The Question of Terrain

[Captain Idaho]

I may actually be taking this on as a personal crusade but it's definitely something I think the community needs to address.

 

Terrain. How much and what types do we play with?

 

I can tell people now that they've been conditioned to use GW terrain which is actually not suitable for games unless you pay a bomb. Look at the marvellous industrial sector. Looks nice right?

 

But does it actually block line of sight? Maybe 1 model might be able to hide for a bit, but on the whole most models can draw line of sight to most other targets. Essentially the terrain purely adds a +1 armour save and that's it.

 

"But that's a great benefit!" I hear you splurt your tea onto your keyboard.

 

Actually, no. +1 armour save won't help against Kastellen Robots firing 18 shots each a turn with rerolls, or Hellblaster spam, or Dark Reaper spam.

 

GW terrain is amazing but players need to go for the terrain that blocks line of sight. What does a GW wood do to help your army hide?

 

GW aren't at fault for supplying the masses with affordable terrain, but I suspect they need to make some emphasis on terrain set up for their games. I actually think they should do more tutorials on building terrain out of household products (I have plenty that are amazing). They should outright encourage the community to play games with large line of sight blocking terrain pieces.

 

I can say from experience that games with large line of sight blocking terrain are more fun. There's less of a turn 1 extinction event. There's actual movement on the table. Armies need to be built along more traditional combined arms approaches and an army that is "sub-optimal" won't get nuked immediately without a chance for the player to have fun.

 

People like to disagree with this manner of play for all sorts of reasons but primarily I see competitive players who want to play kill hammer and just line up the most brainless list to win.

 

Should 40K be about who gets 1st turn with the most guns? The answer is no or else you're part of the problem.

[StraightSilver]

I totally agree and think LOS blocking terrain should feature more prominently - high terrain also should be used.

 

In terms of GW kits this is possible - the GW bastion, Fortress of Redemption and Sector Imperialis kits are versatile enough to build large terrain pieces if you combine them but this has a monetary cost implication.

I think GW should start doing boxed deals (like get started sets) with some of their older terrain sprues included. A box with multiple Bastion sprues for £50 for example?

[Captain Idaho]

I like that idea. 3 Bastions for like £30. Even if they make it a deal like "buy a starter box and get 3 Bastions for cheap" kinda deal.

 

I'd like some civilian buildings that aren't ruins but they could get expensive.

 

Incidentally I bought several large home made pieces for cheap off a well known 3rd party site so it's very doable.

[Tichinde]

I have a ruined pyramid (based mostly on the toy Playmobil one) to do that should be quite good a blocking line of sight.

[Bryan Blaire]

Or maybe since everything else has been abstracted, abstracted Line of Sight should be used as well? After all, we aren't playing a simulation, otherwise we would have damage rules for only those pieces of a model you can see using TLoS.

 

I'm all for better mass-produced terrain, but I don't think that GW is in the business of providing things like that any more (and I actually own quite a bit of their terrain now). Players may have to take it upon themselves, sadly, and there are some good tutorials out there on creating terrain - even the last WD had some examples of how to build terrain + some GW kit pieces.

[Captain Idaho]

Or maybe since everything else has been abstracted, abstracted Line of Sight should be used as well? After all, we aren't playing a simulation, otherwise we would have damage rules for only those pieces of a model you can see using TLoS.

Oh I totally agree. I loved the 3rd/4th edition abstract rules. You can't draw line of sight through woods or ruins etc unless you're IN it or the target is also.

 

That's a quick and easy fix and is cheap whilst giving GW the option to promote their terrain.

[Major_Gilbear]

It's a good subject to discuss, but I think it's a bit more complex than whether people use GW terrain (as always). From my experience across all games, it comes down to several things: quantity of terrain, type of terrain, game rules, terrain rules, and players.

 

The main reason GW make terrain at all is because it became very clear during 2E that almost nobody playing at home was using much terrain besides whatever card buildings/ruins came in starter boxes or WD, plus an assortment of junk. It wasn't very appealing, it set the wrong sort of emphasis on the how people interacted with their games, and it made games even more unbalanced than they could be.

