Wh40k 10th Edition Terrain in 10th

[Isual]

I personally don't like TLOS because it encourages boring Battlefields (what's that Tournament with the large L-shaped neon color plastic things again) and boring miniatures because they will be build to maximize cover. 

 

It feels kind of wrong for me to be able to shoot someone because a nanometer of his backpackpole is visible through 5 lined up openings in 3 different buildings across the battlefield. Only gets you gotcha moments.

 

The rules for ruins are abstract, but this helps you to build a interesting ruined building without making it completely unplayable by accident.

 

PS: I can remember when the Defiler was new, people built it in a squatted position as low as possible to the ground to hide it behind hills and stuff.

Edited April 22, 2023 by Isual

[bigtrouble]

Example 1, the rock on the left? Is that part of a larger terrain piece? What would you call it, as far as terrain type?

 

Example 2, if that rock is a hill or barricade, that model has cover.

 

I can see how either of these would cause a heated debate in the moment, but I think both of them would be very clear RAW, so long as the terrain type is known before hand

Edited April 22, 2023 by bigtrouble
spelling

[Rik Lightstar]

YES a small part of the rocky outcrop could and would partially obscure a miniature. This is because of a concept called "abstraction". 

 

The terrain is an abstraction, in the same way that the miniatures are. 

 

Your miniatures don't represent an army of guys locked permanently in static positions, teleporting from point to point with a disk attached to their feet. It shouldn't need stating that they are actually meant to be mobile and dynamic individuals who are at various moments running, ducking, dodging, kneeling, aiming, shooting, fighting, hiding, etc. 

 

The terrain on the table works to represent something possibly more complex, a base with 3 trees represents a stand of multiple trees and shrubs. 

 

A ruin may also contain furniture, light interior walls and doors. 

 

If you can only handle one of these abstractions but not the others then it's not really the game or the rules that's the problem. 

 

Rik

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

18 minutes ago, Rik Lightstar said:

YES a small part of the rocky outcrop could and would partially obscure a miniature. This is because of a concept called "abstraction". 

 

The terrain is an abstraction, in the same way that the miniatures are. 

 

Your miniatures don't represent an army of guys locked permanently in static positions, teleporting from point to point with a disk attached to their feet. It shouldn't need stating that they are actually meant to be mobile and dynamic individuals who are at various moments running, ducking, dodging, kneeling, aiming, shooting, fighting, hiding, etc. 

 

The terrain on the table works to represent something possibly more complex, a base with 3 trees represents a stand of multiple trees and shrubs. 

 

A ruin may also contain furniture, light interior walls and doors. 

 

If you can only handle one of these abstractions but not the others then it's not really the game or the rules that's the problem. 

 

Rik

I am fine with abstractions for terrain, but for the gravis captain to be getting cover into cover from that position, that's a large movement abstraction to make. moving an inch or two on tabletop is a massive abstraction.

i have already made the point about 'woods'  and i have no problem with the idea of a standing model kneeling down behind a wall or something. I view the base size and an abstraction of where that specific soldier/alien/whatever is or could be on the tabletop rather than statically exactly where it is.

however even if we assumed the gravis captain were prone, i think enough would stick up above that it wouldn't be reasonable for that rock to provide cover.

Edited April 22, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Rik Lightstar]

4 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I am fine with abstractions for terrain, but for the gravis captain to be getting cover into cover from that position, that's a large movement abstraction to make. moving an inch or two on tabletop is a massive abstraction.

 

If at the start of the game you've agreed that an item is terrain that grants cover, then that's what it is. 

 

If you don't want something to grant cover then agree that at the start of the game. 

 

Agreeing to one thing and then grumbling about it part way through the game is just pure bad sportsmanship. 

 

Rik

[Cactus]

When did we stop tracing line of sight from a model's eyes? That tiny rock obscures nothing from the point of view of the thing with wings. However it shouldn't matter unlss the whole base+hill+tree piece has been defined as a specific terrain type that has meaning in the rules. Otherwise the tiny rock is just ornamental and that's ok.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, bigtrouble said:

Example 1, the rock on the left? Is that part of a larger terrain piece? What would you call it, as far as terrain type?

 

Example 2, if that rock is a hill or barricade, that model has cover.

 

I can see how either of these would cause a heated debate in the moment, but I think both of them would be very clear RAW, so long as the terrain type is known before hand

Example 1 the small rock on the ground is part of a much larger terrain piece and is on that terrain’s base.

 

as for the terrain piece overall it could count as hills, or as woods as there 3 trees on it, but that’s my point, simple wording such as ‘if the center of mass is obscured, the model gets the benefits of cover’ this would apply to all shapes and sizes of models and could cause some debate/arguement over where center mass truly is, but clarifies that things like these situations that don’t require minuscule discussion to prevent power gamers from trying to take advantage of.

[Lemondish]

I'm not sure I fully understand the discussion here. I'm confused because, in my experience, a few minutes discussing how each terrain piece would be treated has been one of the very first things I've done all edition. Is that not normal? It's how I learned the rules in the first place.

 

In the few tournaments I've had the pleasure to attend, terrain questions were already hammered out in the rules packet.

 

At no point have I ever had to worry about the way a rock here or there was treated - we already knew ahead of time. 

