So... let’s get into it, just because it’s a pet peeve of mine

I don’t understand why there is such discrepancies in table’s terrain. It’s clearly defined that there should be 25% of terrain. You mark off a quarter of the table and fill it. I myself setup our tables for our tournies at our local shop and provide all of it as well. I have enough for 5-6 boards. Each board has a theme to it, which people enjoy, but there shouldn’t be a “mix” of tables having zero terrain to AT-ST can’t even walk. It’s 25%, the only slight difference I’ve found is how you “fill” the .25 in. Some may pack it in there while others may leave you space let’s say a 2.5% swing each way meaning there should always be roughly 22.5-27.5% board covered with terrain. I don’t think it’s really all that hard of an issue. There’s a reason why this number was laid out, terrain completely favors or unfavors certain lists and strategies, so why put it up for debate? Just follow the outlined rules. I’m speaking only from what I’ve seen on the internet, but the tables at Gencon and NOVA were awfully bad. Say what you want, but depending on the table you play on there you’re either really happy or extremely disadvantaged. Shouldn’t be that way. Everyone should be on an even playing ground, with maybe a slight variance table to table. And I stress slight, because some take that to mean that the tables should change from one end of the spectrum to the other, which is ridiculous. I’m not trashing on anyone’s tables btw. I’ve seen amazing work out there, that are just awesome! But in a competitive tournament setting, there are standards that should be met.

Respectfully,

Luke

I generally agree. The 25% coverage makes the game interesting and fun. Too little and it loses its tactical interest. Though, honestly I'd like to experiment with having even more than 25%. A dense urban table with lots of walls and towers could be fun. Or possibly tedious, I couldn't say without trying. But seeing games played with, like, a couple hills and maybe an obelisk make me cry a little on the inside.

And, regarding tables with themed terrain: heck yes!

I've played games up to 35% with dense urban terrain that can still be fun so long as you have lots of variety of heights and terrain effect types. Look out for Luke tho'!

It's honestly hard to imagine a board where ATSTs can't walk though, unless you have too much too tall terrain - remember by default a walker can step onto or over something less than 1/2 its own height.

If you have areas of trees (like on an Endor board) you can also declare them non-difficult and passable for walkers even if they do provide cover to them.

8 minutes ago, CaptainRocket said:

It's honestly hard to imagine a board where ATSTs can't walk though, unless you have too much too tall terrain - remember by default a walker can step onto or over something less than 1/2 its own height.

Can you provide a reference? I was under the impression that it was the full height of the unit leader, but now I can't find either that or what you said in the RRG.

Page 8:

I had this issue at our local store. They never have enough. And it isn't even close. Its like 5% top.

I ended up not doing tournaments because it would be rude to argue but...

Anyways, told friend a list to bring to guarantee a win. Sure enough, he took first place. AT-STs get overpowered with no cover.

This already has been discussed at length. I am against detailed rules for tournament terrain in miniature wargames. It will inevitably creep into all games, not just tournament ones, and creates a culture of consumerism instead of creativity. You can't realistically have official tournament rules unless FFG provides the scenery. This isn't IA where everyone brings maps.

Make your army list on the assumption that some boards will be empty and some will be over crowded.

2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

This already has been discussed at length. I am against detailed rules for tournament terrain in miniature wargames. It will inevitably creep into all games, not just tournament ones, and creates a culture of consumerism instead of creativity. You can't realistically have official tournament rules unless FFG provides the scenery. This isn't IA where everyone brings maps.

Make your army list on the assumption that some boards will be empty and some will be over crowded.

Thanks for the response. I just was kind of disappointed in what I saw in pictures from Gencon and Nova. I saw somewhere that they allowed players to bring barricades which was a good idea. We’ve done this at the shop in Rochester.

I understand where you’re coming from. The whole what is this cover vs what is that cover will be an issue, if it’s not addressed at the start of the tourney or any game played. Out here we discuss terrain for maybe 5-10 mins and see if anyone has questions. We do it pretty simple out here; hard or soft cover, just about everything slows you down that seems like it would. I suppose that size out there is too hard to do it with, 40 players? Not actually sure on it, didn’t see many reports.