 

In 3E, GW made plastic ruins and trees, and started putting them in the main starter and all the Battleforce boxes. As well as selling them separately, the idea was that two people, each owning the starter and a couple of Battleforces, could put down a reasonable amount of terrain on the table between them. It was a good idea, and many players were happy to get some easy terrain (even if every table had the same corner-ruins, jungle trees, and barrels/ammo crates).

 

In later editions, GW tried to go fully-modular with all their buildings, and we got the launch of the Sector Imperialis buildings. GW tried very hard to show people how much could be done with these buildings, and the studio made a whole pile of tables with different ruins and city-scapes to showcase it all. Later on, we started to get the (mostly Imperial again) terrain peices that we are more recently familiar with, and even allowing players to buy them as part of their armies (...and I'm totally sick of seeing the Aegis Defence Line as a result).

 

However, none of this changes the fact that players have always been free to use whatever terrain they want, and can even make it from scratch themselves if they want to.

 

Then you have the rules part of the consideration. Trying to draw true LOS through stuff in a game is a complete pain, and although its very easy to explain in the rules, it's very hard to agree on should you be unlucky enough to have an awkward opponent. GW like it because they feel that making players get down and look across the table is immersive for them. Actually, its a big problem because it can often be hard to get down and have a look from a model's perspective, and it interacts poorly with all sorts of terrain.

 

For example, a forested area would really be a properly-dense area with trees and brushwood that provides easy visual cover for troops - however, in reality, your models can't move or bend, there's only a few trees on a base, and you can't have brushwood because the models' bases won't fit in the terrain. True LOS penalises mercilessly for these inadequacies, unless you introduce more abstract terrain rules. However, if you do that, then why force true LOS on players in the first place?

 

Then you have terrain rules. Make them only/mostly a benefit, and you encourage players to camp in/on them. Add in a risk-reward mechanism, and players then don't like using much terrain because "it gets in the way". I have seen very few editions of 40k where this was ever balanced very well. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but I think a good start would be to have terrain set out in a more "narrative" manner that makes sense, rather than all jumbled-up on the table through rolling on a chart or players looking to place it in alternating turns to try and eke out an advantage.

 

Finally, you come to players. Although "house rules" are sneered at by many, they are easy and fair way to solve a lot of issues that the rulebook cannot possibly cover. For example, nothing stops two players agreeing that although you can see into/out of a ruin, you can't see through a ruin. Suddenly, that ruin can still by occupied by troops defensively, but it now also blocks LOS across the board. Similarly, you could agree that all ruins are completely LOS-blocking at ground floor level, and only allow LOS to be drawn through them at first floor and above.

 

For what it's worth, I think proper terrain set out "narratively", and with some house-ruling agreed with your opponent beforehand, and abstracted LOS is the smoothest game experience you'll get when it comes to terrain. Unfortunately, more than having some big pieces of terrain (or enough terrain), it still seems that talking to your opponent and agreeing on what you both want is in fact the insurmountable issue.

 

 

[Captain Idaho]

I do feel agreement is a problem. Something abstract will have interpretations that vary. Which is partly why it being up to the players to sort themselves I'd wishful thinking.

 

I'm not going to lie, I've had some bitter tastes left in my mouth after playing games where the terrain did nothing to allow the gun lines of opponents to wash away my army. What a waste of my time.

 

GW terrain is the standard everybody uses. You pointed out quite rightly there Gilbear that players weren't playing with much unless GW gave it to them. Unfortunately GW needs to emphasise this element of their game more as you can't trust the people to know what's best for them it seems.

 

To this day you get threads and real life discussions where people protest against changes to terrain or missions that take away their gunline autoplaying army that wins on 1st turn.

 

We actually need GW to define what a table should have because there are still communities and tournaments that think terrain is something to make the battle look good and that's it.

