Faction Terrain - What do you guys think?

[InSaint]

They look good, are free to field and almost all newer factions have them. They also help alleviate terrain scarcity problem and encourages a BYOT (bring your own terrain) culture.

What are your thoughts?

[Sedraxis]

I think it was a good move, especially in combination with games like Warcry also coming with a bunch of scenery. Empty tables are a thing of the past.

Faction terrain as part of their Allegiance Abilities works pretty great. The only thing I find somewhat iffy is the scenery table in GHB2019. Allowing someone to bring only Arcane terrain or especially faction specific pieces like Realmgates and Mausoleums is just asking for abuse. It's fun when mixing it up or creating scenarios, but gets old real fast when Steve brings his 4 extra graveyards and 2 arcane stones every game.

I think the GHB2019 terrain rules could be better, but as a whole I do think specifying terrain rules for matched play is a good thing. Maybe prevent duplicates or update some warscrolls so generic terrain won't benefit a specific faction.

[HollowHills]

I find it a bit annoying. As the scenery doesn't cost any points but does give you an advantage, small or great, you have to take it. 

If you play a lot of games at home or have a car it's fine. Taking a box of scenery onto public transport to the store esch week isn't so great. 

I hope that if they keep it up they go for more stuff like the khorne altar or fyreslayers shrine. Relatively small, single piece that can be easily transported. 

[AaronWilson]

I like the new era of terrain, I do think the old era has issues though. Things like Wyldwoods completely define Sylvaneth and things like Shipwrecks and completley shut down a players movement.

The new era which is simply a extra rule or two is much, much better design.

[zilberfrid]

I think it leaves the armies where GW didn't bother to make faction terrain in the dust a bit. It is rather important (overwhelmingly so in some armies), and simply not an option for every army.

[Kasper]

I don't think faction terrain fits every faction. But it has gotten to the point where so many people complain/whine/are disappointed if their army doesn't get faction terrain and endless spells. Honestly alot of the terrain feels kinda lackluster and has very limited use, but it is there just for a free, tiny bonus to your army. That feels bland and boring imo. Either make it an important part of the army that it should play around, or dont bother making it in the first place.

Stuff like the Beasts of Chaos terrain feels so weird to me. It is completely opposite of what the faction likes to do - Run fast and ambush the enemy, but the aura wont benefit you until much later in the game, so what exactly is the point of it?

[Eevika]

Playing my Troggoths the Gitz terrain is pretty useless but when playing my Nurgle skaven army its insanely valuable to get more summoning points and run + charge aura

[Overread]

Faction terrain is mostly bringing allegiance abilities into a physical form much like endless spells bring spells into a physical form. 

Sure you can say its a cash-grab by GW, but honestly EVERY new model is the same, as are resculpts and new rules editions. GW as a business (not at the individual worker level) is clearly in it for the money and has to find new ways to get gamers to part with cash. Both new gamers and those with 20 or 30 year old collections who have most of everything they currently want. 

 

I think that some of the terrain would be better if it were more "mobile" in appearance or had some lore to explain how it was built. Since most games at this scale feel more like skirmishes than actual wars over fortified locations (reinforce by most of the terrain being ruins at present). Faction terrain would work fantastically well with a castle and forts system as well as villages and such in 15mm to 6mm games.

 

That aside I think its a neat idea. Some are clearly more powerful than others and some have more impact on the board in terms of their appearance. Some are just static buffs; others like the skaven gnawholes, actually make opponents think about deployment in new ways and how to conduct themselves on the battlefield. The concept of something like a gnawhole is nothing new - skaven had have warpgrinders for decades - but having it as a terrain feature on the table at the start changes how one reacts and works with it. 

 

 

 

As for which has the most impact its really hard to say. Some are situational, whilst others are powerful buffs. Others can define how an army functions. However all are nice to have and because they pair up with their chosen army they are like a linchpin to each army unto itself

[Panzer]

I'm missing some options in the poll, so I'll just make a post.

I love faction terrain, especially that it's for free unlike in 40k where you have to pay for it with points and only get extremely underwhelming effects in return, but I also like it because it adds a lot of flavour to the armies and the board you are playing on.

[Televiper11]

If they want to do it, great -- make sure every faction has one though!

[Icegoat]

Faction terrain is a good indicator of what armies will still be available to play in two years time and which won't. Cities of sigmar should have had a terrain piece and so should have ironjawz and bonesplitters. It's a good indication this will be the last battle tome for these armies before they are squatted. 

[Pennydude]

As a Sylvaneth player, the woods are pretty much necessary.  I really don't mind faction terrain as long as they bring a suitable ability to the faction that wouldn't make sense on a character.  It also diversifies the hobby aspect of that army a bit and makes each table feel a little different instead of just seeing rocks/hills/buildings/etc on tables.  For Sylvaneth, it seems like they carefully balanced how the units interact with the woods while with other armies, it seems more tacked on and just a bonus.

[Ointagru]

19 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

Faction terrain is a good indicator of what armies will still be available to play in two years time and which won't. Cities of sigmar should have had a terrain piece and so should have ironjawz and bonesplitters. It's a good indication this will be the last battle tome for these armies before they are squatted. 

It is extremely unlikely they would squat Ironjaws, an army made for AoS.

[amysrevenge]

I like the way the poll was set up, and I'm enjoying seeing what the results look like (especially the third question).

[Panzer]

36 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

Faction terrain is a good indicator of what armies will still be available to play in two years time and which won't. Cities of sigmar should have had a terrain piece and so should have ironjawz and bonesplitters. It's a good indication this will be the last battle tome for these armies before they are squatted. 

