Same here, my friends and i essentially house rule that we just roll off for who deploys first and take the side of the table we're already closer to regardless lmao.
I wish we had more types/categories of terrain. We at least have passable/impassable, and clear/cover/obscuring. But we should also have slowing terrain, dangerous terrain, and even one-way movement terrain (force walls, etc). Lots of games have interesting terrain rules-I mean, older editions of this game had fun terrain rules…
@@RavagerZeroas a player that had to play with these „interesting“ rules: - we had so many more problems where we accidentally created really stupid combinations of rules and counterrules. - getting tabled as an meele army because you couldn’t move without getting blasted wasn’t fun. - losing a vehicle first turn because you were unlucky and got stuck wasn’t fun.
@@InquisitorPinky I, too, experienced a number of those. 3-5th was an interesting time for 40k. @parasiteenergy9249 Nothing at all. But when explaining the game to newcomers I find it's best to stick to the basics at first.
Hills, pipes, and woods are all still good functional terrain pieces. The real reason L shaped ruins are so dominant is that it is much easier to pak them in bags and boxes compared to other terrain types. Vertical boards are super fun, but not transport friendly in the way a rolled up game mat is
The people complaining about how the terrain layouts are skewed towards competitive players have clearly never played a "casual" game against Tau or Knights wherein your entire army gets blasted off the board turn 1 because there's nothing to hide behind. I watched a World Eaters player get tabled 4 times in the space of an hour once, as my entire local meta devolved into "bring the biggest gunline or you don't get to play a proper game." Terrain layouts are MORE important in casual games than competitve, and generally speaking the only people who complain about the official layouts having "too much terrain" are low-skill players who don't want to actually interact with the game, but just want to sit back and shoot.
I set up uninque tables every time and I've figured out the right density for a fun game and not a shooting gallery. It's doable, just not in GW studios.
The problem isn't terrain it's that the game is too lethal and you get blown off the board. They lied about reducing lethality 10th has just as many stacking buff instantly delete threats as any other edition if not more. If the game was less lethal people wouldn't have to hide behind boring L shaped ruins. They could also make other terrain more useful as well since obviously only one actually works worth a damn
Maybe you played with shit players, well... not maybe, for sure. If a Tau player cant understand that playing like that is not fun for the other person, then the problem is him. And I play a lot with a Tau player that have a lot of funny list vs my Tynanids melee list.
Bought my first pack of MdF terrain a few months ago, the Hallowed Ruins ($36). Took forever to put together. I sat up my table at home for the very first time and said "okay. I need two of these!"
I kind of like how they got rid of the templates so that the explosion can be more of a gameplay abstraction and you don’t have to actually be nitpicky about how spaced out your models are. On the flip side, I kind of don’t like it when the cover rules do the opposite, since if it’s too close to simply true line of sight it takes away the abstraction. Which means that it feels more like your units are going into VATS and shooting at a target that literally can’t move, which it is, but it’s supposed to represent an actual battle.
Tbf the removal of templates allows this. Barrage / indirect is SUPPOSED to be the way to counter this but we know competitive players thoughts on indirect 🍼
@Bobby3OOO Seems like boarding actions might be considerably more intuitive when it comes to direct LoS and movement, but you gotta be willing to play without monsters and vehicles (unless you are tau with small suits like stealth and battlesuits). Probably going to start there before getting into 40k propper.
@@Bobby3OOOGW is bending over backwards to avoid telling their players “if there is a rules question just do what makes sense to both of you” because a large and loud chuck of the player base is incapable of doing that.
@@GREENSP0REthats the only way i will play 40K going forwards as the rules do have True LoS. My opponents are not willing to house rule it for an open board big 40K anything else is a no for me. im going back to Kill Team and fun true LoS game.
Bolt Action also has a far more engaging unit activation system. “I go, you go” is super archaic and almost no other game uses it anymore, but GW just refuses to let it die for whatever reason.
Not sure what the fuss is about the 1" charge block behind walls, considering in all other scenarios infantry have to ability to waltz through whatever wall they feel like (in 10th). It does also mean that you can stop them moving and charging out of the opposite side, remember.
No you don’t understand the super WAAC competitive players are such strategic and tactical geniuses they wet their pants if terrain isn’t exactly the same every game.
why are casuals always so pressed when people want to play in a competitive setting :D that phenomenon is present in every game with competitive rules ever
@@izzibizzistrizziBecause at first people think they want competition so that the company supports the game they play more actively. However, as they are casual players they don't know what "support" means in a competitive environment. What they really want is something to complain about.
This alone is enough reason to rework the entire system. The fact that a screamer-killer can get cover if 1 of its talons is behind cover is simply ridiculous too. Just make it so that monsters and or vehicles just cannot get cover instead -_-
That's not in the core rules and won't get a clarification. It's just a common "house rule". I, and many others, have played with and without bottom floor windows. The game feels much cleaner and balanced without windows on bottom floor.
