Switch Theme:

Cover is "Too Big"?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





The past few games I've had people ask me not to use certain pieces of terrain, one going so far as to say he won't play me if "I'm going to be that way".

We generally play on a 4'x4' or 4'x6', depending on the size of game we're playing (4x6 for anything above 1000, or for 1000 if we're using a lot of vehicles/bikes). In terms of terrain, we have about 30 pieces that we switch around every game, using anywhere from 4 to 8 on our table. They range from anything from 3"x3" craters up to 12"x8" buildings.

When placing terrain, we alternate picking and placing it, rolling off to see who places first. I tend to want at least two decent sized pieces, and then an assortment of smaller ones, with no more than 12-18" of absolutely open ground between them.

The piece of terrain that has recently faced complaints is said 12"x8" building, which has 3 stories that are mostly blown out, so only about a third of the second floor and less than a quarter of the third floor is intact. I went to place it up against the edge of the table (so that it wouldn't take up the entire center of the table, but got a complaint about it. I then chose a slightly smaller one, about 8x8, and still was asked why I was "building a wall" across the middle of the table. Keep in mind this was at the far edge of the table.

On a separate occasion that I tried to place two small buildings near each other in the center of the table (two 6x6 wrecked houses placed about 8" apart) I was again accused of "blocking all LOS". They also complained that I was placing objectives "where no one can see them", aka inside a courtyard that could only be attacked if you were at least 18" into the table.

Am I in the wrong with my terrain choices and placement, or are these guys just trying to get the upper edge by creating a giant open death field? I know it's not coincidence that one was Tau, one was Guard, and one was marines with a lot of ranged firepower. I mean, my army is moderately shooty too, the cover would definitely be hurting my dev squads and my snipers.

I mean, am I actually being TFG? Which is how I was treated. I honestly thought the idea of terrain is that it does mean you have to maneuver your units a bit to get good shooting, and to give troops a bit of a cover save.....
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

Personally, I think the only way the game becomes anything but who rolls the best dice first is when there is a substantial amount of terrain on the table, so, no, I think a player wanting plenty of cover is perfectly fine.

In fact, I'd probably have a close look at the motives of someone who was disputing it.

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Play a few games with it, play a few games without it. What is the harm playing without it. Now if they keep insisting to play without it, then they are "just trying to get an upper edge" as you say.

Give them the benefit of the doubt and play a game without it. Then next time play with it.

Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.

Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?

Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".  
   
Made in gb
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?





UK

Honestly, I would say you're using enough, perhaps even too little! Terrain is the great leveller, and I'll typically play with 6+ 6-9" square pieces of LoS blocking stuff, and then plenty of scatter terrain, and it does a lot for the balance of the game. The more terrain the better, I say, and I'm frequently shocked to see how little people seem to use.

So to answer to your question, no, you're perfectly fine doing what you're doing. And placing objectives where one side has a harder time getting to them is the point of being able to choose where they go, so again you're fine putting them in places that require shock horror moving to reach them!

 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




Little Rock, Arkansas

Sounds like Waac shooty players wanting to use some psych moves to make you feel like you're the one in the wrong for wanting pretty standard terrain.

Can't be too sure without pictures of tables, exact statements from both parties, etc.

20000+ points
Tournament reports:
1234567 
   
Made in gb
Tough Traitorous Guardsman




London, England

it sounds like the people you're playing see terrain as being a bad thing - they want a game that is about 2 armies blasting away at each other over an empty field. that's fairly common in kids who are into Tau style shooting armies. if you want a game that requires a bit more tactics and skill and, IMO, fun, then you want lots of terrain, the more the better!

but you know, we all have different things that we want. one good way of playing is for one person to set up the whole terrain and the other to choose which table edge they start from. try doing that with your gaming people, that way you all get a turn to do as you please and no-one can set up to their advantage.

www.leadmess.com - my painting and modelling blog! 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




Little Rock, Arkansas

 daddyorchips wrote:
it sounds like the people you're playing see terrain as being a bad thing - they want a game that is about 2 armies blasting away at each other over an empty field. that's fairly common in kids who are into Tau style shooting armies. if you want a game that requires a bit more tactics and skill and, IMO, fun, then you want lots of terrain, the more the better!

but you know, we all have different things that we want. one good way of playing is for one person to set up the whole terrain and the other to choose which table edge they start from. try doing that with your gaming people, that way you all get a turn to do as you please and no-one can set up to their advantage.


Except that someone who wants light terrain for clear shooting would just set it up like that and be happy with either table edge. :p

20000+ points
Tournament reports:
1234567 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






TFG for actually wanting to use terrain?

Boy what world we live in :/


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

I didn't see it mentioned, but what armies were being used? And were their any specific long-ranged units being fielded?

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





Bristol, England

A 3 storey ruin that big sounds a bit crazy for small games on 6x4 especially in one player's deployment zone.
I have one 4 storey 12x12 and that only comes out come the apocalypse and on at least 8x4.
It's pretty hard to ever reach/charge/claim/shoot anything on the top floor.
Maybe that was the beef?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/30 22:45:18


Oli: Can I be an orc?
Everyone: No.
Oli: But it fits through the doors, Look! 
   
Made in ie
Norn Queen






Dublin, Ireland

Tend to agree with alex. Thats one of the larger footprints you can get dimension wise and with 3-4 floors it's going to dominate the field most especially if you play 4x4 setups.
Perhaps try smaller pieces but more of them rather than a "focal" centerpiece. Even shoved in a corner its height is going to give shooting units a huge advantage.

