Faction Terrain - What do you guys think?

[svnvaldez]

8 hours ago, Overread said:

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. 

Exactly

[dirkdragonslayer]

I like Faction terrain, most are nice and thematic. Because they don’t cost points, their benefits can be minor without people never taking them. I like the ones with minor effects, but not game changing ones, like the Loonshrine. I am glad to see some like the Herdstone make the field after being in the lore since forever. Also adds a nice centerpiece for displays.

 

My biggest complaint about 40k terrain is that it costs points, and it’s usually not worth their effect. That Ork Mekshop is beautiful, but it will never see the board because it’s effect stinks.

[Inquisitorsz]

*** caveat, i'll be mentioning faction endless spells too because I think the same comments apply to both terrain and spells and they are often released together.  

I dislike faction terrain for a few main reasons. 

Firstly... the power levels vary wildly. Some are nearly useless, some are flat out mandatory. 

Secondly, because they are free (points wise) and often very useful... there's no reason not to take them.... which kind of makes them all mandatory. 
Some that are situational you could get away with not taking, but again, there's no reason not to.  At the very least they can block opponent movement or something.  

Thirdly, some are stupidly expensive. Like Sylvaneth generally need 2-4 boxes of forests (Same with the nurgle tree), where as other factions only need 1 piece. 
Heardstone and nurgle tree are the cheapest ($49AUD). Most others are $60AUD, shipwreck is $70AUD and the three most expensive are the sylvaneth woods, the bone tithe nexus at $84AUD and the Loonshrine at $98AUD. So the more expensive ones are 40-50% more expensive than the cheaper ones. 
And again, sylvaneth need multiples (can you tell I'm a bit annoyed?).   

Fourthly, not everyone has them. Not everyone even has faction endless spells. The fact they got brought in after 2.0 battletomes started coming out is a bit weird, but the fact that some newer factions didn't get them at all is even more bizarre.
Some factions have endless spells but no terrain, some have terrain but no endless spells.

If only a few factions had some reason to have terrain... where it makes sense, Like sylvaneth then (cost aside) it wouldn't be so bad. Or the deepkin shipwreck. But there's been some strange omissions, and some factions that really didn't need them ended up with some. Eg... khorne and fyreslayers endless spells (and terrain). 
 

[Panzer]

To be fair, the Sylvaneth terrain is nothing special. People have been building forest terrain pieces for almost as long as wargaming exists so you could get your Sylvaneth terrain for much cheaper than buying the model GW provides.

[zilberfrid]

11 hours ago, smartazjb0y said:

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. 

No, it's because no new plastic was released.

GW does not really care about existing rules (mercenary companies), whether they put it in AoS branded starter boxes (Island of blood) or other AoS branded games (Silver tower, all the Order heroes are not in cities).

They care about molds, and the Cities molds are ageing, past 10 years for quite a few. Whether they will replace the molds when they wear out is still not a given.

Getting any new plastic, even for any game (Underworld, Warcry, RPG) would have eased my mind greatly. Faction terrain would have been a great tie in, because buildings define cities.

I really like the book, I do, but it is hard to ignore being left without any modeling resource being spent on it.

[Greyshadow]

I think faction terrain is great. I guess part of their success was making terrain part of your army list - that’s the bit I have mixed feelings about.

Some terrain really feels like it should be placed and play like regular terrain. On the other hand, the change in business model has clearly made these models much more commercially sustainable.

[Panzer]

49 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

No, it's because no new plastic was released.

GW does not really care about existing rules (mercenary companies), whether they put it in AoS branded starter boxes (Island of blood) or other AoS branded games (Silver tower, all the Order heroes are not in cities).

They care about molds, and the Cities molds are ageing, past 10 years for quite a few. Whether they will replace the molds when they wear out is still not a given.

Getting any new plastic, even for any game (Underworld, Warcry, RPG) would have eased my mind greatly. Faction terrain would have been a great tie in, because buildings define cities.

I really like the book, I do, but it is hard to ignore being left without any modeling resource being spent on it.

Oh jeez, Craftworld Eldar in 40k have been without new models for years until just last month. Not getting new models doesn't equal getting squatted. Not to mention that the post was about not getting faction terrain equaling getting squatted.

[Panzer]

16 minutes ago, Greyshadow said:

I think faction terrain is great. I guess part of their success was making terrain part of your army list - that’s the bit I have mixed feelings about.

Some terrain really feels like it should be placed and play like regular terrain. On the other hand, the change in business model has clearly made these models much more commercially sustainable.

Yeah they pretty much said themselves that terrain kits without rules/generic rules don't really sell well but once they do what they did with the faction terrain people jump on it.

[The World Tree]

8 minutes ago, Panzer said:

Yeah they pretty much said themselves that terrain kits without rules/generic rules don't really sell well but once they do what they did with the faction terrain people jump on it.

And then they went and released various sets of high quality terrain sets for both 40k and AOS that are not faction-based...

[Panzer]

2 minutes ago, The World Tree said:

And then they went and released various sets of high quality terrain sets for both 40k and AOS that are not faction-based...

Just because one sells better it doesn't mean they can't do both. Good generic terrain is still highly appreciated. It just means it sells slower than faction terrain.

