wrote:
Actually, if you want to make an argument for it, the terrain rules in WHFB were some of the most impactful I've seen. A ranked unit that charged/moved out of position, potentially into a bog or woods, was out of the game. That was it (chaff + doom and darkness to feed a Frenzied unit out of position, that then had to overrun away into woods? GG).

AoS has none of that.

I prefer AoS' lite terrain rules to 8th's, those were just really bad. From forests to buildings to mysterious, it just wasn't fun at all.

To each their own. 6th edition was still my favorite rules-set for WHFB/AoS, period. I enjoy AoS now, but not to the degree that I enjoyed 6th.

Now, a game like Flames of War? Loved it! Shame the local community for it died off over the years.

Yeah 6th was great.

auticus wrote:
Are you stating that you feel terrain that impacts the game is a bad idea unless you pay points for it?

If it has a fancy effect, YES.

If it's something that merely slows or blocks LoS, NO.