Setting up Terrain for a Warhammer 40K Gaming Table
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- Let's talk about putting down terrain and how it might make for a fairer game...
--Patreon Page--
/ auspex
--SubscribeStar--
www.subscribestar.com/auspex
--Buy Warhammer 40K miniatures here--
Element Games in the UK: elementgames.co.uk/?d=10426
Amazon in the USA + Canada: amzn.to/303klKD
--Social Media--
Facebook: / auspex-tactics-1031297...
Discord: / discord
-- Subscribe to Auspex Tactics --
tinyurl.com/yc69mguy
0:00 Intro
0:46 Why is Terrain Important?
2:26 What I Like to See
4:23 Some Examples - เกม
![ถ้าพี่วุ้นท้อง แป้งจะท้องไปด้วยกัน !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FeyEnVMwitA/mqdefault.jpg)
When playing against That Guy, use lots of heavy terrain. If you weigh down the table enough, That Guy will fail when they try to flip the table.
Traditional sand tables do that job nicely. Just make sure the carpentry on them has allowed for the weight of models (more of an issue in the days of metal GW figs), terrain, books, and the inevitable leaning players and onlookers on top of the 100+ pounds of sand. Cleaning up after a collapse is a nightmare, and even worse if anyone's injured in the process.
@@richmcgee434 Ouch! That sounds like it happened to you... XD
@@richmcgee434 ooh the old grey-metal figs. Dread-socking was a real thing, these new redemptors don't make that statisfying thunk anymore.
@@gergokerekes4550 Yea, and if you were about to lose you could just hurl a chunk of metal that made a considerable amount of lethal damage. XD
Who flips a warhammer table over, knowing how much money they spent on their own models that are on the table, even if they don't care about their opponents.
Literally the most underrated part of the game, has a huge impact on fun tho!
it really makes a difference against tau players
To be fair, I'm pretty sure nobody likes having thier armies shot to death execution style either, so it's not totally underrated, in my opinion.
@@chrisdarling3212 how many times do you hear some one say that assault is dead and you just know they are running up the board into a gun line with absolutely no thought of using cover? XD
@@chrisdarling3212 Oh, it really is underrated on many tables. Many tables are covered up to 40-50% in terrain... while the recommended coverage has always been around 75%... at least those games are the most interesting ones, when you have to make at least a moderate amount of effort to benefit from a sightline that is longer than 24 or 36 inches. Breaking lines of sight during setup will dramatically raise tactical depth. The more terrain the more important the movement phase gets. That is often forgotten especially by new players. So there's in fact a valid point... you're right tho, that that's not a huge secret and that it's not underrated at all by players who know what's good. ;)
What I mean, the common central sight blocker terrain piece is nowhere near enough sight blockers. And I think it's a huge advantage that the 9th terrain rules make it easier to break line of sight... that makes a huge tactical difference. Fun fact: That was always part of my old community's house rules. And the nice side effect: You don't need to visually check for true line of sight that often.
When we introduced that change back in the day, it was a huge relief and a good compensation for all that stupidly powerful shooty stuff.
Never understood that. How can someone look at a game like this and not understand terrain is so important? Some people! That facet was literally what made me want to play in the first place.
use an orange game mat, got it!
I would add that terrain is set AFTER the mission is decided and terrain should be set up accordingly.
Man, this was a big lesson to preach. I remember back when I played Deathskull Orks at the start of this edition, and somebody rocked up with a full iron hands patrol, supplied to him by a "That Guy" of the group. This was 1000pts each, and the only terrain we were allowed to use were light trees. The WHOLE board was exposed, meaning there was no cover other than light terrain that didn't obscure vision. On the first turn I lost 70% of my army, all of my boyz, grotz and all but one loota, meaning the only units I had at the start of my turn were one loota, a warboss and my nobz - all of which were locked in combat with bladeguard that had arrived 1st turn via drop pod and reduced the WB to one wound.
I wanted to concede at that point and move on to a more balanced game, but people watching wanted us to finish and wouldn't let me call the GG. I killed the bladeguard with my warboss and one nob remaining... only for my opponent to outflank with a full eradicator squad and kill me. I didn't even call GG, because it wasn't a good game. It was a total massacre that wasn't fun for the guy playing - he could see I was getting increasingly annoyed as the game went on - and it certainly wasn't fun for me.
