PDA

View Full Version : AoS needs terrain?



The bearded one
24-08-2015, 17:35
I was just pondering.. 40k without terrain is just a pigeonshoot and probably a big combatblob somewhere in the middle on the table and not much more.

Would AoS be more interesting to play with lots of terrain? Like.. Cities-of-death level/complexity of terrain?

Spiney Norman
24-08-2015, 17:38
I think all games work better (and look better) with more terrain. AoS seems to be more of a visual/narrative spectacle than a tactical war game so I'd say yes definitely.

HelloKitty
24-08-2015, 18:11
Yes I think a good amount of terrain is vital.

Kyriakin
24-08-2015, 18:49
Yea, terrain will ensure turbulence in the flow of models and hopefully split the game into various mini-battles.

Stick one tree and/or a house in each corner and you will get a rugby scrum.

ScruffMan
24-08-2015, 19:02
Of course. It includes rules for the amount of terrain they feel is necessary in the basic 4 pager.

On a slightly more flippant note you think that they might have made a game that they are churning out terrain for and selling it at huuuge prices that works better with a fair bit of it? ;)

Teurastaja
24-08-2015, 19:10
...or you can just play Mordheim :)

Urgat
24-08-2015, 19:15
...or you can just play Mordheim :)
People keep saying that, but Mordheim was crap if you didn't play one of the warbands included in the main rules. Woe to the one who was stupid enough to try, say, WD's goblin band in Mordheim. I was one such fool. One would think it was the perfect terrain for sneaky goblins. Hah! Fool! They can't even climb ladders because it requires an initiative test.
That's right: goblins can't climb ladders.

3eland
24-08-2015, 20:31
My group has tried it with a lot of terrain and we found it enjoyable. We also however use multiple levels the same was as in 40k, where as to move up to a second level you must use your movement rather than the climbing rule in AoS.

The amount of terrain GW has been pumping out lately seems to show they too believe terrain is a defining factor in the gameplay.

When we play though, we like it to look believable.

Kherith
24-08-2015, 20:48
I'm now building my dreadstone blight so I can add more terrain to AoS games, and I think more terrain is the best way to move some of the tactical decisions out of the combat phase and into the movement phase.

The bearded one
24-08-2015, 21:28
When we play though, we like it to look believable.

And affordable.

I mean I know GW is expensive, and filling a table with lots of GW terrain costs quite a few bucks, but I gasped out loud when I saw the price of some of the sets of the chaos fortress.

I saw some images of a display built at warhammer world (I assume) where they mixed up a lot of kits of the first AoS terrain they put out (the really ornate walls of sigmar and a dragon etc) and a table filled with terrain like that seemed a fascinating prospect to game on due to its intricacy.

big squig
24-08-2015, 21:43
The rules are pretty clear how to set up terrain. The games better with more though

3eland
24-08-2015, 22:07
And affordable.

I mean I know GW is expensive, and filling a table with lots of GW terrain costs quite a few bucks, but I gasped out loud when I saw the price of some of the sets of the chaos fortress.

I saw some images of a display built at warhammer world (I assume) where they mixed up a lot of kits of the first AoS terrain they put out (the really ornate walls of sigmar and a dragon etc) and a table filled with terrain like that seemed a fascinating prospect to game on due to its intricacy.

Oh for sure TBO!

That's why we make our own 75% of the time.

Col. Tartleton
24-08-2015, 22:15
And affordable.

I mean I know GW is expensive, and filling a table with lots of GW terrain costs quite a few bucks, but I gasped out loud when I saw the price of some of the sets of the chaos fortress.

I saw some images of a display built at warhammer world (I assume) where they mixed up a lot of kits of the first AoS terrain they put out (the really ornate walls of sigmar and a dragon etc) and a table filled with terrain like that seemed a fascinating prospect to game on due to its intricacy.

I think its fairly priced given the costs of everything else. I mean its like 330 for 6 basically flat battle board tiles (it'd be cheaper to surface your table with fine marble). In comparison to that aneurysm a thousand bucks for a ton of multipurpose buildings isn't too bad. I mean the full castle thing is like 4'x4'.