[Prot]

We play with a lot of terrain. I'm sure most people have seen some aspect of my many batreps, and you'll always see a theme of the largest piece going in the center to provide a large LoS blocker no matter what the deployment turns out to be.

 

One guy made these 'metal fences' about 3.5" high and they are portable on stands. We use those on lower levels to completely block LoS where there are main floor gaps.

 

LVO plays lower level ruins are assumed to be LoS blocking.

 

Some cheap terrain I would recommend is 'Crates'. GW makes those plastic, stackable crates which are good, but if you're on a budget there are quite a few cheaper alternative gaming crate makers, even in cardboard if you want. Crates work imho on any table, and are modular enough to apply just the necessary amount of them to fix whatever issue your table might be giving you.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Prot

[Ishagu]

I think a lot of LOS blocking is required, more so than actual large volumes of terrain.

 

It's best to have a few large buildings that prevent units from using the entire board as a firing range, and also a few terrain pieces in the deployment zones for infantry and other units to use in te initial turns.

 

Prot bring up a great piece of terrain - the stack-able crates. There are also companies like gamemat.eu who sell entire pre-painted scenery sets.

[The Yncarne]

Second the crates bit. My group has ~20 of the crates from a discontinued science-fi mini game. They work well for infantry, but don't do much for larger models.

[Slave to Darkness]

When I do get to play with my old group up north we always go for a dense cityfight set up. We just love grinding away through ruins.

[Eddie Orlock]

One technique I've experienced considerable success with is being in the habit of announcing the intent of my terrain related maneuver while I make it. "I'm moving this scout unit around the corner of this wreck where your field guns can't see them, right?" Which works on the principle that lines of sight are public information and if you check while moving you still have time to revise things if your opponent pipes up and disagrees. If you can set up the culture that silence is tacit agreement such an inquiry can bind your opponent for a turn even if it unintentionally turns out false. Which in turn means that they'll tend to actively participate in your movement phase countersigning your LoS assertions which keeps some players more immersed in the game when its not their turn.

 

Not often is moving though cover a 'surprise' move, so vetting it in the process usually isn't much of a tactical sacrifice.

[Atrus]

Ive sometimes played with a group that makes their own terrain. So many styrofoam hills and giant boulder outcrops, very nicely made and painted shoe box buildings, old sheet metal to make warehouses. Grab a whole heap of that and you might get about 15" clear line of sight down the street.

[Tyriks]

I have some GW terrain and a few lasercut wood pieces I got in a bundle online. I think the manufactorum kit I built in a way that the first floor blocks Los but none of the others do. So what I'm doing right now is cutting up strips of plasticard, making small wood planks out of them, and "boarding up" some of the lower floors' windows. I'll probably add some on higher floors too for added effect. We usually house rule that the bottom floor of all my buildings block LoS in the meantime. We are going to start scratch-building soon (probably tomorrow night) to add to this.

[MARK0SIAN]

I agree, more of the terrain used needs to truly block line of sight. Whether you do that through abstract rules (the only way with a lot of GWs current terrain) or only using terrain that truly blocks sight, it will definitely help tone down the power of Alpha strikes in the game. My personal favourite would be for official abstract rules similar to some of those mentioned above.

 

On a similar note, I think GW needs to tighten up the rules around line of sight in general. I’d like to see an explanation in the rules similar to past editions where line of sight had to be drawn from the body of the model to the body of the other model and you were explicitly told to ignore banners, plumes etc. It’s hard enough to deny line of sight as it is without someone being able to claim that ‘any part of the model’ includes a spear tip, a banner pole or the tail of someone’s flowing cloak :)

[NovemberIX]

My table at home has a lot of terrain, and we tend to play it that solid buildings block LOS, but ruins and the like we play true LOS. I prefer a table with a lot of terrain to one with sparse terrain, not only does it look better, but it plays better as well. The pictures also come out looking awesome when you have a good amount of terrain to break up backgrounds. I do wonder if part of ht reason for a lack of terrain for a lot of home tables is because of the cost, my two tables worth cost me about 300, and even then it's not very dense.