To be honest, I should've just GG'd as soon as I saw the total absence of obscuring terrain, but I don't play with those guys anymore.
Sorry that happened to you. Wargamers can be the worst people sometimes
Lol good thing you stopped playing but idk why you didnt stop playing who cares what some nerd thinks
That is just rude of them. You call a game when the end in obvious. That is just basic courtesy.
For next time: Primaris can't use drop pods. And combining that with no obscuring terrain is just straight up cheating.
I would have refused the game. I am sorry you had to go through this.
What I always like to do is take 6 sizes of terrain; 2 large, 2 medium and 2 small, then each player gets one of each. Then they can alternate placing one piece each starting with the attacker, one in their own deployment zone, one in the opponent’s and one in the mid-field. It really seems to add an extra dimension to the pre-game as assault armies may want to use large terrain to block shooting, fragile armies may want more terrain in their deployment to avoid alpha strikes, fast armies may want to avoid large terrain in the mid-field so they can get the most out of their advantages, etc
Personally I would do that alternating placement, but before each player is assigned a deployment zone. Might incentive people to be a bit fairer.
Both are really good ideas 👍
Yes, 100% agree with this. As well as set up before attacker defender is determined.
When we play with tne guys in our local store (before 'rona) we played the only acceptable way:
-Bro...
-Yea?
-We should build a ruined chaos temple in the middle of the city
-Word, bro
-Grab as much of largest and coolest terrain the store has and we think how to deploy later
-Right at you
In my last game we forgot to put a big piece of LOSB terrain in the middle of the board... my knights made mincemeat of an Eldar list that had trounced my Ad Mech and Templars. Terrain makes a huge difference. Great video
I like randomly placed terrain; can dramatically change the whole dynamic of a battle, can lead to fights that really are unique compared to regular setups.
Split the board into 'chunks' and roll dice to determine placement - terrain features like hills first, then buildings and structures in decreasing size, then terrain like trees, foliage etc. If you roll for the same location more than once; if it can be placed (like a building/trees on a hill) do so, if not then place as close as possible.
I wish the standard for 'good' wasn't 180 degree rotational symmetry. Makes the choosing-deployment-zones part of the game entirely pointless.
A little too video-gamey
You mean competitive?
@@bornwithnoname2670 Competitiveness is also being able to handle variables, And maps can be balanced by having a positive and negative reasoning for picking a deployment side
Yeah I prefer more organic maps, even with a little asymmetry
Yeah I guess being fair and balanced is so bad .
Imho the most fun way is to divide the battlefield into 6 zones, roll a D6 for each zone and then alternate placing terrain until each zone has the rolled amount. Each terrain piece placed should be smaller than the one placed before. Do that before deployment zones are decided.
We ran a 40K tournament at our club where both players picked 6 pieces of terrain each from the clubs terrain cupboards, then rolled off to place one each. Without knowing which side they would deploy on. This worked well for us. This was on 6' x 4' table.
Area terrain (at least with who i play with) seems criminally underused.
No, that is true for me, too. My group has gone so crazy with LOSBs that they have forgotten it, too, sadly.
Tabletop Titans has a very detailed terrain video
its good, but its also like an hour long. I'm happy to have both.
they also imply that you might be able to walk up and touch the outside wall of a ruin and then be in the area terrain and able to see through it. Its a common pair of house rules, but should not be presented as RAW/I.
Thanks i'll check that one out aswell. I've been using the Goonhammer posted one up until now.
@@connorjensen9699 The cover rules assume that your ruins have a base. If your model is on the base, they are in the cover and can shoot through it.
However, this doesn't work if your ruins do not have a base (you could be touching the wall of the terrain and not be "in it" so you can't fire through), and Tabletop Titan's solution to this is to treat all non-based ruins as if they have a very small base (I think they use 1cm or a half inch or something).
While it may technically be a houserule, it actually obeys the spirit of the cover rules much better, and seeing as TT are playtesters in direct communication with GW and ask them rules questions all the time, I think I'll go with their interpretation of what is RAI over yours.
