Prescribed Terrain Setup

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Rogue said:

I always thought I had a lot of terrain on my table - four of the old Imperial Sector buildings, the killteam cathedral, lots of Mechanicus bits, half a dozen containers - until I played in a small doubles tournament at my FLGS last month. They had two big three-sided ruins in the middle, huge pieces in each deployment zone, and small bits elsewhere.

 

Suddenly, I could deploy all my infiltrators in cover - like, ten genestealers and a patriarch completely hidden unless my opponent was practically in my deployment zone. And there were whole areas of the board that were hard to target without significant repositioning. It felt like a different game.

 

And that's coming from someone who thought there was a lot of terrain on my own table. Apparently not.

Sounds like a nightmare to try to move anything larger than a rhino or chimera equivalent around.

[Rogue]

Felt about right. My doubles partner and I were pretty had three ridgerunners and three doomstalkers between us. We were able to hide them (the runners especially), and couldn't always line up targets, but that's what you want, generally speaking - if we want to shoot things, we need to consider position and anticipate enemy movement; it shouldn't be a shooting gallery.

 

We faced Chaos armigers, a lancer grav-tank, dreadnoughts, a Necron ark, and a big knight across the event, and none of them had significant issues.

[Xenith]

If a GW tourney board (already sparse) has 3x more terrain than your normal boards, then you need a lot more terrain. Old rule of thumb was that 1/3 of the playing surface should be covered in terrain, and half of that should be totally lost blocking, so you should have an area of at least 2'x2' worth of los blocking terrain on a table, and another 2'x2' area of other mixed terrain. 

 

18 hours ago, Antarius said:

I get not wanting to argue with people, but if they are regular opponents, maybe try to make them think about whether it’s actually fun for any of you, if you get shot off the board so quickly.

I mean, most people do like winning, so they probably won’t think there’s a problem initially, but once they notice that their victory is basically automatic they might start thinking about whether it’s actually fun to play this way.

 

I think this is key. Letting them know that the current, unbalanced terrain set up is no fun for you, and that there's not much point playing.

 

It might also be worth reminding them that their mfm points costs are balanced for tourney meta and tourney levels of terrain. On planet bowling ball, all strong shooty units would be worth double points. 

 

Of course, people like to win, and will naturally set up tables according to their army.

 

One thing we used to do - one player used to set up the table and terrain, and the other player would get to choose deployment zones. Maybe alternative taking it in turns to be the terrain placer? 

[Madao]

57 minutes ago, Xenith said:

If a GW tourney board (already sparse) has 3x more terrain than your normal boards, then you need a lot more terrain. Old rule of thumb was that 1/3 of the playing surface should be covered in terrain, and half of that should be totally lost blocking, so you should have an area of at least 2'x2' worth of los blocking terrain on a table, and another 2'x2' area of other mixed terrain. 

 

 

I think this is key. Letting them know that the current, unbalanced terrain set up is no fun for you, and that there's not much point playing.

 

It might also be worth reminding them that their mfm points costs are balanced for tourney meta and tourney levels of terrain. On planet bowling ball, all strong shooty units would be worth double points. 

 

Of course, people like to win, and will naturally set up tables according to their army.

 

One thing we used to do - one player used to set up the table and terrain, and the other player would get to choose deployment zones. Maybe alternative taking it in turns to be the terrain placer? 

We are going even further - we use A LOT of terrain and we alternate in placing each piece (usually starting with large one in the centre). Eve though I play mostly shooting armies (AdMech/Tau), I don't mind having dense board - it is funnier to play tactically, than obliterating the opponent with firepower

[N1SB]

20 hours ago, The Neverborn said:

I just don't want to have to take the time to persuade every player I meet on all the above points, even if I did they won't all agree with me. If it's in a rule book, then the rules are there. 

 

Brother, my bad, I thought it was an issue with a few close friends.

 

We basically had a Warhammer Store move close to me (I live a blessed life) and our redshirt, who happens to be a Black Templars player, deliberately puts terrain so people can't just stand and shoot.  It wasn't setting up terrain to his benefit, he just thinks it'd be a boring game that'll hurt the longevity of the game, and I think he's right.  He'll deliberately make terrain in the middle that units can use, but blocks LoS from 1 end of the table to the other.  He basically happens to agree with our line of thinking, even without considering the tournament scene.

 

So his pitch wasn't about fairness per se, it was for fun.

