Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

Remember we just use the rules we want.

Except in tournaments when you use the rules the organizers decide to use.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


They do a pretty decent job in laying it out, I imagine there will have to be an errata on the terrain maybe? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really doesn't sound that bad to me. Watching the GMG video it assumes a large terrain piece is at at the largest 10"x10" which is pretty big and you're supposed to use 1 of those for every 24"x24" section of board. The small pieces are assumed to be at the most 6"x6" which is also large for things like barricades and in fact many of the pieces people use as large ones they could probably fit into the small piece bracket. 

If you assume an absolute worst case (depending on your outlook) scenario then yeah there would only be a space of 2" at the closest points between 2 of the large pieces if each was in the very centre of each 24" square section and each was the absolute maximum size. That's never going to happen though. Even the biggest pieces they sell simply aren't that big in every direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking forward to the changes tbh. I play an army (ghosts) that has no terrain (and is unlikely to get one any time soon). 

The amount of games against trees that I've straight up lost due to wyldwoods covering the entire board so that there isn't any 'non wyldwood' areas at all.

The current free faction terrain offers great additional bonuses to armies but as not everyone has it how can you say it creates a fair playing field when lots of armies don't have them. Knowing that your opponent is able to stomp you turn 1 or 2 due to additional benefits given by a terrain feature that they've not had to spend points on is not a good play experience. 

The new generic terrain 'penumbral engine' costs points and maybe it's being used as a test for all terrain pieces going forward, who knows 🤷‍♂️, but maybe that could help with addressing the gap between those that have and those that have not. 

And I know that currently the sky is falling down due to rats apparently not being able to use their gnawholes in the new rules but it's worth remembering that without the gnawholes rats are going straight to the bottom of the tier rankings because it's just the gnawholes that are making them be super gross at the moment isn't it? 

We have 3 weeks to wait for the GHB19 FAQ before we know exactly what's going on but I like that GW are trying to set a format to how games should be played (especially in a competitive sense) and the terrain rules just fall under these new guidelines, because I'm sure all of us have played at a tournament where the scenery has been an absolute joke and I'd much rather be playing on decent scenery covered tables than on a 6'x4' which has a slight hill in one corner and a single ruined building near the middle. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People saying ‘warscrolls override core rules’ are missing a very key part of these terrain rules. This is in ADDITION to the warscrolls restrictions for setting up

people panicking about Sylvaneth woods being unusable obviously haven’t seen the new rules from the Battletome that has been posted all over the place after Apple accidentally released the digital version for a few hours. The sylvaneth woods basically copy the same rules as in the GHB (the free allegiance woods must be 6” away from other terrain and objectives, but summoned woods have lesser restrictions)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, firebat said:

People not reading the things they're complaining about? Now that would be silly.

How is one thing saying they can't be within 6" and another saying they have to be within 6" not a contradiction. What's more if there isn't actually a contradiction how can there be an issue?

So can i stack gnawholes on top of a Loonshrine, on top of a Korne tower? There's a contradiction between the book saying not to stack terrain on top of each other and the Gnawhole not saying I can't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Belper said:

So can i stack gnawholes on top of a Loonshrine, on top of a Korne tower? There's a contradiction between the book saying not to stack terrain on top of each other and the Gnawhole not saying I can't do that.

No but there's certainly a contradiction in replying to this in a way that it deserves and getting in trouble with the mods ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Forrix said:

Battletome rules dont supersede matched play rules. The new Terrain rules specifically say they apply to faction terrain and if you can't place them you can't use it. 

That said, I'm not using that rule and I dont think anyone one in my gaming group or the local tournament organizers well. As people have pointed out it just breaks Sylvaneth and pointlessly hurts numerous factions. It's just a blow against a game when you have to home rule it in order to make it playable. Won't kill it for sure but this is extraordinarily bad rules writing for a major company. It harkens back to the old GW that made me quit back in 7th ed 40k/launch of AoS. 

Rules like this make me question if GW rules writers even play their own game let alone play test it. Like stacking command abilities at the start of 2nd edition.

You have the book? 

I know there was some confusion over it being for meeting engagement or pitched battle

Edit. Just watched mini wargamings video. I won't be using those terrain rules, can see a errata coming out day one changing the word must to may.

Edited by Ogregut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the principal of getting more terrain on the table is a good one. There are just some problems with the rules as presented. The easiest fix would be to change the table edge rule to 3 inches or do away with it altogther. The intention would seem to be that they want terrain to have an impact in the game rather than just being decoration on the side of the board as it is now. They could fix that problem by requiring each player to place one large piece of terrain within 12 inches of the centre of the board or something like that. 

