Prescribed Terrain Setup

[The Neverborn]

I've looked through the forums and I'm not sure where to post this. If I've chosen the wrong one would a kind admin move it please :) 

 

From about 7th ed onwards I've tended to prefer Melee armies, currently Orks, previously Deamons. 

 

With a melee army it's very difficult to do much when you're not in Melee and I've been shot off the board in the 1st or 2nd turn. Having looked at grand tournament games I've noted they seem to play with a lot more terrain than is typical in my games. By a lot i mean 1.5x to 3x of LOS blocking terrain.  I've taken advice from better players than myself on my getting shot off the board in turn 1 or 2 problem, one of the things that is common is hide your units better, pick your moment, position yourself to reduce incoming fire. The issue I have is this is quite hard to execute when there's not enough terrain on the board to hide maybe more than 1 unit, especially if you're using units with a large footprint. 

I've attempted to discuss this with my opponents before games, with very little success, especially if they play gun lines. I don't think they are "cheating" or trying to set favourable set up for themselves. I genuinely think they are maintaining what they perceive as the correct amount based on what they have done in the past. I know I'm not totally alone, having discussed this with other players who've noted the same dynamic. As opposed to my online persona, in real life I've got little desire to argue with someone for more than a minute or so. I'm more willing to accept that I'm going to get shot off the table turn 1/2 than spend time negotiating the correct amount of terrain as, among other issues, I feel it sets a combative vibe to the game.

I'm somewhat hoping that in a future edition Prescribed Terrain Maps for each mission are provided which may solve my problem.

Any hope in that? Am i wrong?

[DemonGSides]

These already exist.

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/downloads/warhammer-40000/

 

Find the Pariah Nexus tournament companion under Core Rules and Downloads and it gives you suggestions for terrain as well as what missions play well on it.

 

It does sound like your opponents are probably erring on the side of being strong due to map choice, so this might alleviate some of that.  With even close to "correct" amounts of terrain will make the melee army feel a lot more able to, y'know, play the game.

 

Be wary though; I've found gunline players to be a bit salty once they realize how overpowered they had it on a sparse table.  Might be a feels bad, but shouldn't be more of a feels bad than knowing you're going to lose due to play style preference. 

Edited 21 hours ago by DemonGSides

[The Neverborn]

19 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

These already exist.

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/downloads/warhammer-40000/

 

 

Yes I've seen these. And I've referenced them. There doesn't seem to be a lot of appetite for them in the games I've played in as they are not in the rulebook or the deck of cards you get with an expansion. - Apologies if that sounds silly but its the way it is....  

Edited 21 hours ago by The Neverborn

[Dr_Ruminahui]

This isn't really a rules question, so I've moved it to Amicus, where it is also likely to get more views and responses.

 

I guess another tact is to direct him to the pictures in the rules showing example tables as an indication that the game is intended to be played with more terrain.  Another is to point out that you really aren't having fun, and that some sort of changes need to occur for you to enjoy your games together.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I’m confused about how little terrain you have on tables to regularly be getting tables by shooting in a single turn…

 

in the old days the recommended method was to fill 1/4 of the table with terrain of all sorts, as much as you can for, and then just spread it out.

 

i don’t really pay attention to the official tournament type set ups.

 

these days I generally go with a big center piece type of terrain piece in the middle, small-medium terrain midfield flanks, a wall or barricade or something center front of each DZ, and then small ruins or something similar on the flanks of the DZ, and maybe some small bits of scatter terrain.

 

go to my profile and find the topics I made for the arkapeli 1st  dragoons and angels de Mari, and you’ll see pics from my games and how much terrain I use.

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, The Neverborn said:

 

Yes I've seen these. And I've referenced them. There doesn't seem to be a lot of appetite for them in the games I've played in as they are not in the rulebook or the deck of cards you get with an expansion. - Apologies if that sounds silly but its the way it is....  

…then just go by the rule book examples?

 

next game take pictures of the table and terrain setup, and share here so we can see. Otherwise we have no idea if it’s a terrain issue, or a you issue.

