PDA

View Full Version : New Terrain Rules in 6th?



Callidus
10-12-2011, 12:39
So I was listening to the 11th Company Podcast the other day and there was an interview with some famous U.K. player that turned into a discussion about the different meta-games in the U.K. versus the U.S.. He stated that there is a much larger variety of terrain at tournaments in the U.K. which is one of main reasons why certain armies dominate in the U.S. (i.e. Guard) and others fail (i.e. Tyranids).

Do you think 6th editions should include more detailed requirements for terrain? For example:

1D3 Line of Sight Blocking Terrain
1D3 Infinitely Tall Terrain
1D3 Trenches

The interview convinced me that this would make all the armies more competitive and force strategic players to deal with a variable that makes the game more interesting.

Your thoughts?

MajorWesJanson
10-12-2011, 12:45
Fantasy 8th included magical terrain, I can see something similar happening at least as an option on 40K. Various forest options (fungal infection, deathworld flora, ect) ruins (unexploded munitions, booby trapped, fortified, ect) or bunkers (improved vox, shrine/important object, fortified, armed, ect) could make things interesting. Think CodexCityfight, added as a random chart.

It's up there with my hopes that fliers get dedicated rules in 6th, as well as more scenario options (6 deployment types and 6 missions rather than 3 and 3 respectively)

Not really a rules thread though, more like general.

Bunnahabhain
10-12-2011, 17:41
Definitely not a rules thread.

More terrain types in the core rules would be good. Making a much more positive suggestion to use varied types if possible would also help.

I do not want to see any a rigid set of rules, as it'll run into problems with:
Varying table sizes
People not having something meeting condition XXX.

Of course, the best thing would be losing 'true' LOS (that is only true at certain time and not others..WTF!?) altogether, and having decent area terrain rules.
This allows hills to block LOS without being mountains, it allows cut in features to work without a dedicated tables, allows woods you can move model into or through.

Not only is it more realistic in my opinion ( although I know that can be debated), it makes for much better, cleaner gameplay.
That's a size 2 obstacle, that's a size 3 unit, so that's a X+ save.
That's size 4 building, that's a size 2 unit, they can't be seen

Nurgling Chieftain
10-12-2011, 18:18
Main rulebook, page 88, right column, from the top.

juicifer
11-12-2011, 00:46
Page 88 needs to grow a pair and get off the fence!
For something that's worded more like a polite suggestion than an actual rule, terrain has a huge impact on game balance!

Orcdom
11-12-2011, 01:05
page 88 seems to work fine, u can see it or u cant, looks like its passable difficult or not at all.

wheres the confusion? need 20 more rules to make the bookworms feel at home and have it more complicated then it needs be?

1 of 2 things play the game or dont. if you have someone that "constantly" complains/questions about cover or w/e with terrain then dont play with em, if your the one doing it......

90% of terrains pretty cut and dry

Steve

susu.exp
11-12-2011, 02:38
Given that people donīt stick to the 25% rule at all - especially at tournaments - I doubt that terrain rules will change a lot. 40k is a game that lives of terrain, more than anything else and still the most basic rule regarding it simply doesnīt register (1D3 of each seems not to get close to 25% either). Iīve noted that a lot of tournament regulars will start complaining when thereīs as little as 10% terrain. Iīve noted that official tables (at GW stores, at GD, even in WD) have too little terrain.

Chapters Unwritten
11-12-2011, 04:59
There used to be so many arguments and dumb situations because of the old rules, where something was in plain sight but couldn't be shot at because of some dumb perk. I prefer it the way it is. I don't think having more line of sight blocking terrain changes much; the problem is armies being able to shoot past all of their own stuff, not the board's terrain. Those IG and Razorback parking lots you see almost never seem to obstruct their own view...

Born Again
11-12-2011, 05:33
Main rulebook, page 88, right column, from the top.

This.

Seriously, many of the complaints I hear about the game, that the terrain rules are poor, that certain armies/ units are broken or useless etc, could all be fixed if people used terrain correctly. You see people complaining Long Fangs shoot people off the board too easily, then you see the table they're playing on and the terrain consists of a single piece of ruined wall and a small crater. They complain the TLOS rules aren't realistic, and that entire units get wiped out because the tip of a guy's sword was visible, when the rules clearly state you must be able to see the main section of their body. At the same time people are getting shot off the table in turn 1, people are complaining that everyone has a 4+ cover save all the time (main rule book, page 21 btw).

The current terrain rules work absolutely fine, I've never had any problems whatsoever with them, as long as both players are sensible about the whole thing and you have a good mix of terrain types, and the right amount of it. The only thing I'd really like to see is for them to put in terrain effects, like the magical terrain they introduced in Fantasy.