[Feral_80]

One of the aspects of the 8th ed. ruleset that I find most shocking is the totally inadequate rules for terrains. They are so poorly written that many situations are simply not covered, and honestly I am still wondering what tournament organizers do in those cases.

 

I think one of the most urgently needed things is a revised, complete set of terrain rules that leaves no ambiguities and introduces simple but rewarding mechanics. At the moment, the cover system is fine for infantry, but it is totally (and unnecessarily) useless for vehicles. A lot of terrain is simply useless because it neither provides cover nor affects movement - it simply has a cosmetic role, but that quickly gets boring as it demotivates people to use any useless element at all.

 

On the one hand, I'd like to see GW abandon 'true los' and switch to a simpler blocking/non blocking system. On the other, it would also be necessary to add some more refinement to terrain rules, because at the moment they really do not make any sense. It's a major issue of the game, and I believe most groups tend to house-rule it one way or another.

[Captain Idaho]

Mine cost me £40 from eBay so I think it's doable at a budget.

 

Totally worth it since you get better games.

 

On a personal note I'd love tournaments to embrace this philosophy. Just imagine all those competitive discussions on here that would be changed because an army with some assault troops can actually use them if they go 2nd. :p

[NatBrannigan]

Thoroughly enjoyed making my own terrain and it was fairly cheap to make. I've had to update it slightly for 8th by putting almost everything on a base to show the extent of the terrain. If you're on the base, you're in the terrain.

 

The GW industrial terrain I have is great to look at but you're right, it's actually difficult to get much benefit from it. we've started treating it like an oddly shaped wall from below and as in cover if you're on top (unless the shooting model is also on top). Easy enough.

 

For LOS blocking I have a couple of big features that literally block LOS so they're easy. For my forests / rock features etc that don't I'm conflicted though. I don't know whether to keep them as per the rules just adding 1 to cover? Make them all block LOS? I'm thinking they should block LOS unless you're firing from an elevated position (currently the hills I have don't really do anything...).

 

Really shouldn't be having to make up suitable rules for something so integral to the game though. Concentrate less on making things "mysterious" or "inspirational" or whatever and just make the basic rules good and clear.

[battle captain corpus]

@Idaho: I completely agree with you. I firmly work with the old adage of more terrain the better the game.

Movement actually makes a difference and spending turns lining your troops up for the best kill shots actually matters.

I always rearrange the terrain with my opponent whenever possible and add some too if we can.

 

BCC

[Major_Gilbear]

I think there is also the related issue of how terrain should be placed to provide or deny an advantage.

 

Many people's instinct is to try and spread terrain terrain around so that it's "fairer", but that actually takes away from the game sometimes.

 

For example, in some games like Infinity, the player who wins the starting roll-off gets to decide whether they want to choose the starting deployments or to chose the starting turn order. If the table is evenly and fairly distributed terrain-wise, then there is no real choice - the starting roll player will always choose to decide starting turn order because it has the most obvious impact. However, if the terrain setup is imbalanced, then they have the more interesting choice of better starting position vs deciding who goes first/second.

 

Now, I'm not advocating wildly imbalanced table setups here, but rather that I feel the terrain should be placed such that it can help or hinder one side a bit more than the other. That means that just plonking down a couple of big LOS-blockers in the middle and scattering ruins and jungles around it is probably not going to be as interesting as choosing whether you want to deploy on the side with difficult terrain to help an elite army avoid deepstriking enemies, vs choosing a more open side that allows your troops to move forward quickly without being hindered.

 

 

One technique I've experienced considerable success with is being in the habit of announcing the intent of my terrain related maneuver while I make it.

 

I actually do this for all my actions in every wargame, and in fact for some games it's actually mandatory (Infinity).