Whirlwind
24-08-2015, 22:19
Yea, terrain will ensure turbulence in the flow of models and hopefully split the game into various mini-battles.

Stick one tree and/or a house in each corner and you will get a rugby scrum.

Except rugby scrums generally have more rules...

ScruffMan
24-08-2015, 22:22
A rugby scrum is there to tie all the big boys up so the littler boys can do their stuff. Worth thinking about. ;)

Spiney Norman
24-08-2015, 22:37
Except rugby scrums generally have more rules...

AoS being kind of like a rugby scrum where both teams can be comprised of 'any number of players' ;)

Kyriakin
24-08-2015, 22:46
AoS being kind of like a rugby scrum where both teams can be comprised of 'any number of players' ;)
A high elf would be a poncy fly half without a speck of blood on him by the end of the battle...

MagicAngle
25-08-2015, 04:07
They can't even climb ladders because it requires an initiative test.

Only, it doesn't.

Rulebook p11
"Often the ruined buildings of Mordheim do not havestairs or ladders, so your warriors will have to climbto reach the upper floors of buildings... To climb, a model must take an Initiative test..."

Urgat
25-08-2015, 07:24
My mistake. As there's rarely ladders, it amounts to the same. Gobs stuck on the ground while the opponents climb somewhere and shoot them.
Goblins (and dwarfs) living in giant caves full of cave-ins probably spend their life climbing up and down rubble, and yet they're the most impaired species for doing that in Mordheim. The basic Warhammer statline was not adapted to Mordheim, it needed different skills for different tasks.

75hastings69
25-08-2015, 07:34
My mistake. As there's rarely ladders, it amounts to the same. Gobs stuck on the ground while the opponents climb somewhere and shoot them.
Goblins (and dwarfs) living in giant caves full of cave-ins probably spend their life climbing up and down rubble, and yet they're the most impaired species for doing that in Mordheim. The basic Warhammer statline was not adapted to Mordheim, it needed different skills for different tasks.

You should have just house ruled it Urgat, that's how the cool kids roll these days. Games devs write ********* rules and the community picks up the slack! It's the future!

OT what does it say in the AoS "rule" "book" about using/deploying terrain?

bigbiggles
25-08-2015, 07:50
I think you should double whatever you roll when generating terrain from the table. I recently played a 400 wound total game on a board that looked like it was for mordheim. Worked pretty well too.

Kherith
25-08-2015, 08:20
You should have just house ruled it Urgat, that's how the cool kids roll these days. Games devs write ********* rules and the community picks up the slack! It's the future!

OT what does it say in the AoS "rule" "book" about using/deploying terrain?

Roll 2d6 for each 2x2 area

2-3 no terrain
4-5 2 features
6-8 1 feature
9-10 2 features
11-12 choose between 0-3 features

Basically if you follow RAW you often end up with a board with 5-6 features around a wide open space.

Its like people are trying to build a fantasy stadium around the scrum. I actually quite like playing AoS but lack of imagination with terrain can be a major drawback

A couple of scenarios do add a watchtower or objective terrain piece but it's always "centre of table/table-edge from memory.
Unless you have a spare 700, then you can turn half the board into Castle Moarskullz....

75hastings69
25-08-2015, 08:34
that does seem kind of sparse for a 2x2 area. So a 4x4 area would contain at the very most 12 features?

Kherith
25-08-2015, 08:41
Perhaps 13 if your playing a scenario which requires an additional terrain piece for an objective, but even then I've seen players nominate an existing terrain piece (with only 5 generated by the rolls) so that the battlefield didn't get "too cluttered". Sometimes I despair...

Rogue Star
25-08-2015, 09:40
that does seem kind of sparse for a 2x2 area. So a 4x4 area would contain at the very most 12 features?

Well GW, given their introverted, business orientated outlook, probably mean between 1 - 3 pieces of their terrain, per 2x2. Isn't that the size of one of their Realm of Battle board squares?

