Will new terrain rules make Age of Sigmar 4 the best edition yet?

Welcome to #TheHonestWargamer.
============================================================================
All our Socials in one place:
PLEASE SUPPORT ON PATREON: / thehonestwargamer
CHECK OUT OUR AWESOME WEBSITE: thehonestwargamer.com/
JOIN THE TWITCH GANG: / thehonestwargamer
OUR PODCAST FEED: / the-honest-wargamer

[@TobyGilham]

Wow who needs to read articles when I can get them read to me

[@Shadowknightneo]

Wait til you hear about Audiobooks buddy....

[@petebedwellphotos]

Not thin a lie, this is in fact the reason I am watching this video 😂

[@gregorycafiero9688]

It's free content.

[@mattroso1210]

Terrain is absolutely essential for me. Having Something That looks great AND works is all part of it. I spent hundreds of hours building and painting my own custom terrain for that reason. Simple and immediately obvious and intuitive rules are the best - look at warcry and how the terrain is seamlessly integrated. So yeah - I think the new terrain rules for AOS 4e are looking sweet.

[@CommanderCud]

fully agree

[@MC-es3dy]

This is before watching the video: Terrain from Marvel Crisis Protocol is great. - throwable, collideable - cover giving, obstructing LOS - Sizes pre-defined so there's no measuring needed - impacts movement for some characters but not more mobile ones - of course easy to theme. - explained in very short paragraphs. It has everything tbh. Benchmark imo

[@ulysescolon2183]

I took a shot each time rob said the word “Abstraction”. Im hammered 47 seconds into the video. Keep up the great work bud. 10/10

[@thesoothsayer9223]

I think many people arent fully reading unstable. You can stop in it as long as youre on a spot less than 1" tall. So a forest you can stand in between the trees but not balance on top of a tree

[@theharrower]

I was going bring this up.

[@Shimmering_rain]

Thats what i understood it as.

[@ReadyToRole]

You can even stand on the roots that connect the trees in a circle since those parts are less than 1" tall. Was going to make this same comment, not sure how Rob misread that

[@dr.d3039]

We pointed out on the Twitch chat and he edited in at the end of this video

[@HobbyJackal]

Hurrah! Rob has returned from playing with Juggz ;). Loving all the Honest Wargamer, Peachy & Rogue content - thanks for making my toddler/baby bed time ear phone sessions awesome! 🙌

[@markpandelidis2079]

Disagree with your take on place of power. There's 2 options. +1 cast/pray Or Gain Banish/unbind. All armies benefit. And it's on a 2+. So there's a risk cost. Unlike arcane which was automatic. This is much better.

[@Kelgrim]

For me terrain is incredibly important, but primarily as a narrative hook, to help set the stage or tell a story. But it would be incredibly nice if said terrain also had nice intuitive rules that complimented the battle being fought. I’m definitely excited about 4th and what we’ve seen so far.

[@Born2Dougie]

For me, terrain in 3rd was largely ignorable. Even the mystical terrain dice ended up being so situational that it would rarely matter. I agree having terrain be more impactful would be fun, and I think the place of power is a nice step in that direction. I play Fyreslayers, and being able to have a thematic reason I can now get a dispell instead of feeling encouraged to bring an arcane tome in list building was a win for me. I get what you mean when you say +1 to cast being good for certain armies, but I'd take that over rivers slowing down my slow ass naked bois even an inch any day. With enough terrain buffs available, there might be a way it all kinda evens out, and would make "reading the lay of the land" for what works for your army best an important part of the game. Which feels like you're a general in a wargame in a big way to me. Anyhow I hope they lean into this more not less and I'm also glad they clarified a bunch of stuff.

[@rickroberts7312]

I like places of power, that it has a chance to fail, effects both wizard/ priests and something for non wizards allowing them to unbind. It is better than arcane/ mystical in the current rules.

