Wh40k 10th Edition Terrain in 10th

[phandaal]

Units benefitting from Plunging Fire will also not be able to hold objectives, if the current distance rules stand. Need to be within 5" vertically to hold an objective, and 6" up to get Plunging Fire.

[Dr. Clock]

6 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

Feels a bit like this will encourage gunlines and static play.

Depends how you build your tables, and strongly depends on how scoring works. Currently there is barely ever a good reason to get off the table because once you're ~6" up, you have effectively lost a turn's movement at minimum from basic infantry units, and you gain nothing other than occasional visibility to a model or two that you could probably have seen if you just moved laterally in the first place. The game is (mostly) about movement and position, with damage as the 'confounding factor', so it makes sense that sacrificing some movement (scoring potential) would contribute to your damage potential more than just 'making a few things more visible'.

 

Personally I've been waiting for Plunging Fire to return since Cities of Death. So... More than 15 years? Giving people a positive reason to get up off the table is very welcome, and builds immersion for me. It feels correct that shooting from above with a good vantage is better than ground level. Also means that units without proper AP at least have a way to get an angle and try to do something about power-armour.

 

High ground advantage has been a standard military consideration since at least Sun Tzu.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Aramis K]

Reivers might have a role here bouncing up and down ruins with their grappling hooks.

No better than jump units obviously, but a tiny bit more value from the cool minis

[ChargingSoll]

2 minutes ago, Aramis K said:

Reivers might have a role here bouncing up and down ruins with their grappling hooks.

No better than jump units obviously, but a tiny bit more value from the cool minis

Don't give me hope of my reivers to be good. Especially the bolter variant

[Warhead01]

Plunging Fire! Yes! 
Well, my buildings are made with 4" floors and so on all the way up so that puts shooters on the third floor for the most part but I think this should be added to any hills or solid structures that are tall enough as well. Not just for Ruins. May have to house rule that. at least to give it a try. 

I don't think this will be a big thing for gun lines on my table with my terrain. I like a lot of terrain and an good distribution of terrain in a thematic way not a balanced even table way. I like my tables to attempt to look like a place not a even tournament table. 

[tzeentch9]

49 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

God, some of those explanations are truly awful for what amounts to extremely basic rules.

They have to write it out as comprehensively as possible, or some moron will try to find loopholes in the wording. This sort of wording is down to certain players, not gw

[Brother Nathan]

so for my iron warriors i could say stick the heavy/longer ranged part of the legionaries squad on higher levels to get benefit of plunging fire, crew on lower levels wont but can hold objective though risk counter charges etc. despite being in cover wont get benefit of cover against ap0... hmmm.. 

[Dark Shepherd]

Las fusils or devastators could be nasty high up on ruins, depends on what terrain you use/how you set up

 

Minus one to hit be  it on aircraft/smokescreen units seems like a bigger deal now

[tentagil]

40 minutes ago, ChargingSoll said:

Don't give me hope of my reivers to be good. Especially the bolter variant

Sort of hoping that with all the other changes in rules, we are seeing Reivers will get a complete rework to find an actual purpose in an army. When they were released in 8th they seemed like they were sort of the Primari's answer to Assault marines. Then 9th we got the real answer to that and Reivers are just this cool mini with no real purpose in any army.

[MoshJason]

As someone who played a lot of cities of death in 8th, I am super glad that plunging fire is a thing again. It makes jump pack units a bit scarier! 

I'm not happy that 3+ Saves can't get a bonus vs Ap 0 weapons - it means that cover basically doesn't matter in troop v troop fights for (let's be honest) most armies - and that's kind of a shame.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

am i understanding this correctly, that now theres only 1 benefit of cover and thats adding 1 to saves, and the -1 to hit for units in some forms of cover no longer exists?

also i saw nothing about reducing movement over any types of terrain.

[MARK0SIAN]

I get why they’ve done it but cover not working for power armour against AP0 shots then suddenly working against AP1 or higher just doesn’t seem to make sense. How does the exact same object effect a shot that is better at penetrating more than it effects a shot that is less good at penetrating? 

Edited April 20, 2023 by MARK0SIAN

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Doctor Perils said:

The plunging fire seems like an OK rule, though surprised they didn't also give it to hills/sealed terrain

 

Edit: it's a bit difficult to judge how good these rules work without the rules for visible/fully visible

other than big fancy display style boards i can't say i've ever seen a hill that was 6" tall or taller. 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

Units benefitting from Plunging Fire will also not be able to hold objectives, if the current distance rules stand. Need to be within 5" vertically to hold an objective, and 6" up to get Plunging Fire.

 

 

 

Okay, so "perfectly" is a stretch but at the least they're making an attempt to pull things apart a bit.  One unit of, say, Havocs or Devastators in a building can't run a backfield all alone.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Iron Father Ferrum

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 minutes ago, Iron Father Ferrum said:

 

 

 

Okay, so "perfectly" is a stretch but at the least they're making an attempt to pull things apart a bit.  One unit of, say, Havocs or Devastators in a building can't run a backfield all alone.

IG mortars on the ground level, with a HWS up on a  higher level 6" up, or something similar sounds like a pretty mean and beefy combo to hold a backfield objective.

[KiltedMarine]

Overall, I like this development.  The complexity of terrain types in 9th bogged down play, IME.  I am curious about what Inquisitor_Lensoven mentioned- how will terrain affect movement? 

[Bouargh]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

Units benefitting from Plunging Fire will also not be able to hold objectives, if the current distance rules stand. Need to be within 5" vertically to hold an objective, and 6" up to get Plunging Fire.

