Prescribed Terrain Setup

[The Neverborn]

8 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 terms of my original  post the exact wording i used was "the 1st or 2nd turn".

 

I do agree that among other things, you'd need to be very very unlucky to have say 1/2 your points removed from the board on turn 1. I've never quite manged that, I have managed to that on turn 2. To answer your question in the "how" it tends to be when the game is played with significantly less terrain than I'm advocating for  to be "standard" (see below)

 

 

By "significantly less" i mean around 2/3, 1/2 or at an extreme 1/3 of the above.  Of course you can't hide behind terrain that's not on the board. And by “being shot off” I mean by shooting attacks the game is competitively over,  not removed every model, maybe 50% of the points.

I can say without hyperbole, I've set up in multiple games where there's maybe 1 spot you can hide 1 large footprint unit/model.

 

I think the above looks like a good setup to me. 

 

Edited March 21 by The Neverborn

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 3/21/2025 at 5:48 AM, The Neverborn said:

 

In terms of my original  post the exact wording i used was "the 1st or 2nd turn".

 

I do agree that among other things, you'd need to be very very unlucky to have say 1/2 your points removed from the board on turn 1. I've never quite manged that, I have managed to that on turn 2. To answer your question in the "how" it tends to be when the game is played with significantly less terrain than I'm advocating for  to be "standard" (see below)

 

 

By "significantly less" i mean around 2/3, 1/2 or at an extreme 1/3 of the above.  Of course you can't hide behind terrain that's not on the board. And by “being shot off” I mean by shooting attacks the game is competitively over,  not removed every model, maybe 50% of the points.

I can say without hyperbole, I've set up in multiple games where there's maybe 1 spot you can hide 1 large footprint unit/model.

 

I think the above looks like a good setup to me. 

 

If that’s the case it definitely sounds like your opponents are scamming you, and likely doing so on purpose.

 

i will never understand how people feel good about winning when they use such sketchy methods or flat out cheat.

[The Neverborn]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

If that’s the case it definitely sounds like your opponents are scamming you, and likely doing so on purpose.

 

i will never understand how people feel good about winning when they use such sketchy methods or flat out cheat.

So you're entitled to your opinion, but I was at the games. I don't agree I think there are other forces at work.

 

1.A lot of players I play with have been playing for many editions some since rouge trader, in early editions the battlefields were a lot more bare. 2-3 half, three-quarter or full square ruin sets a free trees were common. So they just think this is the correct amount of terrain.

 

2.The Image under Matched play Link has around 2/3 to 3/4 of the terrain when compared to the current recommend setup   

 

3.Sometimes there are practical considerations, at a club there may be 6-10 games going on, there often isn't enough to go around - I hope that if there is a "standard setup" either GW or a 3rd party will make sets (if they don't already)

4.Finally and in relation to point 3, with what is available you often are not able to achieve what's in the recommended image. Some bits will be: too small, too big, too long, too thin, too thick, too short etc etc. Does 1 really big piece = 2 smaller pieces, do 2 small pieces = 1 big piece and so on? - The sets i mentioned in point 4 would help with that.  

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, The Neverborn said:

So you're entitled to your opinion, but I was at the games. I don't agree I think there are other forces at work.

 

1.A lot of players I play with have been playing for many editions some since rouge trader, in early editions the battlefields were a lot more bare. 2-3 half, three-quarter or full square ruin sets a free trees were common. So they just think this is the correct amount of terrain.

 

2.The Image under Matched play Link has around 2/3 to 3/4 of the terrain when compared to the current recommend setup   

 

3.Sometimes there are practical considerations, at a club there may be 6-10 games going on, there often isn't enough to go around - I hope that if there is a "standard setup" either GW or a 3rd party will make sets (if they don't already)

4.Finally and in relation to point 3, with what is available you often are not able to achieve what's in the recommended image. Some bits will be: too small, too big, too long, too thin, too thick, too short etc etc. Does 1 really big piece = 2 smaller pieces, do 2 small pieces = 1 big piece and so on? - The sets i mentioned in point 4 would help with that.  

 

 

I played in 3rd. Battlefields weren’t that bare.

the official instruction in the BRB iirc was to fill one entire table quarter with terrain, and then take turns placing that terrain around the table.

 

you can’t fill 1/4 of a table and then have the levels of terrain you’re talking about.

 

in the case of #3 either complain to the store staff or bring your own terrain in.

 

in the case of #2 all of the official suggestions for matched play in the BRB provides enough terrain to prevent you from losing half an army to shooting, barring some REALLY good luck on your opponent’s part and real bad luck on your part.

Edited March 22 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Rogue]

I think that idea of "What you're used to" has a big effect here. 

 

I mentioned being surprised by how much terrain was on the table at a recent tournament (pleasantly surprised, as it was more than I'd usually use, and so gave me much more cover than I'm used to). 

 

A friend of mine (playing Tyranids) kept losing to his regular Imperial Guard opponent, and wasn't sure why - he figured it was just because he was relatively new to the game. Turns out they were just playing with far too little LoS -blocking terrain. Not because of ill intentions on anyone's part, because that's what the opponent was used to and tended to set up for games.

 

At some point, this friend and I played a doubles games into the Guard (with more Guard allied in). I was quite insistent on giving several LoS-blocking pieces around the centre of the table; the Guard player was surprised to find that his super-heavy tank, which was parked in his deployment zone, didn't have targets every turn. He was so used to playing with minimal terrain that he just expected that he could sit and shoot all game long. No wonder the Tyranids wee struggling to win.

 

Again, I'm not suggesting shenanigans here - just if you mostly play garage-hamner in a small group, what's normal to you might be very different to what the designers intended or what most people play.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]