@@timothylaveau Sorry I´m quite a bit new still. What exactly is meant by that? Isn´t it ruled like you can see inside ruins anyway? Or do ruin walls if they have no windows completly obscure line of sight?
@@lolzzx1 a model standing in terrain is subject to natural line of sight, ie if it can be seen through windows, doors, or around walls it can be shot. Same goes for shooting out of ruins. No bottom windows and doors rule means you have to see around the ruin walls (or move to upper floors). As I mentioned before this "house rule" makes for a more balanced game overall by forcing shooting units into the shooting lanes mentioned in video. It also allows combat units to more easily stage in ruins instead of having to stand behind them.
That's not an official rule, it's a tournament houserule meant to make things easier for tournament organizers. Most game stores and convention centers do not have solid L-shaped tabletop terrain walls ready to go for a dozen tables. The cost to acquire that much terrain is significant, even if you're 3D printing. Tournament organizers wind up with a variety of terrain in their collections, some of which will have first-floor windows and some of which won't. "First floor closed" is a way to normalize all possible terrain across the tournament, so that the table with GW Official Mechanicus Ruin Walls and the table with 3d printed ruins have the same balanced gameplay experience. It's primarily a logistical rule, not a gameplay one.
I hate their terrain rules. Kill Team Terrain Rules have you literally unable to shoot something because they're concealed and their base is in cover by a millimeter. Horrible. Necromunda has decent terrain rules, but terrible core rules. The terrain is so important that you literally have to spend more time or money on terrain than on minis due to how critical it is for a game. And it's usually not even "balanced terrain" for different gang types.
It’s great fun being on the receiving end of a fire prism killing 4 tanks in T1 with indirect fire through in turn 1. And they needed a points drop because they were not OP with their S18 flat 12 damage
I play melee armies and most of the people I play have heavy armor, shooty armies. I spent 2 weeks studying terrain rules, printing out terrain layouts, building tournament size trash terrain, and bitching just so I wouldn’t get blown off the board by turn 2. I got accused of “nerfing” their armies because I demanded a balanced map layout with more than 5 pieces of terrain.
When playing friendlies, we usually go with "if you can see it, you can shoot it". This works well for us and saves any gimmicky partial hiding of stuff.
we play with GW terrain layouts and often have problems moving big models landraiders and great unclean one for example, even had a case where the GUO couldn't leave deployment (we gave him the knight-breach-for-shock exemption) a baneblade for example wouldn't move at all in some cases is this intended? is it possible we did something wrong on setup?
@@jimjames59 i just had a deepdive into terrain and found out we did place correct footprints but didn't care about terrain height just dropped big ruins all over it thanks for the hint
I always found it very dumb that a small part of a Modell hidden behind a wall gives a save.I mean i am a kit basher but doesnt this benefit sculpturers that make like extra arms or giant wings on something ? That said i startet Tabletop with Lord of the rings where you play with true line of sight. If the cover is less then half as high then the modell, the model can be shot at normal. If you can see a part of the body you can shoot it, if the modell falls more than 2 times his own heigth it takes damage if you cant save. it needs a ladder or stairs to get to everything, i really like that better i think. i also love making terrain pieces , hills , trenches , houses and so on but with the 40k rules i always think i can not place the terrain i want to make it fair to every player and to not have too mch terrain, i whould love to have a table thats full of terrain. i can do this with lord of the rings, planting 10 tress not only 3 and say : "hey thats a forest...no really you need place for your monsters and stuff"
You might be shocked but if you imagine the battle is an actual battle a Trygon may not stand at its full height and instead slither along the ground gaining the advantage of cover
A lot of this is the result of players being untrustworthy animals. Previous editions tried to have a more sensible gradient, but that does not hold up under scrutiny of players.
Regarding the forest. If your opponent agrees, you could have terrain pieces adjacent but still individual pieces. If you have enough terrain "bases" you could end up being so deep into the forest that Los is broken even if true Los is attainable. It's a bit janky, but should work fine.
you can also shoot a miniature if you see a small part. This is to the advantage of certain factions that are stocky on the base. I hope the base of the miniature will be the true line of sight like other games. It'll be easier to manage.
I don’t remember which edition it was, but I miss when it was common to use a bunch of different types of terrain, ruins, craters, forests, rivers all with their own rules, and certain terrain pieces you would roll a d6 to determine what it was, with the different options providing an extra rule for that specific terrain piece, like a river might be a normal river, or toxic sludge, or filled with carnivorous fish, etc…. And to determine how much terrain was on the board you would split the board into six sections and roll a d3 for each section to determine how much terrain to put there with each player swapping back and forth putting down one piece of terrain at a time.
@@parasiteenergy9249 Unfortunately, the only place close enough to where I live now only has ruins available for terrain and most of the people who go there only want to do matched play.
@@Kromgar1337 by shenanigans I mean specificity stuff that is “rules as written” but doesn’t really make sense from an IRL standpoint. Like it’s just a rules exploit.