[@CarbonMage]

My experience with 40k has been that terrain is critically important for blocking line of sight, even before terrain rules get involved. I definitely have found terrain less meaningful in AoS, and these rules look like an improvement, though I'm definitely curious to see the real rules definition of "behind." I like Places of Power, since they help make up for Heroic Willpower going away, are built into matched play table setups, affect wizards and priests simultaneously instead of some stuff being arcane and other stuff mystical (usually at random), and have a chance of and penalty for failure.

[@davisj011018]

Great video Rob. Know it’s hard being a man in wargaming. All that’s really needed for terrain rules: impassable, obscuring. Nice to have but not needed rules: cover, difficult terrain, and garrison-able for mission play opportunities like take and hold. GW you may use these rules for free. It took me 5 seconds.

[@40KWill]

I want terrain rules that work regardless of the real shape of the terrain from flat to oversized.

[@moshingxmadman]

I love terrain really sets the feeling for the fight even if it doesn't have rules it's just great to play on a themed board

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

I agree!

[@gertgrobler7131]

The rule now reads that if a unit can't see a another unit that unit can't charge the unit it can't see, even if it is in range

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

That won't be the case other wise you'll have immortal units.

[@captaincosmo6157]

My experience as someone who makes terrain? Wargamers are bloody animals!

[@capt.mannerings8095]

Thank you for the video. I really would like to see more detailed rules about the sorts of terrain you mentioned fields, rivers, swamps/bogs I think this would add to the game significantly but I understand this is a bit much to expect from gw.

[@alpheausfeltham9532]

I love the idea of the place of power rules, but you're right, it favours certain kinds of armies too much. I think it should have either included extra options like "can use all out attack or all out defense for free even if it has already been used" in addition to the spellcasting/unbinding stuff, or it should just have something more generic built in rather than specifically for casting. I do though think it is important for rules like this to exist, as it adds both extra flavour to the battlefield, as well as provides additional loci and points of control around which the battle can form. Looking at that deployment map, I definitely would not have put those places of power within immediate reach of either army, that's too easy. The armies should have to fight over these terrain pieces.

[@KarsunaOG]

When I run events I have some goals in mind with terrain. 1) I want tables to look amazing.(definitely no 2d terrain) This doesn't mean complicated, simple works well, as long as you can look at the table and it tells a story 2) Does this terrain favor any army in any particular way? (balanced) 3) Is the terrain easy to play on and understand the rules for? 4) How much terrain should be put on each table? /...........In discussing places of power, I agree this is not a good idea and would only really like to see these in a narrative game like in Path to Glory where maybe it's an option you can obtain with glory points. I'm wondering if a place of power had a health total, would they then be playable in a competitive setting?

[@piotrjeske4599]

The wall problem is both one for places with and without intent play. Because with models being unable to end their move inside a wall , you very much can places your own unit in a such a way that the range to wall and the thickness of the wall are bigger then 0,5".

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

Yeah certainly the reason

[@kewanzahedinour7304]

we play with very hight quality terrain on "bases" and use rules that fit our needs: A cool cristal-wall is just "line of sight blocking" despite being under 4" tall and so on

[@northstartaxadvice8251]

Everybody grab their line of sight laser pointers!

[@gregoryseraphin1426]

Place of power on faction terrain seems very fun. Like the Realmshaper Engine

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

Faction terrain is unavoidable

[@pidacha2763]

Thanks for the review. I'm a bit puzzled by the flying keyword vs cover and obscuring vs unstable and impassable ... In case the flying models would not benefit from the former, then it would make sense ignoring as well the later right? Would mean flying models could stop on top on any piece or terrain... in case not, they should benefit from the cover ability as it means they only fly during movement phase 🤔

[@drewfincher9070]

When you did the first look at spearhead video you said you’d do another video going over your opinions on the mode and I’ve really been looking forward to that since spearhead really appeals to me as a new war game player

[@mactac]

Boards with terrain are much more intrigue and inviting to outsiders. We are always trying to grow the hobby. We gotta make it look good

[@garredwhalen6512]

A) terrain is very important to my game, but other than wild woods, cover, and line of site, I didn't use any of the GW rules. B) I will use any terrain, but I prefer 3d, thematic terrain: at least two terrain pieces that a unit can get wholly on even if it has lanes or avenues for movement, and at least two terrain pieces that nothing can get into.

