New Terrain types

[GeneralJigger]

In my local group we have come up with house rules for two new terrain types that I find very enjoyable. I thought others might want to give them a try.

1. Soft ground -- This would include ploughed fields or soft beach sand etc. Medium and Large based models treat Soft Ground as difficult ground. Soft Ground has no effect on small based models.

2. Tall Grass or Crops -- This would include fields of wheat or corn, Savannah grass etc. Small based models treat Tall Grass or Crops as forest (ie. 3" blocks LOS, concealment and difficult ground). Medium and Large based models are not affected by this terrain. Note that a medium or large based model will not have LOS to a small based model through more than 3" of Tall Grass or Crops.

We've used these terrain types for well over a year I'd say and I find that they add a bit of flavour because they affect different model types differently.

What do you guys think?

Does anybody else have interesting terrain ideas?

[jettzypher]

sounds interesting. my area is pretty resistant to using odd terrain types, but i might see about mentioning these types and garner opinions about it.

[Karl Eller]

I do get a little tired of the usual forest/hill/wall/building combo.

[RayofPaintStudios]

Those are actually really cool ideas! Have you made an actual terrain piece for the tall grass? I've been slowly making some terrain for a small village that's been hit by battle, and something like a wheat field would be awesome, and would give some really cool flavor for how real-world troops will sneak through tall grass to catch the enemy unawares.

[Stuh42l]

I use tall grass/wheat in some of my games as well! My rules for it are providing concealment for small base only and maybe or maybe not rough for small bases.

Also, oil slicks! Treat as rough terrain for small and med bases. I usually havethese coming from barrels/ broken steam engines on the table as cover so you pay the penelty of mobility for the cover. I have a lot of barrel and oil terrain pieces.

[Stuh42l]

I use tall grass/wheat in some of my games as well! My rules for it are providing concealment for small base only and maybe or maybe not rough for small bases.

Also, oil slicks! Treat as rough terrain for small and med bases. I usually havethese coming from barrels/ broken steam engines on the table as cover so you pay the penelty of mobility for the cover. I have a lot of barrel and oil terrain pieces.

The best thing for wheat terrain is a doormat with the straw bristle type matting. Cut to field shapes and models can moe

[2LiveIs2Die]

We use tall grass as no movement penalty and concealment.

[watchgeorgerock]

I suggest adding if Warlock/Warcaster who has beasts/jacks alive in their battlegroup should not be affected by tall grass. Can't they see what their beasts/jacks see? But I think these are great ideas

[2LiveIs2Die]

Way too complicated for a simple terrain piece.
Simple is good.

[GeneralJigger]

It looks like several people had similar ideas with respect to Tall Grass, interesting...

Those are actually really cool ideas! Have you made an actual terrain piece for the tall grass? I've been slowly making some terrain for a small village that's been hit by battle, and something like a wheat field would be awesome, and would give some really cool flavor for how real-world troops will sneak through tall grass to catch the enemy unawares.

I do have terrain pieces made for both, I use an piece of outdoor mat for the tall grass and a piece of felt with brown painted caulking sculpted to make ploughed fields. They are both super easy. I'll post some pics when I get a chance later.

I have also seen somewhere online a guy using teddy bear fur for tall grass.

[rhino1085]

...and a piece of felt with brown painted caulking sculpted to make ploughed fields...

That is a brilliant idea, I'm going to have to steal it!

[Seventhprophet]

I like the tall grass idea. it sounds hard to visually represent this in an apealing way though. Can you post pics of what you use?

[GreenJello]

There are also some interesting terrain types listed on the Battle College. Some of them are pretty wacked, but there are also a lot that could easily become standard parts of the game.

It would be interesting to see PP add some more terrain into the game.

[jettzypher]

I like the tall grass idea. it sounds hard to visually represent this in an apealing way though. Can you post pics of what you use?

id say just buy a different color of felt to cut out and slap down. at least thats what we use here for natural terrain like that. green felt=woods, blue felt=water, cut pieces of plywood = hills, then random buildings and walls.

[quindraco]

I'm not a fan of base size dependent terrain - the core game has it since forests treat huge bases differently, and it really doesn't feel like it makes consistent sense. To use your own example, you're saying a horse - like, say, the plowhorse who helped plow the field - would sink into the plowed field. How does that make sense? I'm quite sure a horse could navigate it comfortably.

My local group sometimes uses "sand" as a terrain, which is simply rough terrain (bizarrely, the core book simply has no terrain in it which is rough without any other effects), and very rarely tall grass, which is like a forest for most purposes but isn't rough terrain.

[under]

In my local group we have come up with house rules for two new terrain types that I find very enjoyable. I thought others might want to give them a try.

1. Soft ground -- This would include ploughed fields or soft beach sand etc. Medium and Large based models treat Soft Ground as difficult ground. Soft Ground has no effect on small based models.