@@megamarkread GW has actually released terrain reference cards though which clearly and specifically show the area of the terrain as being wholly inside the innermost edge of the ruin walls. In addition, they clearly define the intended footprint of un-based terrain in the rules as being the boundary of the terrain itself. Not to mention WTC plays it this way, too. So I think I'll go with GW's interpretation of what is RAI over TT's.
And my complaint about their video isn't that they choose to play with a house rule in their other videos, its that they present those house rules as probably RAW, when the actual rules aren't even ambiguous. Its a minor complaint about an otherwise great video from a great channel, but I think it is valid.
Personally, i dont like a symmetrical battlefield. Sometimes is not fair, but an asymmetrical one is way funnier
totally agree, i tried the symmetrical style against my mates tank heavy guards list and it was the first time ive ever been tabled. it was tough to move up the field with nice open lanes of fire.
Grow up
@@y2j1490yahooNo need to be rude
@@johnnythunder1146 rude is subjective. This Carlos guy can't even speak English.
@@y2j1490yahoo What does him not speaking English have anything to do with it?
Thank you ! This is the perfect video to point people with questions to. It's a topic that either doesn't seem to get any coverage or it's handled like a thesis and people that need the info will never watch it. I dig the templates , wish they were part of the core game and randomised along with deployment etc.
So if you both play orks wouldn't it be more realistic to just take a sledgehammer to the table ?
Shipping containers. Done
I was hoping I could learn a bit of this from you. I'm on the verge of making my first table.
Have fun. My advice is to keep it even on both sides. Even if the table comes out wrong, no one side should have too much advantage. From that first game, just try and keep in mind what did and did not work for you and your group.
Back before the dawn of time, around 2nd edition, I believe, we would set terrain up together, each player taking turns to place each piece or set (dense terrain- one item, light terrain- 3 items), with the only exceptions being objective markers which would be placed first.
Once done, we'd then toss a coin to see which side we set up on.
It meant there were no arguments around a lack of balance, because any that existed were entirely our own fault, and it was a huge gamble to set up terrain that favoured your army, because there was a 50:50 chance you'd end up on the wrong side.
Not a perfect system, but it made things interesting.
I suspect it is not important for a balanced game to place a lot of garden gravel and fish tank decorations etc everywhere. But huge respect to the channels that put in the effort to do do for our viewing pleasure. Genuine thanks to them all.
Coming from Kill Team I do enjoy the Arena maps and the fixed Tournament maps, since it is so hard to make a balanced board I prefer to know beforehand how the terrain is laid out and adapt to that. But at the same time, I do not play many games, I figure that it might become a bit stale to have a limited amount of layouts.
You need to make sure there is room for the larger models like Knights, Baneblades, Stompas, etc to actually make their way across the board. Not saying a giant firing lane, but at least road-passages wide enough for them to bugger about.
Yep, it kills me when people set up a table and there's like no space between terrain, too much shit on the table takes away from the game in my opinion and definitely disadvantage some players.
Yeah my Gallant is next to useless if it can’t move out of deployment.
I had to search a long time to find this back then. But we've kept to these "simple primairy" rules for all of our boardgames. And it has drastically improved our matches and how we played. Goonhammer and then placing-terrain-in-40k-how-to-set-up-a-table Easily the best guide out there to use terrain !
This was a great video! I’d love to see more terrain-focused videos in the future!
Terrain is as important as the models, its the part that make the game an occasion. Floor hammer, and hotel hammer is all good and well, but wherever able spend the time and resources making a table that looks like a photo of a real place.
Floorhammer has plenty of terrain if you use anywhere in my house
@@lunaurum3515 I bet the dust bunnies add to the immersion
Just grab the old scatter-dice and roll where the terrain will end up on the field.
So it was sorted by random dice-roll and noone can complain that someone put all the good cover/etc. up for his units only.
Also, the old citys-in-flames sets are great to fill the table with obscuring terrain that still has a small "footprint" for units to move around.
Not the best idea. The game is balanced around a certain distribution of terrain. Random placement could create all sorts of problems, from no central LoS blocker to areas of the board that a knight army literally cannot reach.
@@samhunter1205 It was just the base idea. There is still room to add more detail to the rule. F.e. a max.number of item x per per 1/3 of the board.