But bak to to the main point; if you want a tournament setting, there’s gotta be standards for play. You can’t be petty about the wording of how the “you” is said, but then not be worried about 25% cover. Just seems like it’s trying to be lawyerly here and skip it over there. Just my thoughts...idk I could just be too competitive as well lol. I always enjoy playing the game though. Really think it’s so cool. Esp with new releases, gonna be changes

7 minutes ago, lukecook said:

I just was kind of disappointed in what I saw in pictures from Gencon and Nova.

Tournaments frequently run into the problem of simply not having enough terrain for all the tables.

I agree with your general thesis (although I think 25% is not nearly enough terrain for an interesting wargame), but for a big tourney, sometimes they have to bow to logistics.

Yeah understandable. Maybe they could ask the community? I feel like there’s some good people that would be helpful and like to show off all there cool terrain. Seen some good stuff online. Would’ve been better than not having enough. New game though kinks to be worked out. But it is a huge gaming company so could go either way on if they could have done it lol

10 minutes ago, lukecook said:

But bak to to the main point; if you want a tournament setting, there’s gotta be standards for play. You can’t be petty about the wording of how the “you” is said, but then not be worried about 25% cover. Just seems like it’s trying to be lawyerly here and skip it over there. Just my thoughts...idk I could just be too competitive as well lol. I always enjoy playing the game though. Really think it’s so cool. Esp with new releases, gonna be changes

To me this isn't really a discussion about Legion but all of tabletop model wargames. Strict scenery rules don't work well for this style of game.

I don't know how it's done in Warmachine, Flames of War, etc. But I've never seen any rules for it in 40k and that hasn't hurt them really. If that game died suddenly tomorrow it would still be the envy of all other commercial gaming-games. I've never seen hard and fast rules for scenery in any other hobby wargame either. Though I don't participate in tournaments these days, when I did it was not even discussed. You trusted TO's to try their best cause they had a sucky job and you took the battlefield they gave you. This attitude of wanting precision tournament scenery seems to come from bringing card and board gamers into what to them is a new type of game. It would be like me, a lifelong tabletop miniature gamer, playing some new CCG and saying I should be allowed to make custom cards because art is half the fun... that's just not the nature of the beast. Different types of games, different pros and cons.

This is where making a flexible list instead of min-maxing comes in. Or make a list on the assumption of very little scenery because TO's can't reliably acquire and transport a lot of it. It's also where taking your lumps and losing like a good sport comes in.

Plus, official scenery rules will just give whiners one more reason to try to get losses thrown out. ie "That table only had 23% scenery!"

If you are really concerned, the best thing you can do is contact TO's and see if they need more scenery and bring stuff to help out. Rolls of green felt for battlefields, with brown felt ovals that slow movement and provide cover, a blue felt oval that stops movement but doesn't impede shooting, along with three upturned boxes painted silver to block LOS... A motivated volunteer could acquire, store, and transport 20 such tournament battlefields.

I suspect asking the community is not considered a viable option.

If they ask for the loan of terrain there are all sorts of logistical problems in getting it, returning it, and it opens up issues of liability if something gets damaged.

If they ask for donated terrain, you know there will be those who complain about “the greedy company”, while simultaneously they get swamped by donations of mediocre quality that people just want to get rid of.

So, yeah. Enough terrain for a big tournament is a problem.

Might be able to work out a loan from a couple terrain manufacturers though, in exchange for IDing the sponsors, maybe some business cards on the tables, bumper announcements at the start and end.

@TauntaunScout You seem confused. The topic is not about the rules on how to handle models interacting with terrain during the game, but purely the AMOUNT of terrain present. No one has suggested that the terrain rules aren’t sufficient, just that there isn’t enough of it on some boards.

Plus, the warhammer games have also always recommended about 25% terrain coverage.

20 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

@TauntaunScout You seem confused. The topic is not about the rules on how to handle models interacting with terrain during the game, but purely the AMOUNT of terrain present. No one has suggested that the terrain rules aren’t sufficient, just that there isn’t enough of it on some boards.

I'm not confused. Discussing a rule about the AMOUNT is still a rule. Should 25% be a rule or a guideline? Does one piece of green paper, 25% of the battlefield, that counts as rough terrain, meet the need? Of course not. Things like "so why put it up for debate? Just follow the outlined rules" makes it seem that the point of the discussion is that a guideline should become a hard and fast legality.