Gorbad Ironclaw
11-12-2011, 10:03
The current terrain rules work absolutely fine, I've never had any problems whatsoever with them

I think those are two different things. Just because you are not having problems with them doesn't follow that the rules are absolutely fine. Or at least that they couldn't be better. I don't really have problems with them either, but I certainly think there is a lot of room for improvement.

Having size categories would be a great start. Fantasy have had that for units for as long as I can remember. It would work very nicely in 40k as well. Add it on to terrain as well and we are much better off. Add in some categories and you have say a size 3 Ruin and you know exactly how it interacts with your size 3 Vehicle or your size 2 infantry squad without having to fuss around with the exact design and dimensions of random models and terrain.

THE_ANGRY_GAMER
11-12-2011, 10:27
Having size categories would be a great start. Fantasy have had that for units for as long as I can remember. It would work very nicely in 40k as well. Add it on to terrain as well and we are much better off. Add in some categories and you have say a size 3 Ruin and you know exactly how it interacts with your size 3 Vehicle or your size 2 infantry squad without having to fuss around with the exact design and dimensions of random models and terrain.

But then we have stuff like my size 2 infantry not being able to see your size 2 infantry through that size 3 ruin, when there's a giant hole in the wall which they should be able to see and shoot through. I think the current LOS and terrain rules work well - most of the problems seem to stem from people not using enough terrain. I agree that your own units should probably block LOS, but that's about it.

I think we can both agree, however that the area terrain rules in 4th were stupid.

theunwantedbeing
11-12-2011, 10:47
wheres the confusion? need 20 more rules to make the bookworms feel at home and have it more complicated then it needs be?

:rolleyes:
Kudos for using the word "bookworm" in a derogatory and offensive manner.

New terrain rules would be great, especially if it removes the 4+ cover saves everything seems to always be getting and makes abusing TloS difficult.



But then we have stuff like my size 2 infantry not being able to see your size 2 infantry through that size 3 ruin, when there's a giant hole in the wall which they should be able to see and shoot through. I think the current LOS and terrain rules work well - most of the problems seem to stem from people not using enough terrain. I agree that your own units should probably block LOS, but that's about it.

A combination of the two rules is probably best.
You use TLoS to determine if you can see the enemy, and the sizes/types of terrain that are between the two units determine the cover saves.
So a size 2 unit behind a size 2 obstacle gets say...a 4+ cover save against shots from things that aren't fliers. Or some such rules.
That way you can prevent things that would normally abuse TLoS by being modelled very low to the ground from getting any benefit from being small or not.

A little like the way large targets in fantasy, even if modelled very small are getting no benefit from "hiding" behind another unit.

Roberkhan
11-12-2011, 11:05
Two weeks ago, after a long time off from 40k, I was as a visitor at a local tournament with eight tables, all of them, except one, quite clean of terrain. Most of the battles looked boring, with very few maneuvering and fought between copy-pasted mech armies. The most horrible example was the inmobile GK parking lot shooting to hell a bunch of Blood Angels.
Funnily enough, the winner was a guy who had a well mixed Ork army, where bikers were the punching part (the ones eating through all those static mech armies), boyz on trukks ate fire and bizarre artillery softened targets for the charge.
What if, in a tournament, you know you will be playing in cityfight terrains, lava deserts, orkish shanty towns, the outer defences of Checkpoint Dorn and the crumbled inners of a space hulk? There you have to think about your army very seriously and prove that you are flexible. That is something to achieve, if we want a better 40k in 6th.
However, a problem with more complex terrain features is that the rules will need to allow more turn interactivity. Players will need to be able to react to short movements from cover to cover, to use fire to supress routes or units (not only to directly kill them), to shoot at incoming chargers, to use grenades in a more complex way, etc. That's a major system change.

Roberkhan
Surus Creations

Lord Damocles
11-12-2011, 11:16
So I was listening to the 11th Company Podcast the other day and there was an interview with some famous U.K. player that turned into a discussion about the different meta-games in the U.K. versus the U.S.. He stated that there is a much larger variety of terrain at tournaments in the U.K. which is one of main reasons why certain armies dominate in the U.S. (i.e. Guard) and others fail (i.e. Tyranids).
I don't know if there's necessarilly a greater variety of terrain in UK tournaments, but there certainly seems to be more of the terrain in general from what I've seen in battle reports.


Of course the other major reason some armies are simply more viable in US tournaments is that the major US events tend to be at higher points values.
Who'd have thought that Guard would do better at 2500pts..? :eyebrows:

Born Again
11-12-2011, 14:56
But then we have stuff like my size 2 infantry not being able to see your size 2 infantry through that size 3 ruin, when there's a giant hole in the wall which they should be able to see and shoot through.

This is the problem I had with 4th edition terrain rules. It also did little to encourage building cool looking terrain, there was nothing to stop people placing a piece of paper on the table with "level 2 wood" written on it. TLOS encourages more physical, impressive terrain.