@@Sid_Black sure, but nothing you have said there prevents either of the issues I have mentioned. I just think it is better to put a little thought in and adhere to a few basic principles, rather than abdicating responsibility to dice.
@@samhunter1205 Still better to blame simple coincidence then adding the human-factor and give someone who is a sore loser grounds to blame people playing with him.
Hate the game (or dice), not the player who uses to rules to his benefit.
@@Sid_Black I am not at all sure what the relevance of your last sentence is, but if you are playing with people who are incapable of agreeing on fair terrain placement then you need a new group. 40k has far too many grey areas to be wasting your time with people like that.
Oooh, this is just what I needed. Been making terrain for the FLGS and some direction is desirable!
This is the biggest thing I struggle with. Thank you!!
This was golden. Thank you.
hiding behind buildings
D I D S O M E O N E C A L L F O R A N E A R T H S H A K E R ?
Friend of mine does something like that, too. Fun at first, having to weed through the over-head fire, but I play Necrons. I just started using their Vail of Darkness to get to the other side of the board. I waste a Character and a group of tough Infantry every time, but they get the job done... most of the time.
@@seprithlicastia463 yeah, there is a reason why my friend has 4 drop pods. He did not love the trio of colossus bombards.
As soon as the fuel arrives..
I think this is the most informative video you ever made.
I ,as an admech player, know all too well that long site lines and kastelans don’t end well for you opponent.
Them robots do serious damage. Some of my favorite units in the game, aesthetically and mechanically.
@@harrisonlorens3585 I honestly love them, simply because of the Elite they have to bring along. Little 3 wound guy with a pistol, but lets the Robots put out some dumb damage
@@harrisonlorens3585 amogus
Me n my younger cousin just threw up our cardboard and random junk terrain to what looked cool, quickly spun up a narrative for a reason to fight, little info about the cool alien world, then pushed dice and models till one guy killed the other, no battle forged, no stratagems, nothing, only calculate the points to make sure its balanced
I prefer most, one of two methods. Either each player dresses their side of the table, or my preferred method. Imo the best method is to have one player dress the entire table, while the other player gets to choose their board edge. It incentivizes the player dressing the table to create balance around the table, while creating thematic tables. While the other player gets to pick what they think is the best starting position. All it requires is consideration for an opponents super heavy units, and fortifications, but if you want to play with these types of models, method one is usually better.
This was really helpful, I'm trying to design an ice world map, and wasn't sure how to make it work well for a good game. I feel more confident now!
Hey auspex, long-time listener first time caller here
This was a very useful video on top of a veritable pile of already useful videos so first and foremost thank you for the incredible amount of quality work you put out.
I wanted to toss this idea out in case anyone was interested in commenting on it and/or trying it out themselves:
i generally would use this in my pretty casual games back in the day and that was using those old scatter die rules for blast weapons but with terrain......so basically you pick a mission or just play the more basic ones like capturing certain objectives in the middle of the board or annihilation etc. and before anyone sets up any of their models down you mark out your 6x4 area if you are playing on the floor for example, then take a piece of terrain at random from the terrain pile and use the scatter die plus a d6 and that gives you some idea of where things should go....obviously you try to have at least a rough grid system going as well....say a 12x12 inch Square to keep it simple...and that way you roll for each section of this grid and you fill up your table with a bit more of what could be a realistically random setup for a battle if that makes sense
After you are done with that then you start with rolling for who goes first and pick your side of the table and so on of course.
I can see this not being everyone's cup of tea and there's likely lots of you who either don't have or don't know about scatter dice but i thought this would be a good opportunity to hear other opinions on this way of doing a table setup. Thank you to everyone taking the time to read this and i look forward to hearing any thoughts on this idea.
I spoke with a buddy of mine... we came up with a cool idea of using the Archaeovault terrain pieces that come with the recruit and elite starter boxes to create a King of the Hill type set of terrain.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the standard setup of the Nova Open terrain is.
It's basically a hill at one end of your deployment zone opposite an opponents' ruin, you each get a wood in the middle, and your ruin opposite their hill at the other end, with two LOS-blocking L-shaped pieces in the middle leaving a clear central corridor.