@@TheCacapetewhat a boring fantasy. When I imagine 40k battles I think of rocky alien worlds, jungles, airfields, weird alien terrain, necron pyramids, fighting over actual tangible things as objectives like control consoles, generators, beacons, etc. playing a tabletop game is about creating cool battles and 10th battles aren't cool. They are boring L shaped ruins laid out in the same few configurations with cardboard circles placed evenly everywhere while you draw cards from a deck like you're playing a board game. There's nothing inspiring or cool about modern 40k battlefields. It's horrible to look at as a spectator and boring to play on as a player. They could make more interesting terrain rules and make the game less lethal and make objectives more interesting and thematic and these problems could be solved. But instead they dumb down the game, make it play like a board game and make it so lethal that a battle between super soldiers and giant space aliens has both sides cowering behind walls the whole game until they get enough courage to stand on a card board objective circle
IMO terrain has to be even 100%. While playing 8th game of KillTeam in my life (which I've finally won as a first ever xd) me and my friend setup killzone to be 100% mirrored, good ammount of vantage and cover on both sides and have to say - it was an awesome experience especially since I used to play only on maps with uneven terrain and usually ended up having the worse side.
Thnx for this video, I still sometimes get confused with what get's cover and what don't. I am not sure if I like 10th edition cover rules. I think I am missing traits from 9th such as Defendible. And I disagree with 0ap no granting cover to 3+ sv. I miss as well not seeing any other type of terrain features and only seeing ruins. I think GW should invest more time in the terrain when 11th comes
Really wish plunging fire was more relevant in games. It is a great concept and make thinking in 3d important. Instead it is rare to have a board where it is viable.
Agreed. I played 2nd to 4th and the tables were diverse and interesting. Yes they had ruins, but also hills, woods, plants life, rocks etc. any terrain was valid terrain. Now its lets set up a table, open up the ruins box and place as many as humanly possible down on a 5ft x 3ft 8in table. Damn i miss 6x4 tables.
@@David-b3v2d yeah and combine that with you could only shoot what you could see. So if you shot at a unit with 10 models and you could only see 1 model then that was the only model you could kill. I set up my first and only table for 40k a few months ago. With wooded areas. I set my units up behind the woods, thinking they were obscured as they werent in the woods. Imagine my shock when i find out that woods dont block line of sight and all you get is +1 to you save. Also my opponent could see one model from an 11 man units behind a rock. I was facing Tau. So end of turn on all my units behind my woods were gone and the 11 man unit had two models left. That was my last game of 40K and i wont be going back. My tanks will be used as terrain in Kill Team, my infantry will be used in Boarding Actions and the Bikes will collect dust. Its a same as i like my votann models.
Not calling anyone out or anything like that, but in the comments section of this video i’ve seen people claim that the GW terrain layouts are catered towards melee, while others claim the exact opposite. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that maybe those players often loose to an army that is primarily focused on melee or ranged depending on their complaint, and they might be having trouble adapting to combat it.
I hate the terrain rules in 10th. They're ugly and janky. Just look at the tournament terrain. Look at what you're forced to play with to make these rules work. It's hideous.
They're pretty streamlined. Level 1: Craters: If you are in it, you get cover. Level 2: Woods: If you are in or behind it, you get cover. Level 3: Ruins: If you are in it, you get cover. If you are behind it, you are invisible. Level 4: Ruin walls: Just nope.
@@Milkymalk They are streamlined on the surface, but things get much more difficult and ridiculous if you go a little further. You can see 1 model in a squad of 20? You can hit the entire squad. You can't make base to base contact in a ruin that is entirely filled with enemy models? No melee combat for you. They try to fix it in the rules commentary by allowing tournament organizers to come up with their own rules for "magic box" style ruins, but that does NOT inspire confidence. Fuel pipes let you fight 3" away as if in base to base? Too bad, that's a ruin wall - and yes, you can walk straight through it. And more. On and on. The fact that we see tournament tables with nothing but L shaped ruins is a bad sign.
Isn't there a rule about engagement range being extended to 2" if charging a ruin wall and there is someone 1.1" back from it? Feel like it might be a WTC specific rule but that seems logical to me
Never heard of such a rule. Sounds super game:y . I swear this game would be better off just being on a hex-based system. Just get rid of all this measuring shit.
@@Tzar-TZ I think there was a rules update recently that said exactly this. I never played 9th edition and never read its rules so a mix-up on my part is impossible.
A tank commander might pop himself out the top and could be waving his sword around, and if that sword is obscured by cover than the entire models benefits from it. Not a great rules system, but i suppose the alternative is something like declaring exactly what parts need to be covered on each specific models for it to count as covered. It might be easy for some models like intercessors, just have it include the body but exclude any weapons, but when you get to something like a hive tyrant or chaos spawn, where does the body end and the weapon begin.
armor of contempt stacking with cover is infuriating. half my main opponents are running different types of terminators almost all the time so I end up hitting them with ap 3 and they just go, oh 1cp I still save on 3+
@@william9557I love hearing Marine players complain about generic marines being weak, when you can just dip them in another colour of paint and change the names slightly to get access to more models, more rules and a meta-defining win rate. Marines will be weak for as long as divergent chapters get to strip them for parts without consequence.