[@christopherwhaley5655]

I play at a sizable FLGS and sometimes I play on something that looks like it belongs in Star Wars or 40K or even MCP. It’s awesome in its variety but yes AoS needs some terrain rules.

[@gertgrobler7131]

A lot of people got their terain out of the Gur Warcry boxes. These all have platforms. So jumping and falling rules bacame very important for AOS

[@Elvings92]

The places of power rule is yes, to sell more pieces but I also like it for narrative play. The only downside is that like you said it's not balanced for matched play.

[@LokiDokiGG]

I think terrain is hugely annoying but also hugely important, just breaks up the game more and adds variation

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

Agree with this. Thinking around the problem has been a nightmare

[@rcmwalker1987]

My favorite terrain rules is star wars legion. Its absolutely a key part of the game, but still very easy to use.

[@raigomander2817]

Hey, great video as usual. To answer your question: A) Very important. I feel that if you don't have terrain to restrict LoS and movement, the game is much more bland and predictable, and the strategies are more scripted, instead of having to adapt to a situation in particular. B) I would never play with a fkin picture of a building instead of actual terrain. Even if it is the most outrageous "five year old arts and crafts-half assed project looking" garbage, I would still prefer that over the perfectly balanced for optimal competition, lame-ass paper on the board. That being said, when I play at home with my buddies, I try to fit in as much terrain as possible, making it symmetrical, but looking for a theme on the board (maybe is a village and some ruins, maybe is half forest and half graveyard... trying to create a bit of a narrative to make it more epic, and add some story-telling to the games, which usually results in cool memories, instead of just strategy and statistics). However, when I play at events, the board is already set up, and I think that's how that should always be. Players have the freedom to set up the board in any other way the agree on, but honestly I don't think that ever happens. We play with the fair distribution that the TO has discerned, depending of the battle plan, and everybody is absolutely fine with that. Just discuss beforehand what's unpassable, cover, etc. and if in doubt, ask a TO. (and I usually dont play with "misterious terrain rules" unless my opp really wants to, or his army interacts with that part of the rules, such as the coalesced seraphon) Hope that helped. Again, thanks for the content, you're killing it!

[@earnestwanderer2471]

AoS 4th is looking pretty decent and the more I play The Old World, the better I like it just the way it is. Also, you’re not kidding that team play is probably the best format if you can round up 4 to 6 people to form a team.

[@greybearddnd2417]

I just want my board to look nice. Balancing is already hard, making terrain too important can lead to situations like in 40k, where your arm yis really good on one terrain setup, but sucks on another. But the upcoming 4.0 rules look simple enough.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

I think simple enough definitely

[@joshuaglenn6605]

Do a breakdown of what your initial battlepack/terrain offering will be. Any leak for the size of small/med/large? Im starting to build a new table for fourth...

[@RealJahzir]

Oh good Rob is here to translate

[@dungrim]

I would prefer 3D Immersive terrain that looks nice, but is functional. For events terrain maps are a must, I like that they have included them as part of the new battle plans.

[@tomsnoxell8402]

A: scenery is super important for me. It tells the story and builds immersion. My kids and I play AOS, and the story of the battle is as important as the game itself. B: I’d love scenery to have rules that make sense. Less “arcane” and just better cover and interaction.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

I agree so much

[@ReadyToRole]

I like Places of Power because if I want to run an army with no Wizards (and I'm not playing Khorne) the fact I can get some dispel on any hero feels like it opens up list building options rather than feeling like I need to pay a Wizard tax.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

What if the enemy then gets 4 casts at +1 and you get one dispel? I just feel points should do this not terrain

[@markpandelidis2079]

I'm not convinced that's how charging is going to work. This article seems to reinforce that a unit must be visible before the charge not after.