2. Tall Grass or Crops -- This would include fields of wheat or corn, Savannah grass etc. Small based models treat Tall Grass or Crops as forest (ie. 3" blocks LOS, concealment and difficult ground). Medium and Large based models are not affected by this terrain. Note that a medium or large based model will not have LOS to a small based model through more than 3" of Tall Grass or Crops.

We've used these terrain types for well over a year I'd say and I find that they add a bit of flavour because they affect different model types differently.

What do you guys think?

Does anybody else have interesting terrain ideas?

Sounds like armies centred around medium/large bases, i.e. Trollbloods are going to differentially hampered by these terrian. Not to mention how siad terrain interacts with Elemental Communion need to be sorted out explicilty.

Personally, as a part time Trollblood player, I can't see myself nor many Trollblood players getting more enthussed by this then Warmachine Faction players are by Deep Water, particularly when facing off against a Hordes Faction or as is the case here small based infantry lists.

[DarkLegacy]

Why would Privateer Press have to add the terrain features to the game? They all follow some part of the basic rules. They've allowed everyone to utilize the basic rules to make composite terrain (a swamp is shallow water and a forest, for example). The sky is the limit, everyone just needs to play them as such.

[bouncymischa]

Why would Privateer Press have to add the terrain features to the game?

Why wouldn't they? Most of the past Call to Arms leagues included unique terrain features for the battlefield, including wheat fields, sagebrush, crevasses, geysers, blast craters, barbed wire, dockyard cranes, muddy bogs, and more.

My previous gaming group used to use some of these terrain templates frequently -- the wheat fields from the Occupied Llael league (which were rough terrain that provided concealment to small bases, if I remember correctly) always helped define a battlefield as occuring near a farm. I could never resist placing barbed wire on battlefields when I was playing with my Trenchers, just because it was so thematic.

[DarkLegacy]

Why wouldn't they? Most of the past Call to Arms leagues included unique terrain features for the battlefield, including wheat fields, sagebrush, crevasses, geysers, blast craters, barbed wire, dockyard cranes, muddy bogs, and more.

My previous gaming group used to use some of these terrain templates frequently -- the wheat fields from the Occupied Llael league (which were rough terrain that provided concealment to small bases, if I remember correctly) always helped define a battlefield as occuring near a farm. I could never resist placing barbed wire on battlefields when I was playing with my Trenchers, just because it was so thematic.

But that's partly my point. They've got the core rules which laid out a lot of the framework for these. The only terrain types that aren't covered are terrain that damages models (barbed wire comes to mind, the Bloodstone Manticora as well).

[jettzypher]

To use your own example, you're saying a horse - like, say, the plowhorse who helped plow the field - would sink into the plowed field. How does that make sense?

not sure if youve ever watched something like this actually happen, but those horses move pretty damn slow.

[DarkLegacy]

not sure if youve ever watched something like this actually happen, but those horses move pretty damn slow.

You might be giving humans too much credit too. Sand is a pain in the *** to run across when it is soft and loose.

[quindraco]

not sure if youve ever watched something like this actually happen, but those horses move pretty damn slow.

Those horses are pulling a plow, which slows them down considerably. A horse can gallop across a plowed field just fine.

[Stuh42l]

This is the mat most people use for 'wheat' fields. You can cut it to fit, and the top is sturdy enough to place all models on it without tipping or any type of terrain drama.

[GreenJello]

But that's partly my point. They've got the core rules which laid out a lot of the framework for these. The only terrain types that aren't covered are terrain that damages models (barbed wire comes to mind, the Bloodstone Manticora as well).

Because it avoids some of the "hill, forest, linear obstical" boredom. Explicitly adding in and play testing additional terrain types avoids problems with "this screws over army X".

There are a lot of fun, simple terrain rules in the archive I mentioned that most people don't know about. Most of them combine a bit with the standards, just like the OPs did, but most people won't take it that far without "official blessing". Adding them to the next rule book would increase their visibility, and add something to the game that's clearly not in it now, because most people I've dealt with don't do anything other than the big 3.

[jettzypher]

either way, it doesnt matter. not everything in this game represents similarities to real life. having terrain that only effects certain sized bases is a great idea.

[Deo85]

I like this idea as well. The field with tall grass / wheat is a awesome idea to say the least. I like how it only affects certain size models giving it a representative of the model size compared to other pieces on the board.

[DoktorVivi]

I frequently use tall grass as a concealment area. Not base-size dependent, just straight concealment, nothing special. I've also done ice, rocky terrain, minefields, barbed wire, etc.

[GeneralJigger]

Oh yeah I forgot to mention a very interesting one we've used in the past. I had some walls that were 2" high but they had a fire step on one side. We used them as linear obstacles when crossing them from the fire step side and obstructions when trying to cross them from the other side. It was kind of fun but you had to be very careful about where you put it since it really gave an advantage to one side.

Several people have mentioned barbed wire, what are the rules you use for that? I would think impassable by infantry until destroyed by a warbeast/jack. Kind of like a WWI tank smashing through the line.

What about Ice? Anything besides just difficult ground?