 

If I am not wrong, Gantries and building levels from Imperialis Sector are 5" height. So the Plunging Fire benefit will be in the end rather limited in terms of impact on the game as we will need quite high buildings such as roof top of Sanctum imperialis, or at least 3 stacked Munitorum container to get it. Talking of GW produced Terrain of course... 

 

So from my perspective, a characterful rule, but of little use or impact and/or of very contextual interest. 

 

For the rest, let say that the phrasing of the terrain rule is, well, cumbersome. As other pointed out already, something so smpe described in a so complicated way....

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

16 minutes ago, Bouargh said:

 

If I am not wrong, Gantries and building levels from Imperialis Sector are 5" height. So the Plunging Fire benefit will be in the end rather limited in terms of impact on the game as we will need quite high buildings such as roof top of Sanctum imperialis, or at least 3 stacked Munitorum container to get it. Talking of GW produced Terrain of course... 

 

So from my perspective, a characterful rule, but of little use or impact and/or of very contextual interest. 

 

For the rest, let say that the phrasing of the terrain rule is, well, cumbersome. As other pointed out already, something so smpe described in a so complicated way....

Maybe it’s because there’s been 0 benefit from 6” tall terrain, but I don’t see 6” terrain on real tables.

 

Sure some big YouTubers and what not might have that sort of stuff, along with long time players who built just for funsies, but it may become much more common.

 

i was just working on a large building that’s like7-8” tall, so that will be a bit more fun to play with.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

Yeah, that's plagued them for a while. They sometimes aren't very good at writing cohesive rules.

 

Rules in 10th edition be like:

 

 

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Iron Father Ferrum said:

 

 

 

Okay, so "perfectly" is a stretch but at the least they're making an attempt to pull things apart a bit.  One unit of, say, Havocs or Devastators in a building can't run a backfield all alone.

 

 

Yep. I like that there is a trade-off. Either you get the bonus, or you hold the objective, but not both.

[DemonGSides]

Rules are that way because a lot of warhammer dudes are also power gamers, therefore they've gotta angle shoot and try to find loopholes.

Blame the players.

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, MoshJason said:

As someone who played a lot of cities of death in 8th, I am super glad that plunging fire is a thing again. It makes jump pack units a bit scarier! 

I'm not happy that 3+ Saves can't get a bonus vs Ap 0 weapons - it means that cover basically doesn't matter in troop v troop fights for (let's be honest) most armies - and that's kind of a shame.

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I get why they’ve done it but cover not working for power armour against AP0 shots then suddenly working against AP1 or higher just doesn’t seem to make sense. How does the exact same object effect a shot that is better at penetrating more than it effects a shot that is less good at penetrating? 

I think it's almost entirely based around a gameplay mechanics perspective, but I can see a twisted sort of physical logic. I think it's not that the object effects a shot better at penetrating so much as it is the object makes a meaningful difference within the d6-granularity. Ablative armor on a tank doesn't add a meaningful difference if the weapon is a peashooter, but does add a meaningful difference versus an anti-material rifle (I think, I don't actually know much about tanks, its the rough analogy I'm going for). That crumbling brick wall doesn't account enough compared to Power Armor to be  significant for the Power Armor failing against a lasgun, but it is significant enough for the Power Armor succeeding against a Heavy Bolter.

[Osteoclast]

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I get why they’ve done it but cover not working for power armour against AP0 shots then suddenly working against AP1 or higher just doesn’t seem to make sense. How does the exact same object effect a shot that is better at penetrating more than it effects a shot that is less good at penetrating? 

it sounds like it’s just a roundabout way of saying cover can’t get you to a 2+ save? 

[Cactus]

1 hour ago, MoshJason said:

As someone who played a lot of cities of death in 8th, I am super glad that plunging fire is a thing again. It makes jump pack units a bit scarier! 

I'm not happy that 3+ Saves can't get a bonus vs Ap 0 weapons - it means that cover basically doesn't matter in troop v troop fights for (let's be honest) most armies - and that's kind of a shame.

It will matter if those AP0 guns get the height advantage and go to AP-1. Then the benefit of cover kicks in and negates it.

 

1st ed Necromunda terrain is 3" high per floor and easily makes 3+ storey buildings if you have a couple of sets. Albeit ones without walls.

[Warhead01]

53 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Maybe it’s because there’s been 0 benefit from 6” tall terrain, but I don’t see 6” terrain on real tables.

 

Sure some big YouTubers and what not might have that sort of stuff, along with long time players who built just for funsies, but it may become much more common.

 

i was just working on a large building that’s like7-8” tall, so that will be a bit more fun to play with.

 Funsies? Heck, I just don't want inferior products. Not when I can create what I want and am more happy with it. 
I have building ruins that are 10 to 12 inches tall and 10 to 12 inches wide in some cases. This is the way.  I know I made a strong opening statement, these do need a little more umph, I would agree. 
Makes for a better looking table and a better game than squat little bunkers, ruins and buildings.  And I will add that a few game shops I know and have ben to also have or had large buildings from 10 to 12 inches tall. ( Some were larger. ) Not on every table but they were in the terrain pool at those shops. 
I guess that's just a long time player thing but it also reflects poorly on the hobby as a whole that crappy tables are the norm and newer player have to just accept them as the norm. 
It's very sad you don't see better buildings and ruins at your games.  I think it's funny too because one draw for players to play in a shop, I would think, would be cool terrain. I wouldn't go to a theme part to visit a parking lot. 
I do also hope that terrain improvements go hand in hand with , possibly better, terrain rules. 
Not trying to aggravate you. It's just one of those subjects that give me the eye twitch. 

++Edited++ 
Picture was too small. 
 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Warhead01
Picture was too small.