[zilberfrid]

37 minutes ago, Panzer said:

Oh jeez, Craftworld Eldar in 40k have been without new models for years until just last month. Not getting new models doesn't equal getting squatted. Not to mention that the post was about not getting faction terrain equaling getting squatted.

GW is a lot more cully with AoS than 40k, it seems.

I don't trust GW not to kill off warscrolls when the molds wear out. All molds for Cities are old, so in two years, they might just rip them all out, or reduce them to the remaining molds before killing them a bit further on the line.

Endless spells, faction terrain or any new kit was a way GW could have shown more than paper commitment (no matter how good that paper was).

They didn't.

If I'm not mistaken, these are the only 2.0 books without faction terrain. Since faction terrain is free in points, this is ruleswise strange, so there must be another reason.

Not wanting to commit a mold to the faction is a logical conclusion, and worrysome for people more heavily invested in it than GW.

Edited October 30, 2019 by zilberfrid

[XReN]

16 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

If I'm not mistaken, these are the only 2.0 books without faction terrain.

Nighthaunts and SCE got only spells, no terrain

[zilberfrid]

3 minutes ago, XReN said:

Nighthaunts and SCE got only spells, no terrain

Thanks, that softens my stance a bit, but does not alleviate my worry.

[Beastmaster]

Is there a good source on the Internet for the exact footprints of the various terrain pieces? As much as I love the idea of faction fitting terrain, I would prefer to build my own.

[Captain Marius]

I think the terrain looks great, but it should be pointed and probably just treated as a unit in your army that cant move or be destroyed. Id like if skaven gnawholes deep striked in rather than how they currently deploy around the board edge. I only tend to buy the terrain pieces if i have a good 2k force already, and i only have malign sorcery and forbidden power endless spells as i have better things to paint for my armies!

[Sputnik]

I recently started collecting Sylvaneth as my first AoS army - lured in by the pretty models and interesting narrative. I was aware that wyldwoods were a thing but hadn't totally realised how crucial they are to any list, or how many of them I would need to fork out for. It's put me off expanding the army as I now see a much higher threshold before I can put my toys on the table.  For now I'm just going to ignore the woods and play smaller point games, but I know that a big spend is inevitable if I want to compete. I'm also thinking about just buying some templates and modelling my own woods for casual play. 

[Greyshadow]

Good idea @Sputnik, I made 19 bases of woods a few years ago and it cost me about $300 AUD if I recall correctly. I used the best quality coniferous model railway trees I could find. I mounted them on MDF with slate rocks and sand for texture. Just had to paint and flock the bases. They turned out great and I can make huge woods with them.

i have nothing against the GW wood kits but their are certainly alternatives.

Edited October 30, 2019 by Greyshadow

[smartazjb0y]

3 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

GW is a lot more cully with AoS than 40k, it seems.

I don't trust GW not to kill off warscrolls when the molds wear out. All molds for Cities are old, so in two years, they might just rip them all out, or reduce them to the remaining molds before killing them a bit further on the line.

Endless spells, faction terrain or any new kit was a way GW could have shown more than paper commitment (no matter how good that paper was).

They didn't.

If I'm not mistaken, these are the only 2.0 books without faction terrain. Since faction terrain is free in points, this is ruleswise strange, so there must be another reason.

Not wanting to commit a mold to the faction is a logical conclusion, and worrysome for people more heavily invested in it than GW.

Orrukz didn't get terrain either. 

But GW has stated that writing a battletome takes around a year to do. Those are not insignificant resources. If they wanted to squat those units, it would've been far more logical to simply squat them and not bother with a tome at all. 

[Icegoat]

2 hours ago, smartazjb0y said:

Orrukz didn't get terrain either. 

But GW has stated that writing a battletome takes around a year to do. Those are not insignificant resources. If they wanted to squat those units, it would've been far more logical to simply squat them and not bother with a tome at all. 

If that's true it just shows how untrustworthy they have become they knew for a year high elves dwarves and humans would all be going bye bye but continued to sell them knowing they would be useless a few months later. 

[Beliman]

I don't know if they are balanced or not (I play KO....). Maybe with a new type  of points to buy artefacts, batallions, terrain, endless spells, extra command point, etc... could help the setting. Some armies are balanced around them, but so they can summon them, so it's free "points from another pool" too.

I don't know, maybe a 400 points for 2000 games could work. If you don't have endless spells nor terrain, you still can buy 1 extra command point (useful for everyone) and maybe one artefact/batallion.
 

[Cronotekk]

It's trash because faction terrain is usually poorly sculpted and doesn't mesh with the aesthetic of the table.

[Greyshadow]

I agree some do look a bit goofy @Cronotekk but I think sometimes the paint job is partly the problem. Some of scenery is just outstandingly good though (eg Herdstone).

[Tropical Ghost General]

15 hours ago, XReN said:

Nighthaunts and SCE got only spells, no terrain

SCE got endless spells, but I'm not sure that you can really say that NH got any endless spells, unless the statement is preceded by the words "In the whole of AoS, NH got the worst..."

As a ghost player I'd love a redo on the spells, I think all ghost players would tbh 😂.

Also a terrain piece would be helpful. I was using the penumbral engine for a while. But having to pay 100pts to run the penumbral engine, which can benefit your opponent just as much as it can benefit you, due to lacking any definition of whether friendly or enemy units are the ones who benefit from the abilities is basically giving your opponent an extra help in the game.