75hastings69
25-08-2015, 09:41
I still think that is too low for what is technically a skirmish game (i.e. not ranked units) but that's only in my 20 odd years experience of tabletop gaming. Could be that the rules for placing terrain and the features etc. of that terrain need tightening up a bit (or just writing) I can see why so many games seem to end up as a mass mosh pit in the centre now. Imagine playing a game on a 4 x 4 area with no scenery elements, no movement penalties (such as wheeling etc. as used by units), it doesn't encourage anything than head to the middle and roll lots of dice. I think AoS needs to decide whether it is a skirmish game or not, if it is then the scenery issue needs to be resolved for games that don't use set pieces as part of a scenario.

Rogue Star
25-08-2015, 09:50
I can see why so many games seem to end up as a mass mosh pit in the centre now. Imagine playing a game on a 4 x 4 area with no scenery elements, no movement penalties (such as wheeling etc. as used by units), it doesn't encourage anything than head to the middle and roll lots of dice. I think AoS needs to decide whether it is a skirmish game or not,

Problem is, without points cost, we don't know the rough size of a AoS force - are the contents of the starter set two very small armies, which they expect you to add quite a few extra units to, or medium sized forces which you can throw the odd character and unit atop? If I play with two boxed sets of Putrid Blightkings, a Maggoth Lord, boxed set of Plague Bearers and Nurglings respectively, will I start encountering so much terrain I'm finding movement restricted?

I think the best we can agree upon is, more terrain will always be better, and trying to play AoS on a "Warhammer Fantasy Battle" gaming table set up, will just result in dice rolling and a pile up in the centre...

75hastings69
25-08-2015, 10:27
I think you are quite right, it's the lack of an army building balance mechanic that again seems to be the root of the problem. Without any restrictions (points or otherwise) it's not clear cut whether you are running a small skirmish or a full on war. What if you put down 20 models total and your opponent puts down 100, who does more scenery favour then? It's just a mess. Whoever at GW thought that this was a better way to write a game needs taking out back for a damn good kicking.

ScruffMan
25-08-2015, 12:04
Remember that players can take terrain war scrolls too. There is no excuse for it not being terrain packed unless the players don't want it to be (or more likely don't have that much terrain).

Kherith
25-08-2015, 13:06
Remember that players can take terrain war scrolls too. There is no excuse for it not being terrain packed unless the players don't want it to be (or more likely don't have that much terrain).

This is exactly why I'm now working on a dreadstone blight that was languishing in the attic during 8th, to crowbar extra scenery into games.

The problem with that is that many scenarios have deployment zones along the table edge meaning my extra piece(s) of scenery can't be used to break up the vast expanse of scrummaging room, and at best I'll get to place only half of the other terrain so I'm reliant on fellow players to make the battles interesting.

T10
25-08-2015, 13:26
I was just pondering.. 40k without terrain is just a pigeonshoot and probably a big combatblob somewhere in the middle on the table and not much more.

Would AoS be more interesting to play with lots of terrain? Like.. Cities-of-death level/complexity of terrain?

Since AoS does not adhere to the rigid unit formations of WFB, terrain will serve the game more like it does in WH40k. I'm sure more terrain is better than less terrain in both games.

-T10

thesoundofmusica
25-08-2015, 13:58
Like you couldnt play a small skirmish in a town or whatever. But it's kinda fun to read people trying to wrap their head around how to play a game of AoS and making it sound impossible. Experiences vary I guess.

Spiney Norman
25-08-2015, 14:01
At least from my experiences so far with AoS, shooting is far less prevalent or game-changing than 40k and combat is usually the decisive phase of the game, so from a gameplay perspective I'd argue that it doesn't make too much difference, but from a narrative/visual point of view terrain really makes the game.

ScruffMan
25-08-2015, 15:43
At least from my experiences so far with AoS, shooting is far less prevalent or game-changing than 40k and combat is usually the decisive phase of the game, so from a gameplay perspective I'd argue that it doesn't make too much difference, but from a narrative/visual point of view terrain really makes the game.


I'm not sure, the random special rules of terrain can really affect a game in AoS. Of course there will be many who don't like that it affects the game in this way but even so it does make a difference. It does help break up the combats too, if not as much as in 40k (possibly, haven't played that in years).