You're right, you're not gonna have a conversation with every person.  I dunno.  Maybe if you play at a FLGS, it'd be through the FLGS owner/manager we get the ball rolling.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Madao said:

We are going even further - we use A LOT of terrain and we alternate in placing each piece (usually starting with large one in the centre). Eve though I play mostly shooting armies (AdMech/Tau), I don't mind having dense board - it is funnier to play tactically, than obliterating the opponent with firepower

It’s also not very fun, not having a chance to shoot before a melee army charges and fights through a solid wall.

 

we can’t see through the first floor of buildings if there’s doors and windows, but we can stab each other through a solid wall.

[The Neverborn]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

It’s also not very fun, not having a chance to shoot before a melee army charges and fights through a solid wall.

 

we can’t see through the first floor of buildings if there’s doors and windows, but we can stab each other through a solid wall.

 

The game should be fun for both players.

 

I don't really mind if 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 or more, or less, of the board is covered in terrain. I don't mind if how well this or that unit can or cannot be hidden from deployment zone to deployment zone (though I'd suggest that either extreme's would be a bad thing) .

 

My only objection is the rules being written not knowing what terrain is available - as it seems that without that many games either shooty or Combat armies will have an advantage. This way the units profiles, rules, point costs and general rules can be written under those assumptions. As @DemonGSides has already pointed out this is already present. All I really want that is to be in the rulebook/expansion as part of the deployment type, with measurements etc. 

Edit: Of course extreme blank space or coverage would create problems you couldn't solve in unit profiles, so I'd oppose that. (I know most of you would assume that, but just in case)   

Edited March 16 by The Neverborn

[Borbarad]

I’m using the GW proposed layouts from pariah nexus and they have been working well. 
 

Also keep in mind that the shape of the terrain will influence things not just the amount. Tall, obscuring buildings that can hide a large model yeld different results as opposed to low profile pieces. 

[apologist]

On 3/15/2025 at 10:25 PM, Rogue said:

We were able to hide [certain units], and couldn't always line up targets, but that's what you want, generally speaking - if we want to shoot things, we need to consider position and anticipate enemy movement; it shouldn't be a shooting gallery.

 

This gets to the root of the matter – the terrain, conditions and available cover should be forcing generals to make decisions.

 

The core rules have this to say (my emphases):

 

TERRAIN FEATURES The scenery on a battlefield can be represented by models [...] called terrain features to differentiate them from the models that make up an army. Terrain features are set up on the battlefield before the battle begins. [...] Unless the mission you are playing instructs you otherwise, you should feel free to create an exciting battlefield using any terrain features from your collection.

 

...and in the Terrain Features section:

 

This section provides rules for using a range of terrain features that can transform your gaming table into an interactive, thematic battlefield set in the 41st Millennium. These rules help to bring your battlefield to life and introduce a vital tactical dimension to your games.

 

Battlefields are typically created by placing Battlezones next to each other. Battlezones are Citadel terrain sets that include two boards (each approximately 22" by 30" in size) and a range of terrain features designed to be set up evenly on those boards for the best Warhammer 40,000 gaming experience. Don’t worry if your battlefield doesn’t match these requirements, but keep in mind that playing on a battlefield that is either a barren wasteland or filled to overflowing with terrain features may give an advantage to one side or the other.

 

Below is an example of a battlefield set up for a Strike Force battle, with a good mixture of different terrain features fairly distributed across the battlefield. Their placement will create a dynamic gaming experience that doesn’t favour one player over the other. Importantly, some terrain features that block visibility have been placed near the middle of the battlefield, ensuring that it is not easy to see from one side of the battlefield to the other. Battlefields where this is not the case can advantage armies that rely on shooting, or disadvantage armies that rely on melee. There is also sufficient room for larger models such as vehicles to manoeuvre around the terrain features, especially near the edges, without getting trapped.

 

This sections also gives a number of example battefields, so I withdraw my earlier comment that GW haven't done this! There are examples for 40k, and Combat Patrol that cover both Matched and Narrative play, and highlight the differences.

 

I've picked of examples a couple out, as – credit where it's due – they point out exactly the sort of thing we've been discussing here:

 

 

Matched Play Focused: This Strike Force battlefield has fewer terrain features set up on it than the one below. The terrain has still been set up so as not to give an advantage to one player or the other, and there is still terrain set up in the middle that blocks visibility from one side of the battlefield to the other. As a result, this battlefield would make for an ideal matched play game. Battlefields with less terrain than this will start to advantage armies that rely on shooting over melee.