This is great ! Thanks a lot
Do like the terrain examples at the end! I will put them to use.
I really like lots of terrain. I like having lots of line of sight blocking in the middle of the board, along with multiple story buildings and cover in there. Particularly when there's an objective in the middle. I think those who dare to get to move toward objectives, and melee armies, should have a fair amount of cover and line of sight blocking.
Great video. My group looked at 9th Edition and went nuts with LOSB so pretty much every game is just that at different flavors. Most of us run shooting armies (Necrons, T'au, Eldar, Ultramarines), and I think we all over corrected to avoid shooting lanes. I have been trying to fill in some of the gaps with barricade walls and hills, but it is a challenge to find balanced pieces.
The good thing about those terrain templates is that it can help with playing a rolling campaign. Where the board moves 2 feet in the direction of who wins the round
i just take some terrain peices and kind of set them up kinda randomly which mean choosing deployment zone is quite important. but then agian i dont play competatively so my oponent is perfectly fine with this
If you both agree, that is fine. I think stuff like this is meant for people who feel their tables have been unbalanced or like they favor one type of player over another. But if you are getting fun games out of your set up, I would not feel pressured to change.
another excellent video mate, learning to play again after a loooong break and this video was extremely helpful!
Thanks for touching that subject! It suits your style. Maybe you could do some follow up on tables and insights? It is a very huge part of the gaming experience and you seem to know much about it.
Your two templates are super great! Contentwise I would urge you to create something like a step by step table building guide, maybe even detailed terrainpiece analysis. A little that guy terrain advice is needed too.
Good day AT
Good video to keep players thinking about terrain.
Usually in our group the host sets up and invites the guest to make any adjustments they feel are necessary. We then roll the mission and place objectives (making any other necessary adjustments).
We do this because while the rules state to choose mission, then set up terrain; we have found that to be rather time consuming when trying to game in an evening.
Yeah, the easiest solution is to just be gentlemen about it and both work towards a good and fair game. I'm often the host and I just spend a lot of time preparing the terrain to make sure it will be a fun game with terrain features I know both armies can use to their advantage.
I just place line of sight blockers like crates in the middle, between each objective marker, and some in the backfield, symmetric along the diagonal of the table.
Thank you for making this video, terrain setup is critical for 9th
Me a tau player;
*chuckles* im in danger
As well as for covering units from shooting, what do you think of the role of terrain inslowing units down? You touched on it briefly, but what do you think of terrian's purpose in slowing down fast moving armies/melee focused armies?
And on a similar topic, the role of terrian in making players choose whether to hide in cover or charge/deploy forward?
I just stressed over my table, cos it confuses me, I finally sit down look at my phone and auspex tactics has uploaded a bloody video explaing how to F@#king correctly set up terrain. Lol I will watch and no doubt return to my table and START again. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
#king
Thank you for this upload, I can't wait to watch it in a bit. Such an underrated part of the hobby.
Edit: watched it. Really nice video, I'll make sure to put your tips into practice tomorrow.
Be interesting if you could have terrain bits with power values so you could have like an asymetrical seige or something if you wanted
O man I needed this.
Goonhammer and then placing-terrain-in-40k-how-to-set-up-a-table Easily the best guide out there to use terrain !
I think for some missions it might be fun to have a default of light cover unless defined as open ground or road (one road plus a few inch edge). If in addition most of the ground were defined as difficult terrain giving half movement for many units you'd get a totally different game. Maybe more players would like this and it could make the game more tactical?
It would need some rebalancing giving various monsters (like most 'Nids) and walkers Ignore Terrain. Jump packs could be tuned down to a +2" movement instead of *2, but still be worth gold. Terminator and gravis armor should include grav-boots that while limited movement does ignore terrain. Terminators should be like artificer phobos gravis, it's the strongest armor ever designed after all. Bikes would be super on road but suffer a little offroad unless you have nice tricks while advancing.
The advance and charge rules could be made consistent: d6 advance movement PLUS 6 movement during the fight phase. This would consist of a d6 charge and the rest used in either pile in or consolidate step. Or just 6" consolidate if you don't fight. Melee armies having fun benefits to these phases need some rewriting to get something similar, but you won't need a charge target to get your speed.