Edited 12 hours ago by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[DemonGSides]

8 hours ago, The Neverborn said:

 

Yes I've seen these. And I've referenced them. There doesn't seem to be a lot of appetite for them in the games I've played in as they are not in the rulebook or the deck of cards you get with an expansion. - Apologies if that sounds silly but its the way it is....  

 

The main rule book also provides images and most of those tables shown should have enough where playing melee isn't terrible.  These downloadable rules are addendums by GW official and the only thing that have specific, building by building layout.  Maybe offer a compromise to at least pick the same amount of terrain and let player placed terrain at least be the way it gets set up to get the best of both worlds.

Crusade games don't give out specific terrain mostly, just the general deployments and objective layouts, but maybe I'm forgetting particular set ups.  Boarding actions have specific terrain a lot of the time, but if they're not even willing to entertain playing something that doesn't overly favor them I'm not sure what the fix is.

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Since it’s terrain related I’ll air my annoyance at how many tables I see get laid out.

 

a bunch of ruins depicting a city/town/village/etc. but they’re all at weird angles and no actual street layouts. I get people don’t want long LOS, so throw something else like a cargo container and/or wrecked vehicles in the streets to block some LOS.

[apologist]

The 'third army' should be a key part of planning and inform the game  – whether that's ensuring you've got a 'fair' mirror-layout for competitive Matched Play, or an interesting themed battlefield for Narrative Play. A good table helps with immersion and enjoyment, (at least, if they're set up with a setting mind, as @Inquisitor_Lensoven says; and not a weird laser-tag arrangement of random corner ruins), but also – as @The Neverborn is finding out to their cost – make a substantial difference to the balance of different armies.

 

Unfortunately, suggested terrain and table layouts are under-explored both by GW and the community. I'd love missions to come with guidelines for an ideal table to play it on, as it would encourage more creative and asymmetrical scenarios.

 

In the meantime, I suggest having a look through this thread on Dakka Dakka, to get a sense of how other groups set up their games of 40k. You'll find a lot of variety.

 

Personally, I've tended to adhere to Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson's comments that 'the more terrain, the better the game'.

[DemonGSides]

Yeah even if the terrain is hills, everyone should be happier with more terrain as it's just more interesting. Maybe height variable terrain so those gunline armies can get some plunging fire to get a benefit like melee get from being untargetable?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, apologist said:

The 'third army' should be a key part of planning and inform the game  – whether that's ensuring you've got a 'fair' mirror-layout for competitive Matched Play, or an interesting themed battlefield for Narrative Play. A good table helps with immersion and enjoyment, (at least, if they're set up with a setting mind, as @Inquisitor_Lensoven says; and not a weird laser-tag arrangement of random corner ruins), but also – as @The Neverborn is finding out to their cost – make a substantial difference to the balance of different armies.

 

Unfortunately, suggested terrain and table layouts are under-explored both by GW and the community. I'd love missions to come with guidelines for an ideal table to play it on, as it would encourage more creative and asymmetrical scenarios.

 

In the meantime, I suggest having a look through this thread on Dakka Dakka, to get a sense of how other groups set up their games of 40k. You'll find a lot of variety.

 

Personally, I've tended to adhere to Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson's comments that 'the more terrain, the better the game'.

The more terrain the better unless you have large monsters or tanks, that can’t move any where, and can’t see anything.

[The Neverborn]

21 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The more terrain the better unless you have large monsters or tanks, that can’t move any where, and can’t see anything.

 

This is the other issue armies like Daemons have, exacerbated by the flight rules. Too little terrain and you're centre peace models are basically on display to 99% of the opponent's shooting 99% of the time. A Bloodthirster is a good example with it's huge wingspan and slightly lopsided pose, it can be difficult to block LOS. Too Much terrain and yeah you can hide him but you can't move him that much as he needs to negotiate round terrain, a Great unclean one is going to have an even harder job due to it's bigger base. If terrain is very dense you can even get into issues deep striking.

 

I am hoping that GW produce maps and possible terrain "tiles" eventually, as i feel it would allow them to balance the cost of the unit with the practical considerations. Any over or under sites can the be sorted out in post in updates.