 

Not only is it helpful for your opponent (and more interesting than a terse silence and you move your models), it's amazing how often it gives your opponent a fair opportunity to challenge something before dice are rolled. It's therefore much easier to catch any rules slips before dice are rolled and models removed, and this lets cooler heads prevail when discussing a solution. In other words, I feel this is just good gaming etiquette! ;)

 

 

My table at home has a lot of terrain, and we tend to play it that solid buildings block LOS, but ruins and the like we play true LOS.

 

As a veteran of the old Necromunda game and the starter box terrain it had, drawing LOS through a whole string of  bulkheads and gaps was a big source of  frustration  arguments gentlemanly debates that slowed the game down a *lot*. I shudder at the thought of going back to that style of Swiss-cheese terrain ever again without some pretty robust house ruling!

 

I also noted (even as a teenager) that the Studio terrain in WD battle reports had quite different properties in that regard...

 

 

I do wonder if part of ht reason for a lack of terrain for a lot of home tables is because of the cost, my two tables worth cost me about 300, and even then it's not very dense.

 

That's the fairly usual downside to "official" or store-bought terrain - it can easily be rather expensive. However, making nice terrain yourself from recycled materials is not very hard, and doesn't have to take forever to make.

 

Even then, if you are after something that's just functional rather than elaborate, there are suppliers out there that produce ruins and buildings that you can fill a table with for a more modest cost, and which can be assembled and painted in just one afternoon. :)

 

 

One of the aspects of the 8th ed. ruleset that I find most shocking is the totally inadequate rules for terrains. They are so poorly written that many situations are simply not covered, and honestly I am still wondering what tournament organizers do in those cases.

 

[...]

 

On the one hand, I'd like to see GW abandon 'true los' and switch to a simpler blocking/non blocking system. On the other, it would also be necessary to add some more refinement to terrain rules, because at the moment they really do not make any sense. It's a major issue of the game, and I believe most groups tend to house-rule it one way or another.

 

I agree - and I think it's a prime candidate for CA2018. :)

 

It might also make an interesting project that could be worked out here on B&C, and perhaps even presented to GW on completion?

[totgeboren]

Or maybe since everything else has been abstracted, abstracted Line of Sight should be used as well? After all, we aren't playing a simulation, otherwise we would have damage rules for only those pieces of a model you can see using TLoS.

 

I'm all for better mass-produced terrain, but I don't think that GW is in the business of providing things like that any more (and I actually own quite a bit of their terrain now). Players may have to take it upon themselves, sadly, and there are some good tutorials out there on creating terrain - even the last WD had some examples of how to build terrain + some GW kit pieces.

 

True LOS is a real problem for gameplay in most 40k games. Having played a few new Necromunda games recently, the abstract rules in 2D are just sooo much better and fun compared to having to use a dental mirror to try and see what the model sees (that you need for 3D games). :/

 

And they probably need more articles on how to make terrain. There just isn't any way around the fact that spending lots of money on terrain instead of miniatures is something only a small minority of players (generally veterans) are willing to do, while good terrain is at the same time crucial for the game experience. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by totgeboren

[Feral_80]

 

One of the aspects of the 8th ed. ruleset that I find most shocking is the totally inadequate rules for terrains. They are so poorly written that many situations are simply not covered, and honestly I am still wondering what tournament organizers do in those cases.

 

[...]

 

On the one hand, I'd like to see GW abandon 'true los' and switch to a simpler blocking/non blocking system. On the other, it would also be necessary to add some more refinement to terrain rules, because at the moment they really do not make any sense. It's a major issue of the game, and I believe most groups tend to house-rule it one way or another.

 

I agree - and I think it's a prime candidate for CA2018.

 

It might also make an interesting project that could be worked out here on B&C, and perhaps even presented to GW on completion?

 

Aye, that might be an idea. But I've already done my part for that kind of projects, and I'm still wondering if it'll ever yield some result from GW. I guess March will tell.

This could far too easily take the upper hand and lead to rewrite the whole ruleset, something any self-respecting player secretly wants to do, but rarely has the willpower to attempt (I certainly don't, as much as I dislike the current state of the game).

 

I'd probably try to contribute if someone else took care of the terrain rules though.