Footslogging horde armies might seem to suffer from this half movement a lot, but having light cover almost everywhere and dense cover often will be very nice. With default movement nerfed a bit, there is more room for exceptions and bonuses to be picked. Or just tweak the capacity or cost of transports.
This would go well with a change I'd like to see in armor saves. Having a separate invul roll in addition to an armor save will keep armor piercing relevant. Invuls, even a small 5++ or 6++ will be nice, 4++ should be quite rare. If light cover increases you regular armor save, dense cover could increase your invul or provide a 6++ if you don't have one. This means infantry moving from cover to cover will be much harder to fire at than sitting ducks in the open.
Phobos and what AdMech use (Stygies VI ?) can then boost cover by one step, and other armies may have similar shenanigans ( 'Nid and Eldar subfaction benefits or psychic powers?).
Still good maps need to balance the roads and firing lanes from these positions to give shooty armies a chance too.
Great video!
Great topic
We do the following for 2k point battles:
Each player brings 8 pieces of terrain, at least 2 must be buildings, no more than 6 can be obscuring. Each piece should have 3-4 keywords/traits, including the type. These are defined after mission type, but before terrain placement roll. Markers are encouraged for each type so "at a glance" verification can be done.
Once Mission Type is chosen (if not already predetermined, but before Deployment Zone allocation, players roll for who puts down first piece of terrain. Winner picks a piece of OPPONENT's terrain and places it down in one of the 16 11"x15" rectangles, no piece of terrain can be closer than 6" to another. This also limits terrain footprint to no bigger than 8" on any side or diameter. Alternate putting down OPPONENT's terrain until all rectangles are covered.
This encourages players to bring their own terrain. Keeps them in check from making their terrain massively benefit their list over their opponent's. And gives a nice distribution of terrain over the gaming area. For tourneys terrain placement and types is predetermined, but for "tourney practices" and non-narrative games, it is the go to method.
WH40k really needs a set of rules that allows players to set up a terrain. I have played other games where setting up the board is an important part of the game.
40k used to have that, and you're free to use those rules still. With the rise in popularity of set piece boards it is a poor choice to make mandatory.
@@mandowarrior123 Any idea where I can find those rules?
How does this compare to how you would set up terrain for Kill team. My wife and I getting into that but we haven't played yet we just bought a bunch of Teams (3 each) and terrain
Definitely need terrain like this for balanced and more engaging matches, but do you think with more codex coming out that allows brutal turn 1 charges with the rest of the army charging turn 2 (blood angels, raven wing, not sure of any others) that it will, or already does, help these types of armies have a higher success rate than if it was an open field?
I’m not a fan of turn 1 charges as it is, but I also don’t want to be the guy with more guns blasting away 30-40% of my opponent turn 1 either. Seems like a tough balance
Totally agree, how a table is made up can greatly affect the game play. I always try to make it fair for both sides. Sometimes I think it's fun to setup the table on the fly. Both players role dice, then each alternates by placing one piece of terrain until everything is placed. Just one way that works for me.
Does anybody else hate the giant GW landing pad terrain peice? At my local game store we've all kinda come to the conclusion that it is not a good peice of terrain. (That's our opinion at least) one that I'm actually really liking right now is the thermal piping.
Me and friend just take turns setting up terrain.
What do people use for dense cover and woods, as trees of wargaming seem a little pricey (after the minis, terrain, rule book, codex's, ect)
There are a load of good videos on TH-cam showing how to make them. Should only require a few cheap bits from a hardware store.
you could buy hobby trees for miniatures, they are really not that expensive.
I use sector mechanicus terrain for dense, while all my other terrain stuff is sector imperalis ruins
Super necessary for matched play! Without terrain you run into the problem of gunline armies well... sitting in the back and shooting.
Though with Narrative I find the struggle in creating both an asymetric battlefield (for aesthetic reasons...) while simultaneously making it moderately fair.... (unless the scenario is designed to be unfair... like a siege or something). Some fun scenarios I've put together had relatively even cover in terrain but with different terrain types. for example I had a battlefield where one third was forests then a wall representing the outskirts of the factory and on the inside of the wall was the factor buildings and machinery. One side featured more light cover while the other more dense cover. Both were LoS blocking though.