Sometimes I wonder where people get their confidence from considering there's no precedence for such a claim so far.

[Overread]

If GW were retiring the army in 2 years time they'd have just retired it now. Cities and Orruks were a bit of an emigma but lets not forget they came right after Sylvaneth and the trading delay might have messed up things for terrain/spells at that time and thus GW might not have ordered any. It's clear that from Launch to the start of 2.0 AoS was in a mad state of flux with lots of changes being thrown at it both from a massive rebuild of its entire structure through to the management changing at GW itself. 

2.0 is a massive fresh sweep and GW has clearly used it to make a final removal of models from the range. It's been darn painful, but at the same time AoS should move forward and preserve the armies its got now. We might see one or two situations like we have with Death where a motley army (Legions of Nagash) gets steadily updated with bits moving into fresh armies (Nighthaunt, Flesheaters, Ossiarchs). We could even see Legions vanish and be replaced with generic Grand Army Death with each niche of the legion getting its own army. 

Plus I'm sure we'll see models removed from sale as GW updates armies. However moving forward past the 2.0 updates we should see more normal patterns. So fewer removals; and when they do happen they happen alongside additions. Most likely replacing the removed sculpt with a new version.  Which is basically what GW normally does most of the time. 

[smartazjb0y]

26 minutes ago, Panzer said:

Sometimes I wonder where people get their confidence from considering there's no precedence for such a claim so far.

The cynicism of people who feel slighted is frankly exhausting. A new battletome with the largest variety of units that seems to be competitively strong and well thought out, but because they didn't get terrain they may as well have been squatted. Like @Overread said if they wanted to squat them they'd squat them. 

[SaJeel]

Really not a fan of faction terrain as it is. I Think they should by and large be pointed out. 

 

Everything that adds value to an army can be given a point value. Every allegiance ability should have internally identical point values ( or as close as possible). terrain can be so impactful, on some armies [dryad heavy sylvaneth] and completely pointless/ detrimental in other lists [troggoths army].  So imo it should be given a point value and left to the player to choose if they want it or not.

Edited October 29, 2019 by SaJeel

[The Red King]

My biggest reason for liking the terrain is that it gives every faction at least ONE piece of terrain to make the table feel like they belong there.

These aren't just "ruins" you're fighting over, this was a destroyed fyreslayer lodge. It's not just a forest and some hills, this is the edge of sylvaneth woods.

I mean I know a lot of the terrain is mobile stuff like gnawholes but it can really help theme a table.

 

That said I wish they weren't sometimes such cash grabs. I mean you can buy one idoneth shipwreck but you can put down 2 for the same cost (free) if you just buy more kits. Same with Sylvaneth woods.

[Icegoat]

11 minutes ago, The Red King said:

My biggest reason for liking the terrain is that it gives every faction at least ONE piece of terrain to make the table feel like they belong there.

These aren't just "ruins" you're fighting over, this was a destroyed fyreslayer lodge. It's not just a forest and some hills, this is the edge of sylvaneth woods.

I mean I know a lot of the terrain is mobile stuff like gnawholes but it can really help theme a table.

 

That said I wish they weren't sometimes such cash grabs. I mean you can buy one idoneth shipwreck but you can put down 2 for the same cost (free) if you just buy more kits. Same with Sylvaneth woods.

Which One piece of terrain did the orruk warclans and the squatted of squatmar recieve. It would be great if EVERY faction did have terrain. But they don't and that makes them inherently unfair and unfun to play against. 

 

Take sylvaneth they have treelords dryads and kurnoth hunters these are all capable units. They then get FREE terrain that aids these units and debuffs their enemies. How is this balanced or fair??? 

[Pennydude]

7 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

Take sylvaneth they have treelords dryads and kurnoth hunters these are all capable units. They then get FREE terrain that aids these units and debuffs their enemies. How is this balanced or fair??? 

Sylvaneth are specifically balanced around their Awakened Wyldwoods due to buffs/debuffs/teleporting.  Without them, Dryads would be way overcosted, Treelords would suck more than they already do, and the army's mobility is gone.  The woods aren't as strong as they were in the old book and they don't cover as much area now (6 new woods pieces is roughly 2 of the old bases, old book allowed up to 3 old bases).  They've been blocking line of sight for over a year now and can't just instagib models like before.  

[The Red King]

Look I play cities, and I wish they had gotten. These things too. Orcs seemed like an easy pick for terrain as well. I just meant from a fluff perspective I like them for theming tables.

Although as the above pointed out Sylvaneth are balanced around their terrain. Nobody wants Durthu as an ally without woods. 

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, The Red King said:

Although as the above pointed out Sylvaneth are balanced around their terrain. Nobody wants Durthu as an ally without woods

Living city does but your argument stands. 

[The World Tree]

2 hours ago, Icegoat said:

Which One piece of terrain did the orruk warclans and the squatted of squatmar recieve. It would be great if EVERY faction did have terrain. But they don't and that makes them inherently unfair and unfun to play against. 

 

Take sylvaneth they have treelords dryads and kurnoth hunters these are all capable units. They then get FREE terrain that aids these units and debuffs their enemies. How is this balanced or fair??? 

Have you ever played the game?

[svnvaldez]

9 hours ago, Icegoat said:

Faction terrain is a good indicator of what armies will still be available to play in two years time and which won't. Cities of sigmar should have had a terrain piece and so should have ironjawz and bonesplitters. It's a good indication this will be the last battle tome for these armies before they are squatted. 

I would disagree. More likely that they will recieve supplemental support or some in AOS3.0.

It feels like a highter up said we need to get all armies we are keeping up to date rules wise by the end of the year regardless of whether or not we have new models for them.