Terrian, 3.0, Matched Play and You!

[Lurynsar]

Hello fellow forum dwellers! Today I wanted to ask/discuss an issue that isn't talked about as near as much (although there is a semi recent sorta related conversation in this very forum, so kudos) as I think it needs to be. Terrain. For those who aren't aware, when 9th Ed 40K released there was a massive growing pain as people had to not only add more, better terrain to matched play level events, but also become much more familiar and comfortable with intense makeover of the terrain rules. It is widely accepted that there was a 6+ month lag before the meta really was playing on "proper" tables with enough and the right kind of terrain for 9th Ed. Even to this day there is a divide between "official" 40K tables (used at their GW Opens), ITC/ITC Player Placed, WTC/Europe and just events having enough of it in general.

While we are fortunate that this isn't as much of an issue with 3.0, we also lack a really good set of terrain rules IMO. However I am a matched play "stickler" in 40K and also run a number of events locally. As such I want to use the GHB/Core Rulebook on terrain and make sure my events have the proper terrain for the game. So while this conversation will mostly follow the ideas of "Matched Play", I am always open to ideas from players of every caliber and type, especially as I myself have some house rules currently that are used locally. With that said, enough rambling and onto the meat of the post.

In 3.0 we are suggested to use at least 8 pieces of terrain. Now personally I divide terrain into 4.5 categories.
1) Area Terrain - Think a terrain feature units can enter and hold. Wyldwoods (which can also block LoS), Graveyards, Ruins etc. These terrain features should be big enough to allow at least a unit of 5-10 models to move into. Giving them full use of cover on it, and around it.
2) Barricades - Mostly just fences, walls, toppled statues, large bones and the like. Basically cannot me moved "onto" but can be used to provide cover for a unit by being behind it. 
3) Garrisons - Buildings, Towers, Outposts etc. These are usually of the non large or extra large variety on my tables.
4[.5]) LoS Blocking[Impassible] - This is one that should be large enough to block LoS to anything behind except maybe the largest models. Fortress walls, cliff faces, massive mountains/hills. In addition the AoS terrain movement rules are kind of bad, and as such models can move up or down terrain features, as such we have a house rule called Impassible, which for some of these to only allow models which can fly to move over them. They cannot be scaled so to speak, this is to stop models having to stop half way up, or whatever else weird jank comes from the rules and is usually reserved for large 6"+ pieces (especially ones without flat tops to stop on too).

So ideally we would have 2 of each "type" on a table. But of course not every theme uses each of these as well, as such we do adapt and change as needed. Two example tables I have are;
1) Grave Town of Shyish - 2 Large Mausoleum (Garrisons), 2 Graveyard w/ small Mausoleum (Area Terrain), 2 Dead Forests (Area Terrain/Wyldwoods) and 2 Broken Fences (Barricades)
2) Wilds of Ghur - 2 Beast Skulls (Barricades, as they cannot be entered like Area Terrain), 2 Sheer Cliffs (LoS Blocking and Impassible), 2 Death Forests (Area Terrain/Wyldwoods) and 2 Hut Villages (Area Terrain)

So what I am looking for are answers discussions around the following
1.) Does this mix work for you? Is there other things you as a tournament (or general Matched Play) player would want to see? 
2.) How much space should terrain take on the table? 25%? 50%? More? Less?
3.) Is 8 pieces (being the actual minimum) too few? If so is that because of the average size? Would 8 be fine if they took up a certain amount of the table? Do you instead prefer 10? 12?
4.) Is LoS blocking important to you? Would you rather have all terrain be "see through"?
5.) Does the "Impassible" rule (see above) bother you? It is used to make the game cleaner in our experience, but is a house rule
6.) Are Garrisons important to you? If so what size?  

Beyond that there also a few terrain rules I often see totally ignored or changed for events. On a more in-depth look, especially for tournament goers I am curious about things such as 
7.) Do you want the "Defender" to roll Mysterious Terrain? Do you want Mysterious Terrain at all? Would you rather Mysterious Terrain be pre-rolled and applied already for everyone to see at the table?
8.) Do you prefer terrain preset for the table? If so do you prefer it set for the entire event, or reset for each Battleplan?
9.) If not preset, is the "Attacker" placing terrain ideal for you (per the rules)? Would you prefer if the "Attacker" got to set the terrain, but only in preset locations? Such as being able to place the 8 pieces, but the pieces had to go in one of eight pre-marked locations on a map for the table/Battleplan?
10.) Are there any terrain style/rules/options you love for event tables to have? Any you utterly despise?
11.) Does the quality/amount of terrain actually matter to you at an event? It is "less" important than in 40K, and some of the tables I have seen for AoS events have been bare IMO, but is that acceptable, or even preferable, to you?