[@blkjet117]

Have they released the sizes of the Spearhead terrain in the new AOS box set? I'm wanting to build faction specific terrain to go with my forces.

[@gregoryseraphin1426]

Terrain is a module so they CAN update it whenever they want this edition to fix things. Here’s to hoping for digital modules.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

I highly doubt we will see those as books are money but maybe

[@Vaellas]

Always going to prefer 3d terrain over 2d because it just looks good, it's great to see your terrain there. A battlefield is still part of the battle and I definitely agree with you on more faction themed terrain to have lots of options for the Mortal Realms. An example I can think of of 2d terrain is in Underworlds some hexes are not passable and having that as a graphic is not as interesting as an actual piece on the board. Meanwhile interactable terrain in Warcry is brilliant. I think places of power would be more interesting if it is something like a piece of terrain in the centre of the map somewhere and maybe you need to take an action to activate/ deactivate it so it is usable later so the choice has to be made on is it worth spending the time to activate the place of power to use it as you are spending extra actions to do so it's higher risk for the reward since you are sacrificing actions to get it going or turn it off. Hell maybe even Jade Obelisk find they don't even want it there anymore.

[@earnestwanderer2471]

Terrain is hugely important to me. The most important aspect is that it works well and actually impacts the play of the game. Not just window dressing. That said, I’d prefer the terrain to be beautiful, BUT... I’d rather play with 2D terrain that works well and impacts game play in a realistic way, than a gorgeous set of models that just sit in corners and look good.

[@redsven7624]

I really like a good-looking board with well-done terrain, but the terrain rules for asoif work so well not sure where I land overall. 2d Terrain does have the massive advantage when it comes to storage though and terrain storage is now actually a factor on if I pick up a game

[@quentindubus9538]

Terrain is f-ing important. It should look amazing AND be easy to play with/interact with.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

AGREED

[@Bazanti]

Scenery important, I really need a river that slows movement on most tables really.

[@gregorycafiero9688]

Just go full Miyazaki, all maps are now poison swamps

[@rodolfomaravillasduran8793]

Well, I'm a ttrpg player. Terrain is nice for some similar and different reasons. For example, full cover or elevation.

[@MrHelix7293]

I like nice tables with lots of terrain. It makes the game play differently to the usual deserts. Movement changes, targets may change or can't be picked, all things making a match more interesting

[@reubenmccallum3350]

I think terrain is criminally undervalued as a thing that should be pivotal in wargames. It's what makes manuevering interesting and stops wargames just being calculations of overlapping aura benefits. Using terrain has been the centre of warfare forever. It should be pivotal to any wargame.

[@bumgilligan]

I love terrain. I wish it had more importance in 3rd. I want everything including the board to look great and be interesting

[@alextignor1576]

I want both. I want it to look great and be functional. I don’t like 2D terrain because I want the experience to be immersive.

[@WarpstoneHoarder]

I like having terrain that looks cool, but doesn't play a massive role in the game other than providing cover or obscuring line of sight. I feel the Place of Power feature will make certain armies even more painful to deal with, like Lumineth... there's enough to keep track of in the game already to now be worried about terrain pieces like those.