 

 

Narrative Play Focused: This Strike Force battlefield has an ideal number and mixture of terrain features. The largest pieces of Area Terrain have been set up along the two long battlefield edges, while the middle of the battlefield only has a scattering of Obstacles to provide any kind of shelter from enemy fire. While this battlefield is not ideal for a matched play game, it would make for a very thematic set-up for a narrative play game.

 

+++

 

More broadly, I think it's worth everybody playing with variety in their set-ups, because it makes for interesting challenges. As lots of people above have noted, if you always play on planet bowling ball, it can be boring – but the same is true for super-dense cityscapes. Having lots of variety from game to game helps to even out the overall feel of balance for a group, and ensures different styles of armies get a chance to shine. For more competitive-minded gamers, it also provides another challenge – if you find it getting stale because you're getting easy wins, work with your opponent to set up terrain that puts you at a disadvantage.

 

Likewise, if you're more into Narrative gaming, why not suggest that the loser of the previous game gets to set up the terrain – representing the winners advancing deeper into the defeated force's home territory or pre-prepared positions?

 

You'll probably get a few swingy games at first, but you'll almost certainly find that people tend to create more interesting and varied terrain sets that even things out pretty quickly. After all, if you give yourself a huge advantage to win, what's to stop the other person doing the same to you? In my experience, gamers are great at self-regulation once the idea of variety and asymmetry is properly embedded.

[The Neverborn]

I've seen the above, it's a good start. I don't think this is "case closed" as GW have released approved setups,

 

 

Example 1

Example 2
 

I feel these are very different from the ones in the rulebook shown above which have been kindly linked. Furthermore I think it's at least possible that GW including these they are acknowledging that the above rules aren't clear or ideal for completive play.  - I know they are available as part of the pack, however at a club level many only see what's in their pack/card deck/rulebook. A fellow melee army player didn't even know these existed until I told him, many 40k Fans don't check the website, they just buy the rulebook, their codex, maybe the app and off they go.  

 

The link to the official site you can  find here Link

 

What I would like is this to be part of the deployment rules in more broader terms.  I feel that if these were implemented as part of the rules, in the same way board size is part of the rules. The game would be more balanced and there would be less of an advantage/dissadvantage to one player.

It could be another set of cards, or printed on top of an existing set of cards. 

As has already been pointed out WTC use terrain setup closer to these links than in the rulebook. It would seem logical as they believe the examples provided to be better for a fair game at a competitive level. 

Edited March 17 by The Neverborn

[Gorgoff]

8 hours ago, apologist said:

:

 

This section provides rules for using a range of terrain features that can transform your gaming table into an it's due – they point out exactly the sort of thing we've been discussing here:

 

 

Matched Play Focused: This Strike Force battlefield has fewer terrain features set up on it than the one below. The terrain has still been set up so as not to give an advantage to one player or the other, and there is still terrain set up in the middle that blocks visibility from one side of the battlefield to the other. As a result, this battlefield would make for an ideal matched play game. Battlefields with less terrain than this will start to advantage armies that rely on shooting over melee.

 

 

 

May be hust me but I think both tables are terrible sparsely filled with terrain. The former is a little bit better of course but the latter is a table I'd straight up refused to play on. It is so little that I'd ask why bother with terrain at all. 

The more terrain the better the game was always the best rule of thumb. 

 

If a unit can see the whole table from their deployment zone the table hasn't enough terrain and -very important- enough line of sight blocking stuff plain and simple. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Gorgoff said:

May be hust me but I think both tables are terrible sparsely filled with terrain. The former is a little bit better of course but the latter is a table I'd straight up refused to play on. It is so little that I'd ask why bother with terrain at all. 

The more terrain the better the game was always the best rule of thumb. 

 

If a unit can see the whole table from their deployment zone the table hasn't enough terrain and -very important- enough line of sight blocking stuff plain and simple. 

More terrain the better for small units, and melee armies.

 

some can say the less terrain the better.

 

its just up to players learn what’s acceptable to them and what they enjoy playing with.