Kyriakin
25-08-2015, 15:50
Like you couldnt play a small skirmish in a town or whatever. But it's kinda fun to read people trying to wrap their head around how to play a game of AoS and making it sound impossible. Experiences vary I guess.
RAW, Gee-Dub is very clear about how terrain should be placed. Again, this is another case of lack of play-testing and resources/effort. Making the players fill the holes in development. Worse still, apologists make it sound like this was GW's plan from the start:

"Oh, of course we know dense terrain works better for our game, even though we wrote in the rules that the terrain should be sparse. We did this so players could experiment, and realise that we intentionally miss-wrote the rules in order to to make our new flagship game appear less good than it actually is..."

Urgat
25-08-2015, 19:52
On the other hand, they'd encourage more terrain, conspiration theorists would claim it's an evil plot to force people to spend more, so...

The bearded one
25-08-2015, 20:55
On the other hand, they'd encourage more terrain, conspiration theorists would claim it's an evil plot to force people to spend more, so...

I wouldn't be surprised if within the ten trillion skulls of the new chaos fortress there's a bunch of illuminati symbols.

ScruffMan
25-08-2015, 21:15
I think it's quite cool that they are selling things like the Chaos Castle, even if it is way too pricey for me to consider. At least they are not making it so that these pricey pieces of terrain are essentially necessary for gameplay.

Choombatta
25-08-2015, 21:26
Considering 8th edition, RAW, had at most 10 pieces of terrain, how does 12 pieces seem "sparse"?
Did 8th edition boards seem "barren"?

Kyriakin
25-08-2015, 21:27
Considering 8th edition, RAW, had at most 10 pieces of terrain, how does 12 pieces seem "sparse"?
Did 8th edition boards seem "barren"?
Totally different game structures, hence the point of this thread.

Choombatta
25-08-2015, 21:30
Totally different game structures, hence the point of this thread.
So are you being an apologist for 8th edition?

Kyriakin
25-08-2015, 21:38
So are you being an apologist for 8th edition?
Ok, clearly both are sparse.

However, sparse battlefields suit ranked unit games better than they suit skirmish free-for-alls.

8th is a ranked mass battle game, while AoS is a skirmish free-for-all. Hence, such battle boards suit 8th more than AoS.

tl;dr: Making sparse scenery rules for ranked combat = good. Making sparse scenery rules for skirmish free-for-all = rugby scrum.

Skargit Crookfang
25-08-2015, 21:43
So are you being an apologist for 8th edition?

Ah, another for the ranks of the WHFB haters? ;)

Liking something, whether it's oldhammer, 8th ed. or AoS, does not make you an apologist. It means you have preference.

Vast difference, and exactly why my anger is with GW's shenanigans, not those who enjoy AoS.

Choombatta
25-08-2015, 22:05
Ah, another for the ranks of the WHFB haters? ;)

Liking something, whether it's oldhammer, 8th ed. or AoS, does not make you an apologist. It means you have preference.

Vast difference, and exactly why my anger is with GW's shenanigans, not those who enjoy AoS.

Not even close, I have enjoyed WFB since 1st(?) Edition. The Red Box set that came out in 1987/88.
I just find it odd that anyone who likes AOS is an "apologist", but the same cannot be said for someone who prefers 8th.
Both systems had something I find enjoyable.

Skargit Crookfang
25-08-2015, 22:11
Not even close, I have enjoyed WFB since 1st(?) Edition. The Red Box set that came out in 1987/88.
I just find it odd that anyone who likes AOS is an "apologist", but the same cannot be said for someone who prefers 8th.
Both systems had something I find enjoyable.

Fair- then why fire back with the same vitriol?

Tokamak
25-08-2015, 22:23
No doubt skirmish games fare better with more terrain.

Choombatta
25-08-2015, 22:25
Fair- then why fire back with the same vitriol?
To point out the humor it.
Or to put it another way, to use one's own words against them.

The bearded one
25-08-2015, 22:29
Let's just get this back on track.


When I said more terrain, I wasn't so much thinking of adding an extra piece of impassable terrain or two more than your average Whfb table, nor was I thinking of that type of terrain (pieces of impassable terrain, and some forests/swamps) - I was thinking of something with the density and 3d complexity of a nice cities of death table, with multiple levels, terrain creating streets and corridors, and building walls seperating the table into various areas.