[@collywwob]

I’m looking forward to trying out the new terrain rules. I think it’s a shame to decide to not play one of the new rules before we have even tried it. The places of power rule sounds potentially quite balanced. But I suppose a casting castle with access to a ward aura to mitigate the frequent mortals could get a lot of benefit from it and mitigate the issues. But MAYBE (probably not) they’ve thought of that in their placement of the POP on their terrain maps? I have to say certain styles of AoS terrain feels like it should do SOMETHING kinda magicy in game… and for most armies the risk of d3 mortals on your caster feels like a big risk for the reward… on the Patreon front, I am a Patreon member because I love the stats show so much so I hope that’ll keep banging out in 4th when the new meta lands all wild and free and special.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

Hi babe. Yes I'll always keep up with the stats. I'll defo try it. Tbh I've pivoted too. Just let it happen then when it's dumb throw my hands up and say. I know

[@bryanquick3349]

I love terrain that alters the course of the game by requiring movement on, over, or through it, because it encourages tactical considerations beyond the raw statistical power of the stat lines of units. I love climbing up stairs and buildings and stuff in games like AoS - with the smaller units and more potent single models, the game seems suited for it. As long as the rules for the game allow for and provide for such situations, I'm a big fan of them. it always seemed a shame to me that there was a lot of cool terrain that the armies would either avoid or treat as impassible. edit - I also can't really get into a game where there isn't terrain, or that the terrain is marginal or merely aesthetic - why would we be having a fight over a space full of nothing? do people even live in houses in this realm? do folks not go indoors or something? continuous mysteries.

[@dephonnelzy5536]

As a sylvenith main, GIVE ME GOOD TERRAIN RULES

[@gailonebell2154]

These look great for sykvaneth. Obscuring blocks los without 3” of terrain between and it works for models with 10 or more wounds.

[@Kollider115]

Not for nothing, the charge rules mentioned charging a visible unit, so with these rules I’m under the impression that if a units fully obscured you can’t charge em, even if you could finish a charge to make it legal it also reads to say that tech like invisibility (I.e don’t shoot the messenger on the marrowscroll herald) makes you impervious to combat which is a change

[@zlarez4485]

I think aos really needs interesting and impactful terrain. I would love to have terrains for siege battles or just in general more narrative driven terrain. Currently in aos terrain is just like in the shows and games, just boring places like deserts, mountains or forests. Never place that are actually recognizable or heavy with lore

[@pingwinman1353]

I like a nice 50/50 it does not need to look amazing but it needs to make sense. Terrain gives the game the little push it needs to not feel kinda samey.

[@Tatarync]

Personally, I like terrain to look nice while forcing different movements on the board. It doesn't need any fancy rules, maybe should provide cover, but primarily should exist to block movement of non-fliers.

[@MemoLordFlaymous]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen terrain used outside of faction terrain.

[@theDEUBabides]

right now terrain barely affects a game. Most people forget about or flat out don't use the current rules anyway. I think good terrain rules are important as a battlefields terrain should dictate how armies interact in and around it and help build the experience.

[@WhiteRhino3420]

I prefer terrain to be scenery to make the battlefield more immersive. Line of site blocking and cover are totally fine, but for me, I want it to be about the battle looking and feeling amazing.

[@jtb818]

🎉🎉

[@edumh22]

So flying units cannot move through impassable terrain? And also will a gargant get cover but a chainrasp won’t? This article is the worse for more doubts than answers. Great video as always and great analysis

[@shipkipsamazingchannel3248]

For me, I much prefer good looking terrain that sets a scene over just 2d cutouts, cuz once you start boiling away all the narrative fluff and visuals away from warhammer game you start peeling away all the appeal for me. Though in an ideal world, why not have good looking terrain that also just works well

[@gregorycafiero9688]

Honestly happy as long as the terrain doesnt lead to feelsbad games, or adds more time to the game without doing anything interesting. Small scale like doors and corridors are cool, but for some reason large outdoors terrain never feels good. It almost feels like too many moving parts when you're doing large scale combat, and that isnt as bad in skirmish level stuff.

[@Deathaven]

Where I play, no one ever uses terrain rules for Sigmar. Most people want the thing to look cool/good.

[@itsbaffle1950]

as someone whose only played AoS for a month or so, terrain kinda only feels like it affects where you can place faction terrain. Otherwise its like blocking line of sight but only for short models

[@remylebeau8670]

So it sounds a lot like OnePageRules terrain rules. Model by model.