[Loki_333]

NQ 35 has a battle report that they used a "Burnt Forest" which was difficult and provided concealment like a regular forest, but it did not block LOS. Given this, I think that PP encourages the use of house rules for terrain if all parties are interested.

[bouncymischa]

Several people have mentioned barbed wire, what are the rules you use for that? I would think impassable by infantry until destroyed by a warbeast/jack. Kind of like a WWI tank smashing through the line.

What about Ice? Anything besides just difficult ground?

Barbed Wire: Warrior models move at half speed while within the barbed wire template. Warrior models that charge or run within the template suffer 1 point of damage.

I think one of the No Quarter magazines had a battle taking place around frozen ponds... the frozen ponds caused slams to add extra distance. You could have them add +2" to slams, and perhaps an extra 1" to pushes.

NQ 35 has a battle report that they used a "Burnt Forest" which was difficult and provided concealment like a regular forest, but it did not block LOS. Given this, I think that PP encourages the use of house rules for terrain if all parties are interested.

Many of the Battle Reports include some kind of unique terrain, from snow piles and frozen ponds to burnt forests and the like. In fact, I went and dug up the page Gr33nJ3llo mentioned:

A complete list of all Privateer-published alternative terrain

As near as I can tell, that includes all the terrain rules Privateer has published for the Call to Arms leagues and its No Quarter battle reports. It includes things as varied as mechanical elements (cranes and drawbridges), various forms of walls (sandbag walls, fieldstone walls, hedgerows), and rough terrain templates like wheat fields, tilled soil, leaf piles, and snow packs.

It's certainly a good starting point for adding some variety to your tabletop, and for inspiration for creating new terrain types. :3

[Episkopos]

I think in the official tall grass you could forfeit the movement of a small based model to gain stealth.

I don't know about a ploughed field, but there was a scenario with beaches that left behind a shallow water pit if you landed an AoE template on it.

I just want to be allowed to melt tank barricades and burn down forests.

[pariahboy]

I disagree with the effect of soft ground. Materials such as sand, snow, etc typically respond to a pressure (Force/Area), not a size. A snowcat will travel atop snow that people will fall deeply into. And sand DOES have an effect on human movement, it is slower. But consider horses (large based models). Typically horses run best on softer surfaces. It cushions their stride and allows their hooves to dig in and push along their direction of travel better letting them run/accelerate faster. Horses have a much harder time on hard ground.

I just don't see the justification for soft ground treating small based models better than large based models.

I do however like the tall grass stuff. Although I would go with it giving concealment to small based models without having a movement restriction, I also agree that LOS should only be 3" like with forests. However LOS restrictions should only be small base to small base. A large base looking down into the field of tall grass is still likely to be able to identify where motion is happening and move towards it. (thus concealment with LOS)

[Carnage]

I disagree with the effect of soft ground. Materials such as sand, snow, etc typically respond to a pressure (Force/Area), not a size. A snowcat will travel atop snow that people will fall deeply into. And sand DOES have an effect on human movement, it is slower. But consider horses (large based models). Typically horses run best on softer surfaces. It cushions their stride and allows their hooves to dig in and push along their direction of travel better letting them run/accelerate faster. Horses have a much harder time on hard ground.

I just don't see the justification for soft ground treating small based models better than large based models.

I do however like the tall grass stuff. Although I would go with it giving concealment to small based models without having a movement restriction, I also agree that LOS should only be 3" like with forests. However LOS restrictions should only be small base to small base. A large base looking down into the field of tall grass is still likely to be able to identify where motion is happening and move towards it. (thus concealment with LOS)

Mass increases exponentially with size, and unless their footprint size increases exponentially as well... then they will run into problems with softer surfaces like sand/loose dirt/mud

[pariahboy]

Mass increases linearly with "size": Density = Mass/Volume. The density of a warjack is admittedly greater than the density of a person, and significantly so. But the density of a horse is very nearly identical to that of a person, as it would be with most things made of flesh e.g. warbeasts. Humans are very nearlly the same density as amoebas and elephants... all of them are mostly water with some lipid to make them slightly lighter than water. The density of flesh is reasonably constant across all sizes. Now a common problem my students have is understanding the difference between "size" as considered in a single dimension, and size in real space. Example, if you double the radius of a sphere the volume increases exponentially by 8, but is is an error to consider radius as a definition of anything other than what it is. People of a height 6'0" can have an enormous variety of masses, and we would consider all of them to be of different sizes, but the same height. So it is with radius and volume. Mass itself is the optimal indicator of "size" expressly because it is linear, and very nearly identical for all people, fat or thin. Close enough that when we do order of magnitude calculations such as doubling something, nothing varies from expectation by much.

So, if you double the volume, the increase in force is Density*Volume*Gravity you double the force, so to retain the same pressure you need to double the area of the footprint in order to have the exact same pressure. This is a linear dependance.

I agree that warjacks might struggle, but considering most animals have evolved to walk across a variety of terrain types, a warbeast (in the game most are humanoid) will likely struggle about the same as a human across the same surface. So base size is not a good indicator of effect for soft ground.