With minimal terrain - or just a bunch of pieces of impassable terrain such as big rocks you found in the garden - 40k wouldn't really play well at all. In fantasy a few pieces of impasable terrain were enough to create a challenging field to play on because units have arcs of sight and are limited in how far and how many degrees they can charge - so a single rock or statue in the way can break that up and hamper them. In AoS or 40K if there's a piece of impassable terrain that you're hiding a unit behind, and I have a unit standing on the opposite side of that piece of terrain, my unit can just walk and assault around it - the unit will flow around it like a liquid, so that single piece of terrain is barely going to impact the movement phase.

ScruffMan
25-08-2015, 23:06
If your unit was behind a say, impassable lake then surely the charging unit would have to take the extra movement required in going around it into account when measuring the charge range?

Overtninja
26-08-2015, 15:31
Terrain in AoS does several things - it interrupts line of sight, it presents things that models have to walk around (terrain isn't merely representational in AoS, it's actually there - i.e. those trees in the woods are actually trees that things can be behind and must walk around), it confers save bonuses for cover, and it creates points of specific advantage/tactical interest on the field. When you roll for terrain effects, some things might really advantage wizards, so it's good to put wizards near it, and advantages the player that does so. Others create defensive bastions, with their effects, etc. If you add to these 'regular' terrain the specific, war-scroll-detailed terrain, you've got a lot to work with.

The trick is to get these into positions that they matter, not hide them on the edge of the board the way you'd want to in WHF. I'd say more is always better, preferably near each other so that units holding one piece of terrain can take part in the greater combat. I think overall there needs to be terrain density, scaled up for the size of the game.

Spleendokta
27-08-2015, 05:19
Yeah once we got away from the 8th edition arena bowl style board, which I like but just not good for AoS. After you get a 40kish style board going with lots of cover and LOS blocking, AoS starts to shine. It just doesn't work very well on open maps.

MOMUS
27-08-2015, 08:50
Yeah once we got away from the 8th edition arena bowl style board, which I like but just not good for AoS. After you get a 40kish style board going with lots of cover and LOS blocking, AoS starts to shine. It just doesn't work very well on open maps.



This.
As somone who's been in a fair few tournamnets and helped out with a similar number, I can say there is a strange thing that happens on gamming tables.
terrain is set up in the morning and by the end of the day it's magically shuffled to the edges of the board.
people play how they want to play, different games systems don't change that.

AFnord
27-08-2015, 11:26
Like you couldnt play a small skirmish in a town or whatever. But it's kinda fun to read people trying to wrap their head around how to play a game of AoS and making it sound impossible. Experiences vary I guess.

Would not the fact that so many are struggling with it be a clear indication of there being something wrong with the rules, either due to how they are worded, or how they work?


Considering 8th edition, RAW, had at most 10 pieces of terrain, how does 12 pieces seem "sparse"?
Did 8th edition boards seem "barren"?

12 terrain pieces would be sparse considering the nature of the game. Playing a skirmish game on a WHFB board tended to not work very well, as the terrain was too sparse. (I think 8th edition had some other very big problems with its terrain rules, but the amount of terrain seem to have been appropriate considering the scope of the game.

Spiney Norman
27-08-2015, 13:17
Would not the fact that so many are struggling with it be a clear indication of there being something wrong with the rules, either due to how they are worded, or how they work?


It might indeed, on the other hand there are those like sound who have achieved the apotheosis of perfect balance in AoS so clearly it is our fault for not being sufficiently enlightened, not GWs fault for producing a terrible game. The biggest problem for me at this point is not knowing how many models is appropriate to bring to any given game. To date I've played four AoS games excluding the starter set scenarios and all of them have been landslide victories to one side or the other due to force imbalance and have been a waste of time for all concerned.


12 terrain pieces would be sparse considering the nature of the game. Playing a skirmish game on a WHFB board tended to not work very well, as the terrain was too sparse. (I think 8th edition had some other very big problems with its terrain rules, but the amount of terrain seem to have been appropriate considering the scope of the game.

It does depend which terrain pieces you are using, some terrain is bigger than others, if you're using twelve pieces of scenery the size of the citadel wood/temple of skulls you probably don't have room for much else on the field, conversely if your terrain is all around the footprint of the warhammer watch tower or smaller then you will need a bit more stuff.