[@markpandelidis2079]

I think the correct answer is that terrain should be used in all cases. It should be impactful but not detrimental. Mysterious terrain rules were garbage. The standard terrain 3.0 rules were not well thought out and utilized. I think this new system looks promising.

[@shorelessskies]

The most important thing for me when it comes to terrain is immersion. I would rather have terrain that did absolutely nothing, not even provide cover, but look amazing. If I was going to have it both ways, I would like terrain that also mechanically contributed to the immersive experience. For example, I have been using the scales of Talaxis terrain a lot for warcry and even though they are optional, the terrain rules are really cool. There’s a giant, gnarl oak with a disgusting mouth, and he doesn’t just look good. He can actually e at you. My issue, however, ismental load . How do I remember what the terrain does and when to trigger it? I don’t know a way for this to be integrated into the sculpt, so I rely on my poor memory or drop tokens to remind me. If there is someway for terrain to, again, both look immersive and have obvious mechanical roles to go with them that would be pure gold.

[@gustavbay5575]

Personally, I much prefer 3D terrain. I believe there should always be some line-of-sight blocking terrain, as it gives good tactical depth, where you might want to hide some unit/hero from enemy shooting. - but it should be overdone either, it's a balancing act. I don't think that 2D terrain looks good. It makes the game look flat and boring. 3D terrain all the way, but wobly-model syndrome sucks to play with. I often make a tactically worse move, simply to avoid wobly models as it's inconvenient, and having an Ironclan tip over has literally broken it on multiple occations :(

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

I agree with all this

[@jameszawislak436]

Honestly, terrain that works really well and easy to understand

[@ItsEnZe]

I think terrain is such a big deal in games, growing up we started playing with no terrain and it was bad, then we moved to cans and cardboard terrain and it made the game more enjoyable. So to me function comes before form but that being said nice terrain is always a plus

[@nathanwoodhall660]

I play Nighthaunt, Gloomspite Squigs and Draconith Skywing lists... What are terrain rules? 🤣🤷🏻‍♂️

[@danhtran5088]

I hope terrain goes 2D like how 40k does it.

[@Est1987ish]

As far as ive ever played any terrain rules are always forgotten by turn 2...so id much prefer nice looking modular terrain rather than terrain with a bunch of rules...

[@Nekorook]

A) i forget the terrain rules constantly B) 3d terrain is really nice, but i think well thought out 2d terrain would be better.

[@earnestwanderer2471]

Not a huge fan of “places of power” in general. I wouldn’t mind it as part of a narrative scenario. But not so much as something that’s part of every game. For The Old World, I could totally see forests as unstable and impassable for close order units but not for skirmishers like Dwarf Rangers.

[@niallrichardcurran2466]

rob any recs for easy ways to learn Warcry now that its been updated

[@TheCharlemang]

I would prefer 2d terrain that has clear rules interactions. I think terrain is pivotal to wargaming, but its jarring to me when it's just there for looks. I can agree with the place of power thing. It's a disincentive to bring armies that don't like wizards, or who have bad wizards. Just a thought from someone trying to hop on board the Sigma hype train

[@angrypantz87]

I think they should have taken a leaf out of SAGA for terrain.

[@gregbell8617]

I think terrain has to accomplish both. Playing on 2d terrain is no fun for me coming from playing in gw growing up with a gaming facility full of fully painted and sculpted boards. Even switching to battle mats instead of textured game boards was a hard pill to swallow. So I think good terrain goes a long way into immersing you into the game. But if it hinders gameplay too much that is also a huge problem

[@FlipityGibett]

Terrain is great but units that have low bravery should take advantage of terrain better. There’s no way fearless Space Marine is taking cover. But you better believe those Orks are gonna use the shit out of cover.