I cant understand why a player would choose play in a "tournament table" in general, they are lame, boring and completely antithematic, After playing Space Marine 2 I can understand even less why people would voluntarily choose to strip away all the flavor and epicness of a beautiful and visually meaningful setting to basically play a lasertag field where there are only ruins. It's a miniatures game for god's sake, and instead of freaking out over the little soldiers people choose to play chess with "future skins". The "competitive" really killed this game.
"the competitive killed this game" No it didn't. For you mega casuals, you can play how you like. People interested in a fair game prefer tournament terrain, and that's all there is to it. Its set up in ways to make gameplay fun, engaging and tactical, to the inch.
Terrain rules in 10th edition are truely awful. All too geared towards assault based armies. GW layouts are awful as are the ITC/UKTX L-shaped ruins with no windows/doors. Where are the craters, forests and hills. Everything is just ruins now.
40000 terrain tactics. Place loads of ruins on the table done. Yawn! 40K table design is sterile and boring. GW terrain rules are designed for GW to sell terrain models, and a lot of them to block line of sight. Interesting tables dies with 8th and 9th and were completely destroyed with 10th.
@@brycedery9596 i left the hobby after 4th not because the game was bad, but i returned when Kill Team was announced back in 2018. I had an interest in playing 40K and finally got some games when 10th came out. I made so many mistakes playing 10th due to the dumbing down of the rules, add to that the lack of interesting diverse tables with layouts that make sense. To make the game work in 10th out need to lay out ruins in a way that looks like a mad man designed the street layout. I dont like the rules in general, but unfortunately i have three small 1500 point army of votann, necrons and space marines and 90-95% of the models are 8th edition or newer models, so cant even go back to 4th edition. But at least Boarding Actions fixes a lot of the rules im not happy with. But im going back to kill team, a rule set that makes sense and is very narrative.
@@peppermintshore Is there anything that prevents you from using newer models? I've considered trying to talk my (pretty casual) group into trying out older rulesets and from a quick read of the 2nd/3rd edition rules there doesn't seem to be any issue that can't be worked around, or is there something in 4th specifically that wouldn't fit? For reference, we play Imperial Guard, Space Marines, Orks and Necrons with mostly new models (the oldest are my old Ork Boyz, second oldest are FW Krieg squads).
lol I always just pick which side of the board is closest to my model box and where I’m standing
Same. I'm lazy. I'm having what side I'm closest too.
Same here, my friends and i essentially house rule that we just roll off for who deploys first and take the side of the table we're already closer to regardless lmao.
Reavers getting infinite vertical movement is great and every battlefield should have multiple skyscrapers
reading this, I was picturing a Reaver Titan jumping up onto a skyscraper to frog splash the entire board
Terrain rules here really do suck tbh. I miss insteresting twrrain set ups with forest, hills, uneaven terrain.
I wish we had more types/categories of terrain.
We at least have passable/impassable, and clear/cover/obscuring.
But we should also have slowing terrain, dangerous terrain, and even one-way movement terrain (force walls, etc).
Lots of games have interesting terrain rules-I mean, older editions of this game had fun terrain rules…
@@RavagerZeroas a player that had to play with these „interesting“ rules:
- we had so many more problems where we accidentally created really stupid combinations of rules and counterrules.
- getting tabled as an meele army because you couldn’t move without getting blasted wasn’t fun.
- losing a vehicle first turn because you were unlucky and got stuck wasn’t fun.
There is literally nothing stopping you from playing like that.
@@InquisitorPinky I, too, experienced a number of those. 3-5th was an interesting time for 40k.
@parasiteenergy9249 Nothing at all. But when explaining the game to newcomers I find it's best to stick to the basics at first.
Hills, pipes, and woods are all still good functional terrain pieces. The real reason L shaped ruins are so dominant is that it is much easier to pak them in bags and boxes compared to other terrain types.
Vertical boards are super fun, but not transport friendly in the way a rolled up game mat is
This comment section is actually a massive W. I thought it was just me that thought the terrain rules were stupid
The people complaining about how the terrain layouts are skewed towards competitive players have clearly never played a "casual" game against Tau or Knights wherein your entire army gets blasted off the board turn 1 because there's nothing to hide behind. I watched a World Eaters player get tabled 4 times in the space of an hour once, as my entire local meta devolved into "bring the biggest gunline or you don't get to play a proper game." Terrain layouts are MORE important in casual games than competitve, and generally speaking the only people who complain about the official layouts having "too much terrain" are low-skill players who don't want to actually interact with the game, but just want to sit back and shoot.
I set up uninque tables every time and I've figured out the right density for a fun game and not a shooting gallery. It's doable, just not in GW studios.