[Frogian]

I'd totally play on that 2nd battlefield, even with a meelee army - but a big part of narrative gaming is that winning (at least in the normal way) isn't everything. can i secure a certain area? can i kill a certain enemy model? can i hold out till the beginning of turn x? am i gonna get reinforcements coming in from the sides? maybe there is something in those crates i need to get to. maybe we don't have even numbers of pts. there are plenty of ways to spice up a game and make normally-uneven/unfun terrain set-ups interesting.

[Xenith]

14 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

its just up to players learn what’s acceptable to them and what they enjoy playing with.

 

Except the armies, including points costs and unit abilities are based entirely around GW's sanctioned terrain layouts on the bare minimum size battlefield they reccomend, or official tourney terrain guides. Less terrain makes shooting units overpowered/underpointed, while more terrain does the opposite, either way an unbalanced game unless you regularly shake up terrain density. 

Edited March 18 by Xenith

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

50 minutes ago, Xenith said:

 

Except the armies, including points costs and unit abilities are based entirely around GW's sanctioned terrain layouts on the bare minimum size battlefield they reccomend, or official tourney terrain guides. Less terrain makes shooting units overpowered/underpointed, while more terrain does the opposite, either way an unbalanced game unless you regularly shake up terrain density. 

The game isn’t balanced anyway.

 

GW also nerfs units based on their performance in certain army lists and detachments.

so by your logic it’s not fair to play unless you’re playing very specific lists.

Edited March 18 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[DemonGSides]

4 hours ago, Frogian said:

I'd totally play on that 2nd battlefield, even with a meelee army - but a big part of narrative gaming is that winning (at least in the normal way) isn't everything. can i secure a certain area? can i kill a certain enemy model? can i hold out till the beginning of turn x? am i gonna get reinforcements coming in from the sides? maybe there is something in those crates i need to get to. maybe we don't have even numbers of pts. there are plenty of ways to spice up a game and make normally-uneven/unfun terrain set-ups interesting.

 

Idk, I find most "Competitive" matches could care less about who can do the most damage. Most of the objectives now a days are positioning based, though there are obviously a few that involve removing enemy models.

 

But the OP was talking about playing even pointed armies on an uneven battlefield. So this "narrative consideration" isn't really applicable. 

Edited March 18 by DemonGSides

[The Neverborn]

46 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Idk, I find most "Competitive" matches could care less about who can do the most damage. Most of the objectives now a days are positioning based, though there are obviously a few that involve removing enemy models.

 

But the OP was talking about playing even pointed armies on an uneven battlefield. So this "narrative consideration" isn't really applicable. 

 

Exactly, we are drifting on my point.

 

What I want is for this:

 

 

and this 

 

 

To be part of the deployment step of creating a board, along with determining deployment zones  - or a prescribed setup.

 

The rules, codex's, datasheets and point should then be written or set based on the assumption that players are using these maps.  - I believe GW would be more able to balance the game this way.
 

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, The Neverborn said:

 

Exactly, we are drifting on my point.

 

What I want is for this:

 

 

and this 

 

 

To be part of the deployment step of creating a board, along with determining deployment zones  - or a prescribed setup.

 

The rules, codex's, datasheets and point should then be written or set based on the assumption that players are using these maps.  - I believe GW would be more able to balance the game this way.
 

 

And I think they are, for the level of player than wants to be involved with the game.

 

Your friends don't seem either interested in the game to that level, or friendly enough to give you the time of day to make the argument.  That's the real issue, in my opinion. Hasn't been hard to convince anyone I've ever played with.

[ThePenitentOne]

9 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

 

But the OP was talking about playing even pointed armies on an uneven battlefield. So this "narrative consideration" isn't really applicable. 

 

Narrative consideration is ALWAYS applicable, because all Competitive players must realize that the rules must also ALWAYS serve the needs of both Competitive and Narrative players, regardless of whether or not that is what is being explicitly discussed. Failure to acknowledge this need leads to the proposing of sweeping rules changes across the board, even if those changes would completely wreck the game for narrative players

 

So, for example, I do not object to @The Neverborn 's suggested that these pages are added to the rules.... Provided those rules also make it clear that it is perfectly acceptable for narrative players to choose to ignore those rules when they don't suit the narrative... Because THAT would meet the needs of BOTH Competitive and Narrative players, as everything GW creates MUST strive to do.