 

I'm eager to hear if others have different experiences or take different approaches in their games. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

16 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

I'm not sure I fully understand the discussion here. I'm confused because, in my experience, a few minutes discussing how each terrain piece would be treated has been one of the very first things I've done all edition. Is that not normal? It's how I learned the rules in the first place.

 

In the few tournaments I've had the pleasure to attend, terrain questions were already hammered out in the rules packet.

 

At no point have I ever had to worry about the way a rock here or there was treated - we already knew ahead of time. 

 

I'm eager to hear if others have different experiences or take different approaches in their games. 

you discuss whether or not something provides cover for every piece of small rubble or rock on every piece of terrain conveys benefits?

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

5 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

you discuss whether or not something provides cover for every piece of small rubble or rock on every piece of terrain conveys benefits?

If it is a rock by itself not as part of another piece of terrain, and it's large enough to be notable, you go, 'the rocks this size are obstacles, but these tiny ones are just scenery you can ignore.' or whatever. If it's a rock on a base, then that base is a footprint, and that makes it area terrain. So any time you're on the base you get the benefit of whatever you've decided that area does.

 

I played many many many games of 8th and 9th. And deciding what terrain was has never really been a problem. I've had issues with individual players, where any little thing could get blown into a problem. But no terrain rule in particular was the cause of an ongoing issue.

 

Just a matter of touching a building and going, 'So these are ruins, these are ruins, that's dense terrain, these pipe sections are barricades, and those large boxes we'll use the shipping container rules for. Tank traps are craters. That sound good?'

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 minutes ago, Marshal Valkenhayn said:

If it is a rock by itself not as part of another piece of terrain, and it's large enough to be notable, you go, 'the rocks this size are obstacles, but these tiny ones are just scenery you can ignore.' or whatever. If it's a rock on a base, then that base is a footprint, and that makes it area terrain. So any time you're on the base you get the benefit of whatever you've decided that area does.

 

I played many many many games of 8th and 9th. And deciding what terrain was has never really been a problem. I've had issues with individual players, where any little thing could get blown into a problem. But no terrain rule in particular was the cause of an ongoing issue.

 

Just a matter of touching a building and going, 'So these are ruins, these are ruins, that's dense terrain, these pipe sections are barricades, and those large boxes we'll use the shipping container rules for. Tank traps are craters. That sound good?'

Guess we’re very different I wouldn’t consider that rock as providing cover regardless of its part of the base of terrain.

[Lemondish]

41 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

you discuss whether or not something provides cover for every piece of small rubble or rock on every piece of terrain conveys benefits?

 

No, that's absurd.

 

I discuss what every piece of area terrain is considered and, in 9th edition terms, what effects it carries. I have a number of scattered rocks on my area terrain and it's never been an issue because it's all considered part of a specific area terrain feature. Can you help me understand what the hang-up is on this specific rock? I'm sorry, but I'm confused and don't understand what the issue is. What am I missing? Have I been taking a too simplified view of things in 9th thus far?

 

The way I see it, it's almost guaranteed that at some point one can step up to a table for a match and see terrain they've never seen before. Maybe it's 3d printed, scratch-built, or just an ancient GW kit they've never interacted with. In all these cases the rules need to work with them, but that can't happen without active participation and discussion of what confers what effects from the two parties. That's why I see the edge cases folks like to discuss as nothing more than ice breakers - opportunities to start that discussion.

 

One of the things I'm much more open with (and I gather it isn't something many here accept) is the fact that these models are not individuals frozen in time. They're representations - not direct facsimiles. My charging assault intercessors aren't all mid stride every moment of their existence, which in turn carries the idea that an area terrain feature that we've agreed can provide the benefits of cover could do so if one imagines that model as a representation of a being capable of throwing themselves to the ground or crouching behind a stone.

 

Just my thoughts.

Edited April 23, 2023 by Lemondish

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

44 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Guess we’re very different I wouldn’t consider that rock as providing cover regardless of its part of the base of terrain.

If the area terrain provides light cover, then all parts of it provide light cover. If it provides dense, than all parts of it provide dense. You aren't modeling 'a rock beside a nub of pillar' you're modeling 'a mess of rocks and pillars.' That's what area terrain is. You aren't modeling some very loosely scattered trees, you're modeling woods.

 

Most of the game boards I build are either fairly equal on both sides, or deliberately built to favor one side for the tactical challenge of it. Either way is fine as long as the players are in it to have fun. But an argument caused over something as minor as a rock on a piece of built terrain not granting cover isn't really something I'd be interested in. It has it or it doesn't, but if it became an issue in multiple games I'd give you a nickname like Rockhead or what not and play with people more fun. Choosing terrain rules is pretty slick and simple and not really where the tension in a match should be coming from.

 

 

[Lemondish]

10 hours ago, Marshal Valkenhayn said:

I'd give you a nickname like Rockhead or what not and play with people more fun. Choosing terrain rules is pretty slick and simple and not really where the tension in a match should be coming from.

 

Crafting nicknames is a dying art, but sometimes the simplest ones are the best

 

9 hours ago, KrakenBorn said:

Can we please end this rock discussion?

 

My apologies for bringing it up again, I was simply really confused about why it was an issue and wanted to see what it was I was missing.