I think the issue is that people want more terrain variety so hills, forests etc and not just ruins upon ruins every game
The problem isn't terrain it's that the game is too lethal and you get blown off the board. They lied about reducing lethality 10th has just as many stacking buff instantly delete threats as any other edition if not more. If the game was less lethal people wouldn't have to hide behind boring L shaped ruins. They could also make other terrain more useful as well since obviously only one actually works worth a damn
10th definitly is a lot less lethal then other editions, idk what your talking about.
Maybe you played with shit players, well... not maybe, for sure. If a Tau player cant understand that playing like that is not fun for the other person, then the problem is him. And I play a lot with a Tau player that have a lot of funny list vs my Tynanids melee list.
Bought my first pack of MdF terrain a few months ago, the Hallowed Ruins ($36). Took forever to put together. I sat up my table at home for the very first time and said "okay. I need two of these!"
I kind of like how they got rid of the templates so that the explosion can be more of a gameplay abstraction and you don’t have to actually be nitpicky about how spaced out your models are. On the flip side, I kind of don’t like it when the cover rules do the opposite, since if it’s too close to simply true line of sight it takes away the abstraction. Which means that it feels more like your units are going into VATS and shooting at a target that literally can’t move, which it is, but it’s supposed to represent an actual battle.
Tbf the removal of templates allows this. Barrage / indirect is SUPPOSED to be the way to counter this but we know competitive players thoughts on indirect 🍼
Man, just read a big portion of the Bolt Action rules, and movement in that games feels much more intuitive than this even if it is more restrictive.
This game seems kinda dumb and cluttered with old ideas - but I’m new so I don’t really know
@Bobby3OOO Seems like boarding actions might be considerably more intuitive when it comes to direct LoS and movement, but you gotta be willing to play without monsters and vehicles (unless you are tau with small suits like stealth and battlesuits). Probably going to start there before getting into 40k propper.
@@Bobby3OOOGW is bending over backwards to avoid telling their players “if there is a rules question just do what makes sense to both of you” because a large and loud chuck of the player base is incapable of doing that.
@@GREENSP0REthats the only way i will play 40K going forwards as the rules do have True LoS. My opponents are not willing to house rule it for an open board big 40K anything else is a no for me. im going back to Kill Team and fun true LoS game.
Bolt Action also has a far more engaging unit activation system. “I go, you go” is super archaic and almost no other game uses it anymore, but GW just refuses to let it die for whatever reason.
Appreciate covering the terrain rules! They can get confusing for us casuals
Not sure what the fuss is about the 1" charge block behind walls, considering in all other scenarios infantry have to ability to waltz through whatever wall they feel like (in 10th).
It does also mean that you can stop them moving and charging out of the opposite side, remember.
If a game has good rules, not every map has to be Stalingrad.
No you don’t understand the super WAAC competitive players are such strategic and tactical geniuses they wet their pants if terrain isn’t exactly the same every game.
@@Dram1984 LOL I not only feel the same way, I've experienced it and it was hilarious.
@@Dram1984 there are multiple layouts
why are casuals always so pressed when people want to play in a competitive setting :D that phenomenon is present in every game with competitive rules ever
@@izzibizzistrizziBecause at first people think they want competition so that the company supports the game they play more actively.
However, as they are casual players they don't know what "support" means in a competitive environment.
What they really want is something to complain about.
Such a video I would have needed 4 months ago!
That the infantry can go through walls where they cannot shoot, is a ghost mechanic
This alone is enough reason to rework the entire system.
The fact that a screamer-killer can get cover if 1 of its talons is behind cover is simply ridiculous too. Just make it so that monsters and or vehicles just cannot get cover instead -_-
Whats does "Ghost mechanic" means? That they can or that they can't?
@@grumpycup4762 womp womp i cannot shootie shootie your bug as easily, bad game!!!!
@@termochila4985 In the distant future there are only walls xD
I was really hoping on clarification on this obscure rule about there never being windows on the bottom floor of ruins
That's not in the core rules and won't get a clarification. It's just a common "house rule". I, and many others, have played with and without bottom floor windows. The game feels much cleaner and balanced without windows on bottom floor.
@@timothylaveau Sorry I´m quite a bit new still. What exactly is meant by that? Isn´t it ruled like you can see inside ruins anyway? Or do ruin walls if they have no windows completly obscure line of sight?
@@lolzzx1 a model standing in terrain is subject to natural line of sight, ie if it can be seen through windows, doors, or around walls it can be shot. Same goes for shooting out of ruins.
No bottom windows and doors rule means you have to see around the ruin walls (or move to upper floors).
As I mentioned before this "house rule" makes for a more balanced game overall by forcing shooting units into the shooting lanes mentioned in video. It also allows combat units to more easily stage in ruins instead of having to stand behind them.
That's not an official rule, it's a tournament houserule meant to make things easier for tournament organizers.
Most game stores and convention centers do not have solid L-shaped tabletop terrain walls ready to go for a dozen tables. The cost to acquire that much terrain is significant, even if you're 3D printing. Tournament organizers wind up with a variety of terrain in their collections, some of which will have first-floor windows and some of which won't.