 

This is why I preferred 9th's greater separation between Competitive and Narrative play- in 9th, points updates and most balance updates were clearly labelled as Matched Play only. The relentless pace of balance updates and point changes, for many players come across to many less competitive players as "balance at all costs" - they are disruptive of things that ARE important to us for the sake of something that many of us don't see as a real priority (in the games we ourselves play).

[Gorgoff]

On 3/17/2025 at 11:02 PM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

More terrain the better for small units, and melee armies.

 

some can say the less terrain the better.

 

its just up to players learn what’s acceptable to them and what they enjoy playing with.

I have to disagree here. There is obviously a limit on how luch stuff you can 9lace on the table before it gets ridiculous but I thought that is obvious. 

The rest is simply not true. 

I mean yes a shooting army can better shoot the enemy if they have to run through the open but I was talking about a good game. 

And one side blasting the enemy into pieces in one go (I am exaggerating here) is not a good game. It is an easy victory and plain boring. 

 

That's what I meant. 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 3/19/2025 at 10:28 AM, Gorgoff said:

I have to disagree here. There is obviously a limit on how luch stuff you can 9lace on the table before it gets ridiculous but I thought that is obvious. 

The rest is simply not true. 

I mean yes a shooting army can better shoot the enemy if they have to run through the open but I was talking about a good game. 

And one side blasting the enemy into pieces in one go (I am exaggerating here) is not a good game. It is an easy victory and plain boring. 

 

That's what I meant. 

 

And one side playing a melee army, and being able to run up to a shooting army almost invisibly also is a pretty easy win and just no fun..

 

melee armies don’t want to be shot off the table before they can stab someone, and shooting armies want to be able to shoot something before they’re slaughtered in melee.

Edited March 20 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[tychobi]

Feelings aside 40k is a game that does provide terrain layouts for fun fair competitive play.  By all means set up your own narrative maps but if you want fun fair games it might be best to play the game as designed. 

[Gorgoff]

6 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

And one side playing a melee army, and being able to run up to a shooting army almost invisibly also is a pretty easy win and just no fun..

 

That is absolutely true and I agree but here comes the kicker.

In 30 years of gaming I struggle to remember even one time that happened.

I would say it never did.

Certainly not against me.

But how often have I seen the opposite? That a shooting army blew an enemy off the board in no time? 

I can't count it. It happens regularly.

It's the norm almost that this happens all the time and complains about Alpha Strike armies are very common.

That's why I say the more terrain the marrier because lots and lots of players don't even know that they play on useless, empty tables and that this is a problem. Telling them to double the number of terrain or use thrice as much seems like a shock to them but it often barely makes their tables usable.

 

 

Edited March 20 by Gorgoff

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

That is absolutely true and I agree but here comes the kicker.

In 30 years of gaming I struggle to remember even one time that happened.

I would say it never did.

Certainly not against me.

But how often have I seen the opposite? That a shooting army blew an enemy off the board in no time? 

I can't count it. It happens regularly.

It's the norm almost that this happens all the time and complains about Alpha Strike armies are very common.

That's why I say the more terrain the marrier because lots and lots of players don't even know that they play on useless, empty tables and that this is a problem. Telling them to double the number of terrain or use thrice as much seems like a shock to them but it often barely makes their tables usable.

 

 

I’ve never had a game where I or my opponent got shot off the table early in the game, but i have had my shooting severely impaired to the point of being nearly useless against melee armies because of terrain. Not literally invisible before they got to me, but might as well have been.

 

getting a +1 to save rolls just because the corner of a barrel barely obscured a model’s elbow is a bit silly.

or a model being on the base of a terrain feature either completely obscured or a rock obscuring the model’s toes providing a +1 to save is likewise silly

 

idk how poorly people are deploying that they’re getting alpha struck and having the army mission killed T1.

 

Edited March 21 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Gorgoff]

5 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I’ve never had a game where I or my opponent got shot off the table early in the game, but i have had my shooting severely impaired to the point of being nearly useless against melee armies because of terrain. Not literally invisible before they got to me, but might as well have been.

 

getting a +1 to save rolls just because the corner of a barrel barely obscured a model’s elbow is a bit silly.

or a model being on the base of a terrain feature either completely obscured or a rock obscuring the model’s toes providing a +1 to save is likewise silly

 

idk how poorly people are deploying that they’re getting alpha struck and having the army mission killed T1.

 

In 5th edition there was even the dreaded "Leafblower" Astra Militarum army list which was feared for doing just that.