Since AoS doesn't have a procedure for placing terrain as such the way I prefer to do it is to grab someone not involved in the game and ask them to set up a fair but realistic looking battlefield, anything to avoid the alternating method commonly used in 40k where gunline players just line up as many pieces as they can down the short ends of the board.

Choombatta
27-08-2015, 15:21
Since AoS doesn't have a procedure for placing terrain as such the way I prefer to do it is to grab someone not involved in the game and ask them to set up a fair but realistic looking battlefield, anything to avoid the alternating method commonly used in 40k where gunline players just line up as many pieces as they can down the short ends of the board.

It does have a procedure for placing terrain, although it may not be someone's preferred way.
For each 2'x2' section of the board, you roll for the number of terrain pieces, and place them in that section in any configuration you want.
Or, you place the terrain in the way a specific scenario calls for.

I would think that is pretty clear.

Spiney Norman
27-08-2015, 15:27
It does have a procedure for placing terrain, although it may not be someone's preferred way.
For each 2'x2' section of the board, you roll for the number of terrain pieces, and place them in that section in any configuration you want.
Or, you place the terrain in the way a specific scenario calls for.

I would think that is pretty clear.
Clear, but incomplete.

Which player chooses where the terrain goes within the tile? A tile is a 6th of the table, within that framework is the potential to place every terrain piece around the edge of the board (advantages a shooting-heavy army) or to spread the cover throughout the tile, greatly restricting line of sight across the table (great for a combat oriented army).

Like I said, the rules don't tell you how to decide where the terrain actually ends up, so my preference is to get a neutral party to set it up rather than the alternating method 40k uses which results in some odd set ups (and usually half the terrain perched on the extreme board edge).

ScruffMan
27-08-2015, 15:35
You can bring a few terrain war scrolls to chuck down in the middle if needs be.

Choombatta
27-08-2015, 15:37
That is very true, the procedure is not all encompassing, but it does have a procedure.
Although, based on previous threads about 8th edition, most players on this forum did not use the 8th edition procedure for terrain, and like you, used a third party for placement.

As for our gaming group, we have do not have that neutral third party for placement, so we have always used the rules as written.
The AOS games we have played so far are all from the starter book, so set up terrain as the scenario shows.

Spiney Norman
27-08-2015, 15:49
You can bring a few terrain war scrolls to chuck down in the middle if needs be.

That's actually something I have been wondering about since I saw the sylvaneth batallion scroll which contains woods, if you choose to field terrain scrolls as part of your army, do they count as models when calculating the sudden death threshold?

Lord Dan
27-08-2015, 15:51
I think its fairly priced given the costs of everything else. I mean its like 330 for 6 basically flat battle board tiles (it'd be cheaper to surface your table with fine marble). In comparison to that aneurysm a thousand bucks for a ton of multipurpose buildings isn't too bad. I mean the full castle thing is like 4'x4'.

So $20 for a mcdonalds burger is cool if their shakes are $150? Even when competitors are selling them for $5?

ScruffMan
27-08-2015, 15:55
That's actually something I have been wondering about since I saw the sylvaneth batallion scroll which contains woods, if you choose to field terrain scrolls as part of your army, do they count as models when calculating the sudden death threshold?

It's an interesting question, by RAW they possibly do but by The Most Important Rule I'd say not. ;)

Unless somebody is being a jerk with it and putting terrain everywhere to their own massive advantage.

Spiney Norman
27-08-2015, 16:25
It's an interesting question, by RAW they possibly do but by The Most Important Rule I'd say not. ;)

Unless somebody is being a jerk with it and putting terrain everywhere to their own massive advantage.

hmmm, that's something I'd not thought of yet, Age of Sigmar, so many new ways to be a jerk... ;)

Kingly
28-08-2015, 15:26
I was just pondering.. 40k without terrain is just a pigeonshoot and probably a big combatblob somewhere in the middle on the table and not much more.

Would AoS be more interesting to play with lots of terrain? Like.. Cities-of-death level/complexity of terrain?



I think so, I play with a shed load of scenery and it's pretty great!