"First floor closed" is a way to normalize all possible terrain across the tournament, so that the table with GW Official Mechanicus Ruin Walls and the table with 3d printed ruins have the same balanced gameplay experience.
It's primarily a logistical rule, not a gameplay one.
i really like necromunda and killteam because they have so much better terrain rules
I hate their terrain rules. Kill Team Terrain Rules have you literally unable to shoot something because they're concealed and their base is in cover by a millimeter. Horrible.
Necromunda has decent terrain rules, but terrible core rules. The terrain is so important that you literally have to spend more time or money on terrain than on minis due to how critical it is for a game. And it's usually not even "balanced terrain" for different gang types.
It’s great fun being on the receiving end of a fire prism killing 4 tanks in T1 with indirect fire through in turn 1. And they needed a points drop because they were not OP with their S18 flat 12 damage
Every Warhammer player needs to be tied to a chair and forced to watch this video.
I play melee armies and most of the people I play have heavy armor, shooty armies. I spent 2 weeks studying terrain rules, printing out terrain layouts, building tournament size trash terrain, and bitching just so I wouldn’t get blown off the board by turn 2. I got accused of “nerfing” their armies because I demanded a balanced map layout with more than 5 pieces of terrain.
When playing friendlies, we usually go with "if you can see it, you can shoot it". This works well for us and saves any gimmicky partial hiding of stuff.
We do the same, works wonders.
we play with GW terrain layouts and often have problems moving big models
landraiders and great unclean one for example, even had a case where the GUO couldn't leave deployment (we gave him the knight-breach-for-shock exemption)
a baneblade for example wouldn't move at all in some cases
is this intended? is it possible we did something wrong on setup?
Did you allow them to move over 2" tall terrain without using extra movement, as long as they don't end the move on top of it?
@@jimjames59 i just had a deepdive into terrain and found out we did place correct footprints but didn't care about terrain height
just dropped big ruins all over it
thanks for the hint
@@jimjames59 I thought you could end your move on top of tiny pieces of terrain like pipes etc?
I always found it very dumb that a small part of a Modell hidden behind a wall gives a save.I mean i am a kit basher but doesnt this benefit sculpturers that make like extra arms or giant wings on something ?
That said i startet Tabletop with Lord of the rings where you play with true line of sight. If the cover is less then half as high then the modell, the model can be shot at normal. If you can see a part of the body you can shoot it, if the modell falls more than 2 times his own heigth it takes damage if you cant save. it needs a ladder or stairs to get to everything, i really like that better i think.
i also love making terrain pieces , hills , trenches , houses and so on but with the 40k rules i always think i can not place the terrain i want to make it fair to every player and to not have too mch terrain, i whould love to have a table thats full of terrain. i can do this with lord of the rings, planting 10 tress not only 3 and say : "hey thats a forest...no really you need place for your monsters and stuff"
You might be shocked but if you imagine the battle is an actual battle a Trygon may not stand at its full height and instead slither along the ground gaining the advantage of cover
A lot of this is the result of players being untrustworthy animals. Previous editions tried to have a more sensible gradient, but that does not hold up under scrutiny of players.
@@WilhelmScreamerbingo. It’s a certain breed of player that has forced the game in a really unfun direction.
Regarding the forest. If your opponent agrees, you could have terrain pieces adjacent but still individual pieces. If you have enough terrain "bases" you could end up being so deep into the forest that Los is broken even if true Los is attainable. It's a bit janky, but should work fine.
you can also shoot a miniature if you see a small part. This is to the advantage of certain factions that are stocky on the base.
I hope the base of the miniature will be the true line of sight like other games. It'll be easier to manage.
I don’t remember which edition it was, but I miss when it was common to use a bunch of different types of terrain, ruins, craters, forests, rivers all with their own rules, and certain terrain pieces you would roll a d6 to determine what it was, with the different options providing an extra rule for that specific terrain piece, like a river might be a normal river, or toxic sludge, or filled with carnivorous fish, etc….
And to determine how much terrain was on the board you would split the board into six sections and roll a d3 for each section to determine how much terrain to put there with each player swapping back and forth putting down one piece of terrain at a time.
There is literally nothing stopping you from playing like that. In fact I'm stealing that for my crusade.
@@parasiteenergy9249 Unfortunately, the only place close enough to where I live now only has ruins available for terrain and most of the people who go there only want to do matched play.
Could have used this video like a month ago. Oh well, good to hove clarification on some of this now.
Not a fan of the way rules are written to encourage cover shenanigans.
Yeah, there shouldn't be anything to separate higher skill players from low skill players, like using the board to your advantage to set traps......
IRL Cover Shenanigans is pretty fucking important to not die.
@@Kromgar1337 by shenanigans I mean specificity stuff that is “rules as written” but doesn’t really make sense from an IRL standpoint. Like it’s just a rules exploit.