Other scenarios for narrative terrain could actually be used to buff one side or another. Classically in a siege scenario one side would have a massive terrain advantage over the other (in the act of defending fortifications), but the other would be able to bring twice the points so high casualties are expected but they have the bodies to throw into the grinder.
i believe a good balance is having the terrain suit different needs, so one side has more los blockers, the others has more fortifications and cover so gunners can have some defense while firing back, but the other army can meander about, of course make some death points for both armies, a long sightline where setting up some good shooters gives big advantages, but should the opponent make it through they get an easy path to the enemy, and say for the other side, you have a decent sightline that is in a crucial spot, but it has multiple flanks the other army can easily access
I don't play 40k, but rather the old Mechwarrior Clix game. However, terrain is equally important there as well for the same reasons. As such, I find many 40k videos quite helpful.
Having played some tournaments with a few tables having little to no cover
It can really decide the game turn 1
Played a game this week against imperial fists where the only LOSBT was in his dz. I had two pieces of light cover that doesn't matter to fists and one piece of dense cover. Fair to say I lost.
I fill the map up with huge amounts of terrain and special rules. Alpha striking is virtually non-existent because units have to be moved into a position to shoot. It lets both players actually choose when to move their units into battle. Moving to take objectives instead becomes the priority.
One of the things I wonder about is vertical terrain. I played necromunda in the 90s and loved the verticality of the terrain, it feels like playing through a real volume rather than across a board. I'd love to bring some of that verticality into 40k but it's hard to see how, esp as it'd massively nerf vehicle or bike heavy armies. My rw bikes would be stranded on the ground and crippled, for example. Any suggestions?
i believe having the ability to climb up terrain take up all of a units move makes sense, if their move doesnt reach that high they cant climb. but aside from that try coverings like roofs and such or awnings, these cripple units on high up places, making it relatively even, as neither side has an uncounterable advantage
How do you set up terrain for smaller games and smaller boards? My friends and I are still building up our Armies and play around 600-1000 points per game
I've started playing house rules like this - I ask my opponent which side they would like as it's obviously superior. If there is one, we then change the terrain setup.
Allowing space for larger units to move on the board should only be taken into account up to a point. If youre fielding your car as a terminator or other massive models, being blocked by terrain should be taken into account. There are plusses and minuses for running mechanized lists, and terrain passage is one of them
I'm honestly not sure if guard/tau are worse off or in better shape with a 'fair' terrain set up.
The issue I have with creating a table with balanced terrain setup is that it makes choice of sides pointless. If the table is just a mirror for each side then why bother rolling for sides? There does need to be a good amount of terrain but the sides need to be different so as to matter. Without the difference you may as well play on the same table every time and roll with that.
This is the biggest issue we face in our gaming group. Balanced and fun terrain
Remember a good commander can guide his army through any warzone, which aren't always paved the way our armies would prefer!
It is tough sometimes. My group has mostly tall buildings for LOSBs with little else. I have been trying to branch out, but it has been tough going. Best piece I have found thus far proved to be a simple barricade wall for Infantry to climb onto and get light cover. Shorter units, like Astra Militarum, can even hide behind it, too. Not my poor Necrons, though...
The price of the SoB Battle Sanctum has me scared off it, but more so because it seems VERY hard to deploy in most games, unless I'm misunderstanding it's rules.
It is nice having an army that works with any amount of terrain.
Anyone know where to buy the terrain pieces shown in the video? The ones from the core rule book?
The 3” rule with fortifications and this plethora of terrain is problematic.
Yes
*Cries in corner hugging his battle sanctum*
its almost as if GW doesnt know how to write good fortification rules (theyve never been good)
@@vineheart01 Hey now, Warhammer Siege (back in 3rd ed, when they were making the styrofoam castle) wasn't all that bad. :)
You just need to use the AOS rules for placing army terrain. It solves all of the problems. Determine mission, deployment zones, and sides. Then place army terrain. Next place the rest of terrain. Finally deploy armies. The 3 inch rule you are thinking of is only for terrain set up during the game in AOS.
The reason that tournaments don't do this is because of some sense that the terrain should never be moved, except for that pesky fact that players move the terrain every game, sometimes intentionally other times unintentionally but they always manage to move the terrain.