So this would, taken to it's own logical conclusion, lead to rules saying the exact size of tournament tables and prescribing a set number of each type of scenery with prescribed footprints. May as well ask them to dictate the tournament army lists too, to ensure fair matches.

The ideal way to do it, IMO, is have 2 of every type of terrain. Because for example it's not fair to have a unit that pays points to breeze over rough terrain, if there is no rough terrain. Each player gets to place 1 of each anywhere they want on the table. Then a referee walks by and adds up to 1 of each type of piece and subtracts up to 1 of each type of piece. In most game systems, you'd also want to automatically place a HUGE piece of LOS blocking scenery roughly in the center of the table, something big enough to hide the biggest model in the game. Players then randomly determine out which table edge they deploy on.

But that takes a ton of resources. It's only a game, and it's a model wargame, it's not neat and contained like Scrabble or Chess. There's a slew of other things out there for people who want tightly controlled puzzle contests. This whole genre of games is a beautiful mess.

For these and other reasons I support guidelines and suggestions for tournament tables but not rules.

6 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

It's honestly hard to imagine a board where ATSTs can't walk though, unless you have too much too tall terrain - remember by default a walker can step onto or over something less than 1/2 its own height.

But, at the end of the move, the walker needs to be relatively stable. Some of these terrain pieces I've seen are flared out so much at the bottom that it's difficult to get a base to balance on them. And even then, is that considered "stable"? For the record, the T-47 has the same problem, as do the other vehicles, but their smaller bases make it a bit easier to find that sweet spot on the terrain.

There definitely should be rules regarding a minimum amount of terrain, or at least an amount that is heavily recommended. This game NEEDS good terrain to function properly, and at competitive events you'll need this terrain if you want those events to really be fair. After all, you don't want an event to get decided by a finals match in which a poorly set-up board resulted in one army have a massive advantage over the other.

What also bears mentioning is what exactly counts as terrain. There is good terrain and bad terrain. You might technically have 25% coverage, but if that 25% is completely made up of barricades thats not a good board. Likewise if that 25% was completely made up of giant height 3 rocks that wouldn't be great either(better than just barricades, but still not ideal).

You want a mixture of terrain. Some that is short terrain that gives cover(barricades, crates, moisture vaporators, etc...). Stuff that gives cover and blocks line of sight to various heights(including stuff height 3+). Stuff that blocks LoS, but isn't rough terrain. Stuff that is rough terrain but doesn't block LoS. Stuff that troops can climb up and down. etc... You want some areas that high long fire lanes, and some areas that do not.

The rules shouldn't say "You must have X of this type of terrain" they should be something like

A tournament game of Legion should have between 25 and 50% of the game board covered by terrain. This terrain should consist of multiple types of terrain. We recommend between 1/3 and 1/2 of the terrain pieces be of height 1 or lower, 1/10 to 1/3 of the pieces be height 3 or more, 1/3 to 1/2 of the terrain pieces be rough terrain, 1/3 to 1/2 of the terrain provide heavy cover, 1/3 to 1/2 of the terrain to provide light cover, up to 1/3 of the terrain should not block LoS to trooper models. We recommend that there be several areas of the board from which line of sight cannot be drawn longer than range 2. We recommend there be several areas of the board from which line of sight can be drawn greater than range 4.

This gives solid guidelines for anybody who wants a rigid system while also giving plenty of flexibility for varied terrain access.

8 minutes ago, BadMotivator said:

There definitely should be rules regarding a minimum amount of terrain, or at least an amount that is heavily recommended. This game NEEDS good terrain to function properly, and at competitive events you'll need this terrain if you want those events to really be fair. After all, you don't want an event to get decided by a finals match in which a poorly set-up board resulted in one army have a massive advantage over the other.

What also bears mentioning is what exactly counts as terrain. There is good terrain and bad terrain. You might technically have 25% coverage, but if that 25% is completely made up of barricades thats not a good board. Likewise if that 25% was completely made up of giant height 3 rocks that wouldn't be great either(better than just barricades, but still not ideal).

You want a mixture of terrain. Some that is short terrain that gives cover(barricades, crates, moisture vaporators, etc...). Stuff that gives cover and blocks line of sight to various heights(including stuff height 3+). Stuff that blocks LoS, but isn't rough terrain. Stuff that is rough terrain but doesn't block LoS. Stuff that troops can climb up and down. etc... You want some areas that high long fire lanes, and some areas that do not.