So for anyone who actually got through all that and answers thank you very much. Locally Age of Sigmar events often are weird. They have a lot of house rules, crazy scoring and a ton of extra moving parts. There has been some desire for balanced more "40K like" Matched Play events. So I am very interested to hear from TOs who have had similar questions and found answers to reach out to me too. AoS still feels very young in its tournament life, and I very much am excited to watch it grow. So if you can offer any feedback (especially from a Matched Play) perspective it would be much appreciated to help grow my scene (and hopefully others)





 

[Perturbato]

most important question : in the rules there is nothing about the pieces that you can't put on scenery without falling. And you can't put a miniature without her base parallel to the ground. So if i'm going to any event i will ask if it's allowed and if it's not then i won't go.

 

Most of my strenght is within using bloothirsters. So if terrain shenanigan cancel my strentgh i won't enjoy.

[Verde17]

Hi Lurynsar, let me answer some questions with my personal opinion as an AoS events organizer:

1- I always create thematic tables, for me the most important thing is that the table is beatifull & represents a theme.

2- It depends on how many objectives are in the scenario.

3- We usually use 8 pieces, but they are large pieces, like for example the Idoneth ship, the ossiarchs scenario or the goblin moon. Sometimes I add fences to buildings for example and I count it as 1 piece of scenario. Take into account that if both players have to place their own scenario, the table will have 10 pieces instead of 8.

4- Yes, I'm waiting for GW to publicate some scenario rules like the ones "Volcanic" or "Entangled" that we used in second edition. The one that blocked LoS was very interesting.

5- I like the Impassible rule, and GW is adding something similar to many faction scenario like the Idoneth ship.

6- In my opinion garrisons shouldn't exist in matched play, but I understand that they are very thematic.

7- We always pre-roll it.

8- Yes, is better to have it preset. Sometimes the organizer has to change some scenarios between games because the position of the objectives changes in every battleplan.

9- In second edition there was a manual (maybe it was the rulebook, I don't remember it) that had pre-marked terrain positions to create interesting tables. I used that guide many times for events and normal games between friends, it was quite useful.

10- I like the Mysterious Terrain, but with 12 different options as in 2nd Edition, not with only 6.

11- No, the amount of terrain is very important in an event, it makes the table to look impressive with all the painted miniatures for photos; and it is also important to add tactical decisions for players.

[Baron Klatz]

On 12/6/2021 at 2:05 AM, Verde17 said:

6- In my opinion garrisons shouldn't exist in matched play, but I understand that they are very thematic.

Yeah, I don’t really mind garrisons but I do prefer Warcry-like terrain and walls for that “last stand” situation. In a close quarters skirmish situation it’s a lot more fun to take advantage of AoS’ unit rules have an open platform the defenders can move around to take advantage of spacing.

On 12/6/2021 at 2:05 AM, Verde17 said:

10- I like the Mysterious Terrain, but with 12 different options as in 2nd Edition, not with only 6.

Ditto! I hope by the time we’re halfway through 3rd edition they’ll be enough Realm Rules for us to have substitute scenarios for that enhanced terrain.  

[Charleston]

First of all, thanks for bringing the topic up. I think we need to talk more about terrain within AoS since 3.0. In my opinion most AoS games are played on tables with way too less terrain. Things are seen as normal because in many Batreps or Tournament Tables terrain is often spare as well, or placed in a purely decorative manner. With current Meta beeing strong in Shooting and Magic I think that we need really more terrain.

I see the following patterns for Terrain:

• LOS blocking "breachable" Terrain is important to give melee units some protection against shooting. In earlier invocations of the game shooting had the advantage of ranged damage but usually did way less damage to balance it out. Powercreep in ranged profiles (Sentinels, Longstrikes) means that Shooting often has an Edge, dealing similar Damage but having the range advantage.
• Movement blocking Terrain that does not affect LOS could be seen like a counterpart: Ponds, Lava Lakes, Sinkholes could give Melee units the disadvantage of having an open flank. Together with LOS blocking Terrain this could be used to build up some hotspots, ideally somewhere around the objectives.
• Flying units break this "Rock paper scissors"-Game a bit. They are usually fast and ignore most terrain which can cause some real trouble. I'd see room for a Mystical Terrain rule which negates Fly.
• Impassible Terrain which blocks LOS and disallows movement is ideal: While it is Protection for melee units, it also hinders the meele units from moving too fast close to the opponent. But it also gets boring really fast.
• Dense Small Scatter Terrain is the worst nightmare in my opinion. While it doesn't provide cover, it is often a nightmare to move units through such terrain. When not ignoring the terrain during movement, you often have to measure for single models quite often. This can cost several inches of movement while not beeing fun to play at all. It destroys pile-in-movements for units that have to fight within the terrain. Meanwhile if mostly doesn't affect LOS so it doesn't protect meeele units. It's just a trap. Using some sort of pond as mentioned above protects you from this terrible gameplay experience.
• Garnisons are rarely used but I could imagine them to be usefull close to objectives. They could add some weight to objectives by making them easier to defend.  