@@Dram1984 IRL!? Mate its a fucking fantasy universe with wizards, daemons and world killing weapons, get a grip
@@TheCacapetewhat a boring fantasy. When I imagine 40k battles I think of rocky alien worlds, jungles, airfields, weird alien terrain, necron pyramids, fighting over actual tangible things as objectives like control consoles, generators, beacons, etc. playing a tabletop game is about creating cool battles and 10th battles aren't cool. They are boring L shaped ruins laid out in the same few configurations with cardboard circles placed evenly everywhere while you draw cards from a deck like you're playing a board game. There's nothing inspiring or cool about modern 40k battlefields. It's horrible to look at as a spectator and boring to play on as a player. They could make more interesting terrain rules and make the game less lethal and make objectives more interesting and thematic and these problems could be solved. But instead they dumb down the game, make it play like a board game and make it so lethal that a battle between super soldiers and giant space aliens has both sides cowering behind walls the whole game until they get enough courage to stand on a card board objective circle
IMO terrain has to be even 100%. While playing 8th game of KillTeam in my life (which I've finally won as a first ever xd) me and my friend setup killzone to be 100% mirrored, good ammount of vantage and cover on both sides and have to say - it was an awesome experience especially since I used to play only on maps with uneven terrain and usually ended up having the worse side.
Thnx for this video, I still sometimes get confused with what get's cover and what don't. I am not sure if I like 10th edition cover rules. I think I am missing traits from 9th such as Defendible. And I disagree with 0ap no granting cover to 3+ sv. I miss as well not seeing any other type of terrain features and only seeing ruins. I think GW should invest more time in the terrain when 11th comes
Alternate activation of units would solve SO many problems.
Helpful as always
Really wish plunging fire was more relevant in games. It is a great concept and make thinking in 3d important. Instead it is rare to have a board where it is viable.
Go back to pre 8th rules .simpler more interactive amd we don't have to set up every battlefield like it's a council estate
Agreed. I played 2nd to 4th and the tables were diverse and interesting. Yes they had ruins, but also hills, woods, plants life, rocks etc. any terrain was valid terrain. Now its lets set up a table, open up the ruins box and place as many as humanly possible down on a 5ft x 3ft 8in table. Damn i miss 6x4 tables.
@@peppermintshore I think the old terrain helped balance as well as the cover save ignored the ap so helped units not get blown away in a turn
@@David-b3v2d yeah and combine that with you could only shoot what you could see. So if you shot at a unit with 10 models and you could only see 1 model then that was the only model you could kill. I set up my first and only table for 40k a few months ago. With wooded areas. I set my units up behind the woods, thinking they were obscured as they werent in the woods. Imagine my shock when i find out that woods dont block line of sight and all you get is +1 to you save. Also my opponent could see one model from an 11 man units behind a rock. I was facing Tau. So end of turn on all my units behind my woods were gone and the 11 man unit had two models left. That was my last game of 40K and i wont be going back. My tanks will be used as terrain in Kill Team, my infantry will be used in Boarding Actions and the Bikes will collect dust. Its a same as i like my votann models.
Not calling anyone out or anything like that, but in the comments section of this video i’ve seen people claim that the GW terrain layouts are catered towards melee, while others claim the exact opposite.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that maybe those players often loose to an army that is primarily focused on melee or ranged depending on their complaint, and they might be having trouble adapting to combat it.
I feel like ive always been awful about setting up terrain
at 25:00 isn't it the rule that reactive moves after combat have to end to the nearest objective? So you can't use it if already on an objective?
Big Guns never tire doesn't work in enemy charge phase, what?? Bruh, I did that wrong alot.
It can be quite confusing. Check out "Out of phase rules".
Great content
I hate the terrain rules in 10th.
They're ugly and janky. Just look at the tournament terrain. Look at what you're forced to play with to make these rules work. It's hideous.
You do play more tactic. You Can ?
They're pretty streamlined.
Level 1: Craters: If you are in it, you get cover.
Level 2: Woods: If you are in or behind it, you get cover.
Level 3: Ruins: If you are in it, you get cover. If you are behind it, you are invisible.
Level 4: Ruin walls: Just nope.
@@Milkymalk They are streamlined on the surface, but things get much more difficult and ridiculous if you go a little further.
You can see 1 model in a squad of 20? You can hit the entire squad.
You can't make base to base contact in a ruin that is entirely filled with enemy models? No melee combat for you. They try to fix it in the rules commentary by allowing tournament organizers to come up with their own rules for "magic box" style ruins, but that does NOT inspire confidence.
Fuel pipes let you fight 3" away as if in base to base? Too bad, that's a ruin wall - and yes, you can walk straight through it.
And more. On and on.
The fact that we see tournament tables with nothing but L shaped ruins is a bad sign.
Yeah no😂 my play group just does "if it makes sense, you can shoot it" and cover is similar
Isn't there a rule about engagement range being extended to 2" if charging a ruin wall and there is someone 1.1" back from it?