The solution for tournaments is that the TO should only place terrain in no-mans-land, and leave the development zones empty. Then require players to bring 3-5 pieces for their deployment zone. Incentives the players by allowing them to put tags on the terrain that benefit their armies. Allow the terrain to be anything from ruins to unaligned fortifications to army specific terrain. Place some rules to eliminate the possibility that one side will have 1000 points of free transports like we did with the battle company formation.
Some players will always complain, and we'll drink in those sweet tears. But after 3 events the community consensus will be "this is how we've always done it."
@@vineheart01 nah they had good rules between city fight, and stronghold assault. Thats not really the problem... the problem is, you show up at the flgs for tourny, and everyone cries because they didn't think to put something in their list to deal with it. The problem used to also be seen with flyers, as people are showing up to play army men, not flyers and fortifications. I think what would make 40k great, would be if there was a list of equal fortifications, zero points, and the requirement to bring one. Wouldnt have to be faction specific like the necron and deathguard ones, but something similar to that idea. Enough variety you could plan which an opponent would choose, some could offer buffs, others have weapons, etc. This would get people used to the mechanics of fighting and defending fortifications, and list building to include things to destroy them.
how is the "join" button in comparison to Patreon? I would prefer to sign up with whatever gives the channel the biggest cut.
FINALLY SOMEONE WHO CAN SHOW US how the hell should we set up our terrain
I know this says 40k,(And this might be a dumb question to asks) but could this work for 30k too? Overall good tips and such, just want to know if any of this can still be applied to that field of war
Is there an updated video for 10th edition?
Отлично. Видео было очень полезно и информационно !
Just played my first tournament ever.
I helped the people set up the tables but as I am a new player (3 games total under my belt) I just let them do the setting up cause I assumed they knew what they were doing.
Get to game day. Make it to finals undefeated to my surprise. Final opponent is Nyd's with Hive guard. He sets up behind this wall that I as a Marine player have NO way to cross. Literal measured it after the tournament and it was a 33" unbroken wall that unless you had flyers or something with a 10+ Movement you couldn't pass. (all my Marines couldn't get past it for 4 rounds just trying to go around)
Yes I called BS. Nyd player was one of the players that helped setup and he got to choose the board so he picked that one cause it was Mars themed so my Dreads couldn't move around either due to the pipes and "cat walks".
Felt miserable and I hated that game. (Still almost won sadly but his Hive guard and Exocrine behind that wall getting free double taps for 5 rounds uncontested pulled him back into it.
A really useful vidéo, game workshop is not verry clear some with how to place terrain, and how many of them ^^'
I had a battle against Admech with -1 to hit (i was playing Farsigth) when only becouse of one long wall i menaged to get my breachers to his gun line and steal all of his objectives
I've played a good few games with my TS army since first seeing this video and find it very odd that melee armies should have any concerns at all about terrain. Every one I've played against is lightning fast and can chop me to bits by turn 2.
3:26 disagree, there is every reason for my infantary with anti-infantary weapons to operate in places vehicles can't bother them, lol
Could you create a video about setting tables for Incursion games?
I agree, terrain is super important and for most matched play games should be about equal on each side. That said, narrative based games can totally get away with cool unbalanced set pieces
I personally like tables that are a bit bigger than the standard size of table, with lots of terrains.
As someone that makes all the terrain himself from cardboard, I whish there were some guidelines for the size of terrain pieces (WxL for ruins, craters, barricades etc.)
What do you mean by size guidelines? Buildings can be as big or small as you see fit
@@wizard0313 I know, but I'd like some general ideas for L-shaped buildings, U-Ruins etc.
@@Steasyyyy I typically make my rectangular buildings either 4"x6" or 5"x8". For everything else, I typically go off of those two measurements. Generally when I'm making the building, I think of how big it naturally would be, as well as an obstacle if units were to skirt around it
Look up the WTC terrain packet, it’s widely accepted and gives precise measurements
@@connorjensen9699 Ahh thanks, that's exactly what I needed !
What about fortifications?
More scatter terrain! People don’t use enough little boxes and barricades!
I have been waiting for this for a long time. 😀