 

1.) Does this mix work for you? Is there other things you as a tournament (or general Matched Play) player would want to see?
Mixed Terrain works fine as long as there are two types: "Breachable" LOS blockers that infantry can pass through and Big Rocks/Buildings that Infantry has to move around. 
2.) How much space should terrain take on the table? 25%? 50%? More? Less?
30-40% sounds right. Yet for me it's less about the space rather than the placement.
3.) Is 8 pieces (being the actual minimum) too few? If so is that because of the average size? Would 8 be fine if they took up a certain amount of the table? Do you instead prefer 10? 12?
If you place 8 pieces right it may be enough, yet I feel like official GW AoS Terrain Kits are way smaller and less LOS blocking, so in this case more is more.
4.) Is LoS blocking important to you? Would you rather have all terrain be "see through"?
LoS is a key feature to protect units from ranged damage/effects. To create a balanced game experience each army should be able to protect against all mechanics by some way. Providing LOS blocking terrain allows melee units to get easier close to enemy ranged units, which is really important considering how devastating shooting became with recent warscrolls. But if terrain is too much in favor of melee unis the balance just topples over again.  
5.) Does the "Impassible" rule (see above) bother you? It is used to make the game cleaner in our experience, but is a house rule
It is important. Impassible Terrain does affect all types of units: Melee, Ranged and Fliers. For this reason we often played in my group the underground-scenarios with impassible stone walls because all factions had to play around the terrain somehow.
6.) Are Garrisons important to you? If so what size? 
 I see unused potential here. Having them, especially nearby objectives, could add up to the depth of the game. But I have little to no experience on my own, just some random toughts.

Beyond that there also a few terrain rules I often see totally ignored or changed for events. On a more in-depth look, especially for tournament goers I am curious about things such as 
7.) Do you want the "Defender" to roll Mysterious Terrain? Do you want Mysterious Terrain at all? Would you rather Mysterious Terrain be pre-rolled and applied already for everyone to see at the table?
Mysterious Terrain is basically an 1.0 Artifact which the Dev's used to make terrain rules easy enough to fit in a two page leaflet among the other rules as well as making terrain at least somehow interesting. There is something to the concept of having buffs bound to terrain. Allowing one player to pick is tricky as some buffs like Arcane can really impact the game when available easy to a single player. For TO I wish they just assigned the rules to the board prior to the game
8.) Do you prefer terrain preset for the table? If so do you prefer it set for the entire event, or reset for each Battleplan?
Yes. Having to play the Terrain-Placement-Minigame before the Battle is just taking up time at events and may lead to a weird shift in balance. Having Terrain assigned to a table and make players switch around seems like the best way to go. Only issue here is faction Terrain
9.) If not preset, is the "Attacker" placing terrain ideal for you (per the rules)? Would you prefer if the "Attacker" got to set the terrain, but only in preset locations? Such as being able to place the 8 pieces, but the pieces had to go in one of eight pre-marked locations on a map for the table/Battleplan?
When you have to put the pieces in pre-marked spots, what is the point of placing them on your own anyway?
10.) Are there any terrain style/rules/options you love for event tables to have? Any you utterly despise?
Hard to say: You can use ****** rules in a good way when creative enough.
11.) Does the quality/amount of terrain actually matter to you at an event? It is "less" important than in 40K, and some of the tables I have seen for AoS events have been bare IMO, but is that acceptable, or even preferable, to you?
I think that we can improve the game balance by using more terrain.

[wolyhammer]

It would be great to have a guide for terrain placement. I liked Lurynsar's comment on what types of terrain to take to get a good mix.

I would like to see more terrain you interact with, garrisons or area terrain spaces that provide cover, rather than just big objects that you move around.

I've seen examples from 40k tournaments that had the terrain layouts but haven't been able to find anything for AoS.

[Jaxler]

I try to place LOS blocking terrain, but I also try to build a story with said terrain. Ya wanna make it feel thematic 

[Azlak the Damned]

In a tournament setting the battlefield should be pre set and ready to go including any terrain rules. As had been said above, time is wasted placing terrain and in some instances it can lead to small advantages to certain players/armies.

On a personal note I prefer a lot of terrain which causes LoS issues, forces large quantity units to squeeze through small gaps/alleys etc. and prevents monsters/large heroes from getting into certain areas. Brings another layer of tactical strategy to the battle.