[@thejdi]

Terrain is important but it should not be complicated. Rock paper scissors vibe, I may not make the game even more complicated.

[@DocPhantoms]

terrain should have an impact on the game. thus far it has been either pointless or with such dissonant rules as to be useless.

[@bored1326]

why i started starwars legion the terrain is amazing ! makes 40k terrain look like shite

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

Star wars legion knows it's.good!!

[@mikefish1124]

I'm hugely interested in terrain - I build it all the time. I absolutely LOATH 2d terrain. As a fan of the game Warmachine, I partially blame the fondness for 2d terrain as contributing to the downfall of it's popularity. You don't attract new players by playing on shitty looking boards. That being said, I don't believe you have to sacrifice for function. You CAN have cool looking terrain that players can interact with in an interesting way

[@joeharrington7170]

Is it just me or does AoS feel like it's getting closer to Warcry with all of the recent updates?

[@nh-wk3vd]

want beautiful dense game affecting terrain. Dont mind warts, inconsistency etc but wont play "competition" games

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

You are missing out

[@TheTazman49684]

Now, these days, you need to know the rules to build the terrain to fit the game. I.E. It must work to keep confusion to a minimum, but has to look cool. No books or coke cans!

[@nkari8971]

Terrain should be good looking but playable.. but I would err on the playability rather than looks.. but no more than 50%.. dont want a terrain pice to be 70% playability 30% looks..

[@seanditchfield5609]

Still scarred from throwing a game after a unit of 6 bullgore garrisoned into combat with me from 20” away. Do what you want with terrain, but get rid of that rule please GW!! 🤮

[@Derogue23]

I want more terrain on the board which are easy to understand and impactful on the game, but unnecessary.

[@Derogue23]

An interesting idea would be giving players each “X” amount of terrain features they can choose, and then the other player can set up those features anywhere on the board (following rules)

[@Derogue23]

Also! Forests - should have cover but not obscuring Elevation - should provide extra range for shooting attacks and extra “to hit” against units lower than them Rivers/difficult terrain - easier to be hit while inside of, reduces movement based on wounds characteristics Fences - can be either smashed through by larger models clearing the path or jumped by smaller models (again based on wounds characteristic.) Walls - should have rules based on height. .5” is harder to be shot for models within 2” less than “X” wounds, larger are obscuring base on line of sight. Can be smashed through by monsters and certain units.

[@Threnodist1]

I dislike terrain maps because it takes away the only benefit that the defender got: the ability to set up the terrain.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

That's had no effect in any top game

[@Threnodist1]

@@thehonestwargamerstreams has it been studied? Are top gamers perfect? Would a top gamer even know how to arrange terrain for their advantage? Has this even been talked about in the community for it to be thought about? I do it in my games and it can give a distinct benefit if you know what you're doing.

[@gregorycafiero9688]

That's the key: if you know. A lot of people don't, and it just doesn't add much when you do. Having to learn about predefined terrain layouts is much more accessible for new players while maintaining a decently high skill ceiling for more ingrained players. Predefined terrain doesn't eliminate anything, you learn to play around terrain regardless.

[@Threnodist1]

@@gregorycafiero9688 I just don't like so much riding on the attacker/defender roll off at the start of the game, especially if both players have the same number of drops. At least if you lose you were able to advantageously set up the board. Terrain maps eliminate that. It's not about playing around terrain, it's about reducing the impact of a single die roll.

[@l337haxz0rn00b]

Give me functional 2d terrain that improves game play. I don't care if the board looks good. I don't care if the models are bases with 2d pictures on them, I don't care if they're painted or not. Playing the game is the game, enjoying the aesthetics is the hobby. Both a cool but the game looses nothing I'm game play when then ven diagrams don't overlap. I'll take functional ugly over pretty and unfunctional every time.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

While a rare take it's a valuable opinion and thanks for sharing

[@peteorfanos]

These rules are lackluster and weak

[@crafty_android]

A