Feel like it might be a WTC specific rule but that seems logical to me
Never heard of such a rule. Sounds super game:y . I swear this game would be better off just being on a hex-based system. Just get rid of all this measuring shit.
that was last edition
@@Tzar-TZ I think there was a rules update recently that said exactly this. I never played 9th edition and never read its rules so a mix-up on my part is impossible.
There is for fighting through barricades and pipes, but the core rules don’t say it applies to rooms ruins sadly
Bascic?
Dont play GW layouts people, they are very range oriented. WTC medium is closest to balanced.
Do vehicles need to be 50% concealed or any percent concealed the game cover?
No. Literally just an antenna out of sight means you get cover.
A tank commander might pop himself out the top and could be waving his sword around, and if that sword is obscured by cover than the entire models benefits from it.
Not a great rules system, but i suppose the alternative is something like declaring exactly what parts need to be covered on each specific models for it to count as covered. It might be easy for some models like intercessors, just have it include the body but exclude any weapons, but when you get to something like a hive tyrant or chaos spawn, where does the body end and the weapon begin.
armor of contempt stacking with cover is infuriating. half my main opponents are running different types of terminators almost all the time so I end up hitting them with ap 3 and they just go, oh 1cp I still save on 3+
Nawwww
Is the worst faction in the game giving you grief??
Wait till you see the other factions, buttercup!
@@william9557 didn't think dark angels, blood angels, grey knights and space wolves are the worst faction but do go off mate
@@william9557I love hearing Marine players complain about generic marines being weak, when you can just dip them in another colour of paint and change the names slightly to get access to more models, more rules and a meta-defining win rate.
Marines will be weak for as long as divergent chapters get to strip them for parts without consequence.
I cant understand why a player would choose play in a "tournament table" in general, they are lame, boring and completely antithematic, After playing Space Marine 2 I can understand even less why people would voluntarily choose to strip away all the flavor and epicness of a beautiful and visually meaningful setting to basically play a lasertag field where there are only ruins. It's a miniatures game for god's sake, and instead of freaking out over the little soldiers people choose to play chess with "future skins". The "competitive" really killed this game.
Agreed 100%
"the competitive killed this game"
No it didn't. For you mega casuals, you can play how you like. People interested in a fair game prefer tournament terrain, and that's all there is to it. Its set up in ways to make gameplay fun, engaging and tactical, to the inch.
Remember, it's not the terrain. It's the player not adapting to the expected terrain in the list building phase of the game.
Skill issue.
Terrain rules in 10th edition are truely awful. All too geared towards assault based armies. GW layouts are awful as are the ITC/UKTX L-shaped ruins with no windows/doors. Where are the craters, forests and hills. Everything is just ruins now.
Add a comment...
Heh. Symmetrical terrain is silly. Also boring.
losing a match because the terrain put you at an innate disadvantage is even more boring.
ruclips.net/video/Ym_7urROJk0/видео.htmlsi=NfnO88x6HDWkHrkF&t=978 if both units are wholly within the ruin footprint, the defending unit has cover?
This edition has been massive clusterf**k from the beginning. Hate it just caters to competitive play.
Yep it's been a dismal experience. Here's hoping they feel a concord bust.
Take me back to 7th edition at this point, I could deal with formations
@@CausticSpace didn’t play 7th I play 8th edition and didn’t have any problems with it.
This is the most casual and beginner-friendly edition ever. Very easy to pick up compared to 9th or 7th or 4th. What are you talking about?
@@welderbear6757 You should try it, or at least 30k, which uses an improved version of 7th edition rules.
40000 terrain tactics. Place loads of ruins on the table done. Yawn! 40K table design is sterile and boring. GW terrain rules are designed for GW to sell terrain models, and a lot of them to block line of sight. Interesting tables dies with 8th and 9th and were completely destroyed with 10th.
RIP narrative/casual 40K. The sweaties spent more and won GWs favour.
@@brycedery9596 i left the hobby after 4th not because the game was bad, but i returned when Kill Team was announced back in 2018. I had an interest in playing 40K and finally got some games when 10th came out. I made so many mistakes playing 10th due to the dumbing down of the rules, add to that the lack of interesting diverse tables with layouts that make sense. To make the game work in 10th out need to lay out ruins in a way that looks like a mad man designed the street layout. I dont like the rules in general, but unfortunately i have three small 1500 point army of votann, necrons and space marines and 90-95% of the models are 8th edition or newer models, so cant even go back to 4th edition. But at least Boarding Actions fixes a lot of the rules im not happy with. But im going back to kill team, a rule set that makes sense and is very narrative.
@@peppermintshore Is there anything that prevents you from using newer models? I've considered trying to talk my (pretty casual) group into trying out older rulesets and from a quick read of the 2nd/3rd edition rules there doesn't seem to be any issue that can't be worked around, or is there something in 4th specifically that wouldn't fit? For reference, we play Imperial Guard, Space Marines, Orks and Necrons with mostly new models (the oldest are my old Ork Boyz, second oldest are FW Krieg squads).
bascic
First comment 🎉
1
30k just keeps on winning 🫡