Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Like some are saying I think more terrain is the way to go.. lots of terrain = lots of fun .. it's really just a problem in fantasy when you have to move blocks and wheel and stuff. Usually in either game though, I tend to let the other guy go first unless I really feel I need to / can do a lot of damage right in the beginning. I like to see what they do and try to get a feel for what their strategy is gonna be.

Posted By happypants on 12/28/2006 6:55 AM

My wife got 'clue' for our family for christmas, funny thing is that I was sitting there thinking how much turn order matters in that game...

 

My wife just read this, and said, "hrm, he's right... wait, does that make me a powergamer too?"

@ Necros lots of terrain favours assualty armies, lack of terrain goes well for shooty armies. Most boards at tournies have less than the guidline of 25% terrain. I have been to tournies where one board had 1 sets of trees on each side and that was all. I prefer more terrain.

At Atlanta GamesDay this past year, I played in their RTT where there was literally that little terrain as well. In all the tourneys I've ever played, that was the worst offender for the smallest amount of terrain for a table.

I think they save the better terrain for the better players on the top tables.

"Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity"

If most tournies you go to have that little terrain, you're just playing at bad tournies. Plain and simple.

Posted By beef on 12/29/2006 4:05 PM
I think they save the better terrain for the better players on the top tables.

all GTs as far as i know(and have experienced) have very little terrain for a very simple reason. GW has to transport it all and set it up. since it is not at thier own facility. you try to image bringing 25% terrain for 100+ 48" X72" tables

al the RTTs i have played alt have been at dedicated gaming stores who have tons of terrain sitting arounf and even predesigned tables so finding 25% terrain there is a cinch.

Posted By mughi3 on 12/29/2006 7:14 PM

all GTs as far as i know(and have experienced) have very little terrain for a very simple reason. GW has to transport it all and set it up. since it is not at thier own facility. you try to image bringing 25% terrain for 100+ 48" X72" tables

This is part of why the US GTs were expensive.  They literally had more than a hundred 4x6 hard-surfaced tables and enough terrain pieces to get fairly close to 25% coverage.  It was a bit less, but when the tables and terrain were built, it was still 3rd edition.  They also hauled around a few Games Day tables.  All of it got packed into trucks and driven hundreds (thousands?  Did they use the same tables in Chicago or LA?) of miles.

 

Posted By mughi3 on 12/29/2006 7:14 PM

al the RTTs i have played alt have been at dedicated gaming stores who have tons of terrain sitting arounf and even predesigned tables so finding 25% terrain there is a cinch.

Likewise here.  I've heard of some of the Indy events and some of the local Games Day tournaments having too little, because they have a high attendance and don't have the resources of the GTs.  That said, many do nowadays put a ton of effort and money into them.  The tables at The Colonial GT last year are all Gale Force Nine originals that they actually produce professionally for sale.  Really gorgeous.

http://www.gf9.com/terrain/albums/album21/forest_01_600x400.jpg

http://www.gf9.com/terrain/albums/album25/rocky_waste_01_600x450.jpg

Those are two of the four or five standard types they had at The Colonial, though they used about a third to a quarter of that much terrain for Warhammer.

Adepticon has had issues in the past, partially due to having really massive attendance.  They're putting in a heroic effort for 2007, though.

http://adepticon.org/modules.php?name=Terrain

the first table was great, the second I doubt filled the 25% quota, hardly any cover. Fair enough its a "barren world" but thats to easy a getout clause.

Just a since of a feel here how many players have destroyed at least 25% of your emeny on the first turn or vise you had over 25% of your army destroyed or not function in first turn???
I know have laid waste too many players with my dark eldar first turn were they had to sit there and take a beating , same goes with me too I had to endure a few games where were i lost all my raiders, ravagers and half my warriors first turn. But thats all about the game . Im done ranting now

Posted By beef on 12/30/2006 5:36 AM
the first table was great, the second I doubt filled the 25% quota, hardly any cover. Fair enough its a "barren world" but thats to easy a getout clause.

Actually not the case.

It’s tough to see in that pic, but there are five bases of movable rocks there that are usually played as size 3 area terrain, five hilly rock formations, and five pools of water.  The way they’ve arranged that table it doesn’t look like as much, because a lot of the pieces are near the edges.  The hills and area terrain bases are all movable, but they’re so well made that the hills and the rocks on the area terrain bases look like they’re molded on.

ok fair enough, the pic was not to clear.

In late 2nd edition days, we became so disenchanted with the game mechanics of not only wanting to go first, but also the overwatch stalemates and hide-athons that went on, that we developed an alternate turn sequence that worked brilliantly. It went through testing nicely and was about to be submitted to Citadel journal when 3rd Edition rolled into view...

For one thing in this edition, I think all vehicles that start the game on the board should count as having moved 6" in their 'previous turn' - that removes one disadvantage to going second for their owners that I think is currently unreasonable.

When I lived in California, this was how the local shop ruled as well. It wasn't game breaking in my opinion and I was typically the recepient of the Wave Serpent Swordwind armies.