Removing Trees to make room for models and units

[RossMHoward]

I was wondering what people's thoughts are on this subject. 

Myself and a few people in our group started out on the righteous path last year by leaving tree's well alone and enjoying that fact that a unit legging it into a forest couldn't be ran down by a steam tank or another big gribbly. But eventually a few of us became fed up of moving and jostling models into and out of forests so we just started removing the tree's. 

I know RAW you're supposed to leave the trees where they are but I was wondering how many people pay attention to this rule or not. 

I like the idea of a Maggoth lord toppling trees as he passes through the woods. And given how much of an impact the Wyldwoods will have on the new Sylvaneth strategies, having certain unit's like treemen being unable to fit in a wood seems like a bit of an own goal on GW's part. 

[Nico]

I've heard this rumour about no cover for Behemoths too (yet another stealth buff for Stormcast as cover is one of the few ways to mitigate alpha strike (especially from the Judicators who can shoot over a line of chaff).

 

 Like this

[StoneMonk]

Why can't you all see the forest for the trees?! 

I like keeping them in place, using terrain as pinch points that make it harder for enemy models to get "max frontage" for combat is good. Trees are interesting because they do get tangled up with models. 

The terrain should have its challenges but shouldn't frustrate you. So what if you remove the trees, but treated the tree holes as impassible when the trees are gone?. Or model replacements that are 'just trunks.

For matched play, behemoth's don't get cover bonuses period. 

The Wardroth beetle has an ability that destroys terrain - I like the idea of being able to use a round of combat to flatten a building or trees so that troops could get through. Awesome in a siege battle and against sylvaneth with all their new abilities that grow forests. 

 

[Shane]

You could make a custom warscroll. 

If a behemoth ends its movement on the woods remove all the trees. The -1 bonus for this terrain can no longer be applied to any units. 

 

[amysrevenge]

I mostly mean moving trees completely, and stomping all over the places where the trees were standing.

[Bowlzee]

I'm not sure it's a hang up. I can physically move my models in to a wood. The problem is, it's a complete faff. I knock over trees, models etc. And at the end of the day, it doesn't improve my gaming experience spending 5 minutes sorting out all those models. Moving the trees, to allow ease of movement, but not allowing bases over the tree holes keeps the realism and keeps game play flowing  

[amysrevenge]

Yeah the question isn't "is there anything in the rules about not moving trees?", the question is "is there anything in the rules about moving terrain that's in your way?".

The notion of treating trees any differently from any other piece of terrain is a hangover from previous editions (oh, man, the corner of this huge building is jutting out far enough that I can't get past it without getting within 3" of an enemy - let's just move the building out of the way).

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

To play devils advocate, would you expect the same with other terrain pieces?

The garden of Morr for example is quite impassable for anything but infantry, would you allow your opponent to remove the three top buildings?

[Jimbo]

We play that you can move the trees. Seems really daft that a treelord can't go in a forest. Similarly, I love the idea of a gargant, arachnarock, Stegatron or whatever, bashing down trees as they move through the forest. 

Would you not allow models to garrison a building if they couldn't fit through the door? 

[Chris Tomlin]

My preference is to leave things as they are (trees etc), but I'm always willing to play to my opponents preference. A quick discussion before the game is all that's required. It's not something I've seen pop up in tournament packs actually.

It's interesting people discuss RAW etc, but is there actually anything in the rules about not removing trees? I think a few people jumped on it at the beginning of AoS and it sort of became gospel (I may be wrong on this). Personally I don't think this is a rules question and that there is no right or wrong way to play it  

[TrexPushups]

20 minutes ago, jamierk said:

As long as you dont remove all your trees and plonk your dragon in the middle and say 'in cover'. I think some logical restrictions on what can and can't hide in a forest would be useful here.

If I remember my browsing of the ghb in the store correctly monsters don't et cover bonuses in matched play so that should be sorted. 

[jamierk]

As long as you dont remove all your trees and plonk your dragon in the middle and say 'in cover'. I think some logical restrictions on what can and can't hide in a forest would be useful here.

[FalseVariableX]

3 hours ago, Bowlzee said:

Started by leaving the trees in place. But now it's a hassle getting things in and out. So i take them off but don't allow bases to overlap the round holes for the trees.

Seems to work fine, and prevent large bases from getting inside too easily.

I like this.  Clean, functional and with purpose.

[Flogger]

We play the forest base as terrain. The trees are just a representation/decoration. 

[daedalus81]

1 hour ago, Bowlzee said:

Seems to work fine, and prevent large bases from getting inside too easily.

You know I never really thought about this, but the idea of a unit taking shelter in a thick forest from a large opponent sounds really awesome.

[Shane]

We've done the opposite. 

We now don't move the trees out of the way. 

Question is: are the trees decoration for the base or actual terrain?

We now treat then as terrain. Before we treated the forest base as the terrain. 

[Bowlzee]

Started by leaving the trees in place. But now it's a hassle getting things in and out. So i take them off but don't allow bases to overlap the round holes for the trees.

Seems to work fine, and prevent large bases from getting inside too easily.