I hope these rules aren’t just abandoned. I have seen a lot of complaints about the lack of terrain at tournaments and this looks like an effort to address that problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have to say I do notice a lot of players shoving terrain into the corner and forgetting about it lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone think about a LoN player taking 3 sigmarite mausoleum terrains they get 7 gravesites (cause you must use warscroll rules for official Terrain)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dislike comments like "wait for the book" and "sky is falling". We now have at least two different sources saying the same about the terrain rules. One of the reading straight from it in the video. Unfortunatly its true. Hopefully GW will come to their senses and FAQ this otherwise the community will no doubt do it. Im just chocked this slipped through playtesting. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ahn-ket said:

Anyone think about a LoN player taking 3 sigmarite mausoleum terrains they get 7 gravesites (cause you must use warscroll rules for official Terrain)

Up to 10 if both players bring only mausoleum.😅

 

Anyways, I can imagine gun line or sylvaneth armies might opt for infinitely small markers under the unique category. Unique doesn't have a minimum size at the moment. Sure there's still a 12" bubble going down anyway but it might recover enough space for a sylvaneth player to squeeze in a wyldwood, and makes the board fairly barren for clear lines of sight. Not sure how viable a tactic it is in play. 

I really like the idea they're going for here. I've always wanted battlefield set up rules, but there's a lot of work that'll need to be done, I think, and it goes beyond just being overly restrictive. I haven't heard anyone mention it yet, but Garrisoning is going to need an overhaul/clarification, there's a lot of ways to twist/exploit/game interactions because of a lack of clarity. 

Here's a few questions my friends and I have been debating:

- Currently a garrison can be attacked. But Spells and abilities aren't attacks. Can you sling a spell at a garrisoned unit? With the new hedonites FAQ it's clearly stated that an attack must use the attack sequence to be considered an attack. Starsoul maces, warpfire projectors, they don't use the attack sequence.

- Does a garrisoned hero also benefit from lookout sir?

- If warpfire projectors do interact with a garrison, how many dice do they roll? If a piece is garrisoned by 30 models, are all 30 models counted in range if the warpfire is within 8"? Or is it just the terrain piece since the terrain piece is counted as an enemy model. Essentially, are you rolling 30 dice, or 1 dice?

Of course, we'll have to see what they come out with in their FAQ, but I think there's a lot of potential for abuse with garrisons.

Personally, I hope they just get rid of garrisoning altogether and remove the LoN specific rule on the mausoleum.

For the actual set up, I'm hoping they'll ditch the edge of battlefield for faction terrain and make placement for all terrain more than 3" from other terrain and objectives.

I'm still optimistic this can be adapted into an interesting mechanic while still making faction terrain playable, but not as reliable to place optimally. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think it's because the book was written before all the new battletomes this year so didn't have the loonshrine, gnawholes, fane etc in mind. There will be an errata I'm sure on day one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Heliums said:

Up to 10 if both players bring only mausoleum.😅

IT goes up to 14 if the enemy is a LoN player too cause of FAQ says gravesites counts for both players 

I think it would be nice when the Mausoleum become death army faction terrain and can heal/ressurrect all death summonable unit wholly within 6" of a mausoleum 

This way all death factions have a faction terrain in one go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the GW store entry for the handbook it says....

 

Open War Terrain – presents four different methods of setting terrain up before your games, including an optional terrain generator, and optional rules to provide instructions for where you place terrain on your battlefield.

 

Are we sure the terrain rules are for matched play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stato said:

On the GW store entry for the handbook it says....

 

Open War Terrain – presents four different methods of setting terrain up before your games, including an optional terrain generator, and optional rules to provide instructions for where you place terrain on your battlefield.

 

Are we sure the terrain rules are for matched play?

They are cause they are mentioned in the matched play section

What about the forbidden power terrain is it a faction terrain because if you can't put ot on table you are losing 100 points that are spend ob your Army roster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Chikout said:

I think the principal of getting more terrain on the table is a good one. There are just some problems with the rules as presented. The easiest fix would be to change the table edge rule to 3 inches or do away with it altogther. The intention would seem to be that they want terrain to have an impact in the game rather than just being decoration on the side of the board as it is now. They could fix that problem by requiring each player to place one large piece of terrain within 12 inches of the centre of the board or something like that. 

I hope these rules aren’t just abandoned. I have seen a lot of complaints about the lack of terrain at tournaments and this looks like an effort to address that problem. 

I'll agree on the use of more terrain as well as codify it into the game more. Its more of an issue in 40k but terrain can have a large impact on the outcome of a game. I've always thought it would be cool if they did battleplans that specified specific terrain and how it should be laid out i.e. how online strategy games like StarCraft have official maps for their ranked games.

1 hour ago, stato said:

On the GW store entry for the handbook it says....

 

Open War Terrain – presents four different methods of setting terrain up before your games, including an optional terrain generator, and optional rules to provide instructions for where you place terrain on your battlefield.

 

Are we sure the terrain rules are for matched play?

We are absolutely sure these terrain rules are for matched play. However, there is a very high chance of day 1 errata which may be reflected on the website. Current reviewers are just reading the book as it was printed apparently over 6 months ago (I don't work in publishing but da fudge on that lead time). Last year's Command Point stacking debacle makes me wonder if they'll stubbornly hold off on fixing it for awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Im fairly sure this is a legally placed mausoleum. 

It's one group, all pieces are touching the base of at least two other pieces, and it contains the minimum number of pieces. 

If I understand starstrike, which has no objectives on the board, this is a turn one drop you could make. 

I did use the longest fences pieces within a whole mausoleum kit. But it honestly didn't make much of a difference. It's still massive. 