The rules shouldn't say "You must have X of this type of terrain" they should be something like

A tournament game of Legion should have between 25 and 50% of the game board covered by terrain. This terrain should consist of multiple types of terrain. We recommend between 1/3 and 1/2 of the terrain pieces be of height 1 or lower, 1/10 to 1/3 of the pieces be height 3 or more, 1/3 to 1/2 of the terrain pieces be rough terrain, 1/3 to 1/2 of the terrain provide heavy cover, 1/3 to 1/2 of the terrain to provide light cover, up to 1/3 of the terrain should not block LoS to trooper models. We recommend that there be several areas of the board from which line of sight cannot be drawn longer than range 2. We recommend there be several areas of the board from which line of sight can be drawn greater than range 4.

This gives solid guidelines for anybody who wants a rigid system while also giving plenty of flexibility for varied terrain access.

Great points.

I think organizers realize what a good game should have. The biggest hurdle is still storage and transportation of enough scenery to cover, say, 20 tables at once.

Felt is still probably your best friend there. 20 pieces of green 36x72" felt. 25 brown felt ovals that slow movement. 25 blue felt ovals that stop movement. 40 white felt ovals (fog) that completely block LOS through them but not into/out of them: Throw some puffs of white batting on top to help the table look less flat. 20 hunks of grey foam rubber sheer cliffs to impede AT-ST's and give troops something to climb up. 20 green foam rubber sloping hills.

If you were wise and patient you could make the above for probably $100 or so, and store/transport it in a couple duffel bags, shove into whatever shelf or car trunk without damaging a thing.

If each player was allowed to bring X number of barricades to put in their own deployment zone you'd have pretty much every terrain type.

16 hours ago, Lickintoad said:

But, at the end of the move, the walker needs to be relatively stable. Some of these terrain pieces I've seen are flared out so much at the bottom that it's difficult to get a base to balance on them. And even then, is that considered "stable"? For the record, the T-47 has the same problem, as do the other vehicles, but their smaller bases make it a bit easier to find that sweet spot on the terrain.

Anything less than 45 degrees is legal. If you can bump or nudge it lightly and it doesn't fall over you're good.

Sigh. [Directed to no one in particular, just the thread.]

As stated in another thread, I play Legion on a static board. And while there is a discussion of where terrain starts and ends, I'd say I play closer to 50% terrain. And that's about the same as when I used scatter terrain for previous wargames. I don't play tournaments, so that doesn't factor into anything for me. 25% just seems like a flat plane with not nearly enough terrain for variety of landscape. Luke has jump 1. If he has no insensitive to jump or has nothing to jump on, he's built on wasted points. I know I'm in the minority, but for me terrain makes the rules shine. And it forces players to think about the tactics of warfare. Not run towards each other and hide behind a tree over and over. Check me off for 40% minimum coverage.

<.<

>.>

(may or may not be guilty of ignoring terrain formations that are just creating contours when using the 25% rule) >.<;;

Well there's the old GW adage "the more terrain the better the game", in which they recommended at least half the table be covered in scenery for 40k. Honestly looking at published scenarios for SW D6, it also used very dense terrain. I'd say 25% is on the low end for this game, I think it is more fun with more scenery. I don't even run demo learning games using just the barricades in the book, I always add a couple small buildings that clutter up one flank of the table.

But at the end of the day, if you* aren't ponying up free scenery, expect there to be a lot of "desert battles" at tournaments and casual store playing.

*This means anyone, not the OP.

Felt this table was fun to play on. Not sure how close to 25% we were.

Looks like that place has a lot of 40k terrain available. This points to something about SW: Legion. It seems to be drawing in a ton of non-miniature gamers who don't already own a bunch of scenery. As Star Wars games will tend to do. I doubt I'd ever have gotten into gaming at all if it hadn't been for WEG Star Wars. And when I was playing my first games I was utterly lacking in scenery. I pressed some really sad stuff into service on the battlefields of the GCW. Toy fences and trees from old Marx farm and dinosaur playsets. Small rocks from the driveway became 25mm scale boulders. Plastic packaging from calculators and Pepperidge farms gift boxes got turned upside down and spray painted white, then had their edges flocked. A few times I even tried books under a tablecoth for hills but hated it.