\
A combination of the two rules is probably best.
You use TLoS to determine if you can see the enemy, and the sizes/types of terrain that are between the two units determine the cover saves.
So a size 2 unit behind a size 2 obstacle gets say...a 4+ cover save against shots from things that aren't fliers. Or some such rules.
That way you can prevent things that would normally abuse TLoS by being modelled very low to the ground from getting any benefit from being small or not.


I like the idea, I wouldn't mind giving it a go in some games.

Bunnahabhain
11-12-2011, 15:28
A combination of the two rules is probably best.
You use TLoS to determine if you can see the enemy, and the sizes/types of terrain that are between the two units determine the cover saves.
So a size 2 unit behind a size 2 obstacle gets say...a 4+ cover save against shots from things that aren't fliers. Or some such rules.
That way you can prevent things that would normally abuse TLoS by being modelled very low to the ground from getting any benefit from being small or not.

The trouble with this is it doesn't get round the need to make hills and such like very, very tall to hide things. Looking out my window at the street, car park and buildings opposite, the ground level changes within 100 meters are the height of a three story building, and it can happily hide a large lorry from view. Even on a 40k table scale, you can and should get changes in level that matter.

Born again, I agree that was a problem, but with the implementation, rather than size categories altogether. A simple statement in the terrain rules that the terrain must actually be there should be enough though. That way, you can have a woodland base with six trees, and a note or map saying size 2 wood, but you can't have no vegetation in your wood.

Korraz
11-12-2011, 15:51
I'm praying, but I fear that TLOS is here to stay. For a long, dark time.

TLOS is a horrible rule on the simple account that it punishes greatly modelled and converted miniatures and rewards modelling for advantage.

Gorbad Ironclaw
11-12-2011, 16:27
But then we have stuff like my size 2 infantry not being able to see your size 2 infantry through that size 3 ruin, when there's a giant hole in the wall which they should be able to see and shoot through. I think the current LOS and terrain rules work well - most of the problems seem to stem from people not using enough terrain. I agree that your own units should probably block LOS, but that's about it.

I think we can both agree, however that the area terrain rules in 4th were stupid.

Sure, there are a few things that needs to be worked out. Different terrain types would have different properties. I could easily see hills just blanket blocking LoS based on there size, but ruins for instance only offering cover, etc. At least would be something to work with. It would also be quite useful when it comes to vehicles and the like.

It's also worth noting that in fantasy a unit of infantry would block los to a unit of knights or ogres, even through the models are physically larger, something I actually quite like. Both WFB and 40k are pretty abstract, so trying to introduce specific details on a model level needs to be done carefully.


It also did little to encourage building cool looking terrain, there was nothing to stop people placing a piece of paper on the table with "level 2 wood" written on it. TLOS encourages more physical, impressive terrain.


Technically there is nothing stopping people from doing that now either. If you don't want to bother with terrain you can easily come to some agreement about how it would work. In general people want good looking terrain because it looks cool, not because the game forces you to it. So the people who don't care will continue to not care no matter the rules.

DeeKay
11-12-2011, 21:49
I'm praying, but I fear that TLOS is here to stay. For a long, dark time.

TLOS is a horrible rule on the simple account that it punishes greatly modelled and converted miniatures and rewards modelling for advantage.

Unfortunately, this is true of any game that uses TLOS. Purely for gaming purposes the models have to be seen as game tokens. A standardised size bracket would help.

With regards,
Dan.

nedius
11-12-2011, 22:43
I do agree that there is a good deal of fault with the terrain most people use.

If people built 5+ cover terrain, properly LOS blocking walls and buildings and so forth, a lot of this would be sorted.

The other thing to remember is that the rule set are not responsible for the terrain - the players are. I've seen players move vehicles right through ruins that they could in no way more though in real life, leaving the terrain uneffected. Had the players agreed, they could have ageed that the ruin was impassible for the purposes of vehicles.

The only fault I could take with GW is that they don't really sell any sets of terrain that would be anything other than 4+ cover. But that doesn't excuse players from being unimaginative and simply accepting that any and all terrain is 4+, that everything is passable, and not building properly LOS blocking terrain.

Orcdom
12-12-2011, 00:12
:rolleyes:
Kudos for using the word "bookworm" in a derogatory and offensive manner

Thank you, and if some feel that the shoe fits.

Honestly tho the people bitching and whining are the tournament style player by at least 90%.
If there isn't enough terrain on your table whose fault is it? Yours period, ether address it at the event with the organizer or your opponet or don't play, or if u play with little terrain u have 0 right to bitch.

There's alot more players out there that don't play events where every little bit has to be spelled out cause some have to be lead by the hand for everything.
Event organizers want the event but aren't going through the work or cost for more Terrain, if people stop showing up they will get a clue.

Steve