DSC_0005.JPG

Edited by Heliums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Heliums said:

Im fairly sure this is a legally placed mausoleum. 

It's one group, all pieces are touching the base of at least two other pieces, and it contains the minimum number of pieces. 

If I understand starstrike, which has no objectives on the board, this is a turn one drop you could make. 

I did use the longest fences pieces within a whole mausoleum kit. But it honestly didn't make much of a difference. It's still massive. 

DSC_0005.JPG

No it isn't legal cause big terrains have a limit of 10" by 10" by 10" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Heliums said:

Im fairly sure this is a legally placed mausoleum. 

It's one group, all pieces are touching the base of at least two other pieces, and it contains the minimum number of pieces. 

If I understand starstrike, which has no objectives on the board, this is a turn one drop you could make. 

I did use the longest fences pieces within a whole mausoleum kit. But it honestly didn't make much of a difference. It's still massive. 

DSC_0005.JPG

I think this would break the 10x10 restriction. But this is very helpful. Make your argument but do it by setting a table and taking the picture 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Ahn-ket said:

No it isn't legal cause big terrains have a limit of 10" by 10" by 10" 

 

34 minutes ago, Kramer said:

I think this would break the 10x10 restriction. But this is very helpful. Make your argument but do it by setting a table and taking the picture 👍

Hmm, to my understanding the 10" limitation is for pieces of scenery that fall under Unique. Unique says: Any other terrain feature. This seems to me that Unique is talking about pieces of terrain that are not part of the 8 warscrolls specified like old kits or custom pieces. Hilariously there's no minimum size so you could essentially drop grains of sand as your scenery to give your guns firing lanes, or whatever reason you could think of why you might benefit from less scenery on a battlefield. Maybe since you don't also have to account for the footprint of the piece of scenery just 6" bubble, you could free up a little space to sneak in one of them new awakened wyldwoods? 

Anyways, the Sigmarite Mausoleum doesn't seem to have be beholden to the 10" limit or any restriction beyond being composed of the minimum number of pieces and the other restrictions on its warscroll which I've met in my picture. But I'm working off the GMG YouTube video on a phone, I could have missed it in another section. 

Also, just to try and clear a thing up with the dimensions. I see common reference to either 10x10x10 or 10x10, but the Unique section seems to be talking about a cylindrical footprint. It says no more than 10" across at its widest, which is necessarily a circle in shape. A 10x10 square would exceed 10" if you measured corner to corner. So to me it reads a cylinder, 10" across and 10" high. To be fair, I have no idea how to shorthand that.

 

Edited by Heliums
Clarifying that you still need to account for the 6" bubble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Heliums said:

 

Hmm, to my understanding the 10" limitation is for pieces of scenery that fall under Unique. Unique says: Any other terrain feature. This seems to me that Unique is talking about pieces of terrain that are not part of the 8 warscrolls specified like old kits or custom pieces. Hilariously there's no minimum size so you could essentially drop grains of sand as your scenery to give your guns firing lanes, or whatever reason you could think of why you might benefit from less scenery on a battlefield. Maybe since you don't also have to account for the footprint of the piece of scenery just 6" bubble, you could free up a little space to sneak in one of them new awakened wyldwoods? 

Anyways, the Sigmarite Mausoleum doesn't seem to have be beholden to the 10" limit or any restriction beyond being composed of the minimum number of pieces and the other restrictions on its warscroll which I've met in my picture. But I'm working off the GMG YouTube video on a phone, I could have missed it in another section. 

Also, just to try and clear a thing up with the dimensions. I see common reference to either 10x10x10 or 10x10, but the Unique section seems to be talking about a cylindrical footprint. It says no more than 10" across at its widest, which is necessarily a circle in shape. A 10x10 square would exceed 10" if you measured corner to corner. So to me it reads a cylinder, 10" across and 10" high. To be fair, I have no idea how to shorthand that.

 

Hmm that would be interesting. A bit gamy of abused but it does free up some space if done right. On the 10x10 or 10 diameter I will check as soon as I get my book :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heliums said:

Im fairly sure this is a legally placed mausoleum. 

It's one group, all pieces are touching the base of at least two other pieces, and it contains the minimum number of pieces. 

If I understand starstrike, which has no objectives on the board, this is a turn one drop you could make. 

I did use the longest fences pieces within a whole mausoleum kit. But it honestly didn't make much of a difference. It's still massive. 

DSC_0005.JPG

OK maybe it's legal by the warscroll rules but i relativly sure you can't put the necessary 10 pieces of terrain on the table within the restrictions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ahn-ket said:

OK maybe it's legal by the warscroll rules but i relativly sure you can't put the necessary 10 pieces of terrain on the table within the restrictions

That raises a good point. What happens if all 10 pieces the players pick can't be placed? I didn't catch any ruling on that except for faction terrain. Do the other pieces just not get placed? Two mausoleums set up like that will probably mean no other terrain can fit. It's gamey and abusive but seems legal, so you can bet people will probably do it if they think they can use it to their advantage. But maybe setting terrain up like this isn't to anyone advantage and no one will bother. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...