Terrain and los terrain are great but within reason.

Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be

By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.

"Feelin' goods, good enough". 
   
Made in au
Frenzied Berserker Terminator






It might be a good idea to come up with agreed house rules on how to deploy terrain. The 6th edition rules are a good place to start: split the table into 2x2' sections and tool a D3 for each section. That's how many pieces of terrain can be placed in that section.

Take it in turns to place pieces of terrain, then roll off for table edges as normal.

I also suggest having house rules for limiting the size of terrain, and for limiting the placement of objectives on upper floors of ruins
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Vallejo, CA

Gunlining is easy, it enables bad players. Bad players whine when things aren't easy for them. Terrain makes gunlining harder.

The question isn't why should people play with you when you insist on using terrain, but why you should bother playing with people that need to play without it in order to win a toy soldiers game as easily as possible?



Your one-stop website for batreps, articles, and assorted goodies about the men of Folera: Foleran First Imperial Archives. Read Dakka's favorite narrative battle report series The Hand of the King. Also, check out my commission work, and my terrain.

Abstract Principles of 40k: Why game imbalance and list tailoring is good, and why tournaments are an absurd farce.

Read "The Geomides Affair", now on sale! No bolter porn. Not another inquisitor story. A book written by a dakkanought for dakkanoughts!
 
   
Made in gb
Sneaky Lictor





Use the dice to decide, no one can complain then

I like terrain. One or two big bits placed symetrically, scattering of bunkers and craters, maybe a corner or side with greenery to give some depth. Regardless of LOS, terrain looks cool.
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Terminator with Lightning Claws



Sioux Falls, SD

You could offer them the option to setup the terrain with the agreement that both players need to agree on what they setup.

Blood for the bloo... wait no, I meant for Sanguinius!  
   
Made in us
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot






To the OP: Stand up for yourself. If someone gives you crap for placing the terrain you want where you want it, tell them it's your turn to place terrain and you're just looking to set up a fun and interesting game. They'll get their chance to do the same when it's their turn to place terrain.

If they cry and moan the entire game and you notice people aren't wanting to play with you as much, I guess you can give in a bit (you can't pick your battle partners all the time, after all), but this is supposed to be a friendly and fun hobby (where we try to rip eachother's heads off). If you're constantly getting frustrated because your always fighting on planet bowling ball, it's an issue. Your fun is important too...
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Yeah, the game is supposed to include LOS-blocking terrain.


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Holland , Vermont

My favorite games have been on cityfight tables with 1-3foot high buildings/ruins..and flyover bridges connecting them..we just played with victory conditions that ended the game when fufilled..no turn limit...ahh those were the days.

I love tones of terrain, so long as its set up in realistic patterns...streets and blocks of buildings..stands of trees..etc.

makes for much better looking and more tactically varied games..rather than pooltable shooting gallery.

If you are interested in my P&M for my Unified Corp Tau check here ----http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/282731.page
My planetary profile and background story for my Tau is here------http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/351631.page
War Field Boss Marshul Grimdariun's Panzuh Korps http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/353354.page
Tau Prototypes Technical readouts and Data sharing (for all Tau players )http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/412232.page 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




It always annoys me when I come to a game and my opponent put like two hills and a building on the table and went "ok, ready to go?"

No. I generally put about 1/4 of the total table as "big" pieces of terrain (buildings, large forrests, things like that) with 2-3 large LOS blocking pieces scattered about. On top of that, I typically scatter about several smaller things (statues, small craters, individual ADL pieces).

There's nothing more boring than playing a game where we go "Well, maybe I can get to you before you blast me to bits." no terrain means there's no point in positioning my troops. Makes the game SUPER boring IMO.
   
Made in gb
Hallowed Canoness





Between

More terrain the better in my book. If at least a third of the board isn't covered in terrain, I disperse the minions to find another box! Preferably 3/4 of the board in my book, but then, I absolutely adore cityfight.



"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad. 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





As I said, the armies were Tau (fielding 3 broadsides, 2 riptides, and a mix of warriors and pathfinders), and guard and white scar combo, running 3 russes, vets, and bikes.

In terms of the three story piece of terrain, I had at the center line but hugging the far edge of the table, and it was the only piece of terrain in that area. Also, any time I've seen said piece of terrain on the table no one actually bothers to climb the whole way to the top, it's more of just a blocker for LoS, and it's extremely well made and painted (a custom job by the store owner).

As to the suggestion of a d3 per 2x2, no, they definitely don't approve of that. It's hard to get them to agree to 6 pieces of terrain when we're on a 4x6. Also, small pieces of terrain are "pointless", and "get in the way".

It's not like I'm trying to make every single game set up this way. Out of the dozen or so games that I've played against the tau player, I only actually set up what I consider to be proper terrain once, and have ever since been accused of "always making a wall up the middle".

I actually just got home from a game there against another DA player, and he actually insisted on the same thing as well, that I wanted too much terrain. I was honestly just trying to help the guy out, he mostly just had footslogging tac squads and terminators that he didn't want to deep strike, so I suggest we set up a few "streets" for our table (it was our swamp table, so I recommended using a bunch of our particularly decrepit ruins to make a partially sunken city of sorts) but he only let me place one large building and a few around the edges. Needless to say, my dev squads and dreadnought made quick work of his army.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Hyperspace

 kingbobbito wrote:
As I said, the armies were Tau (fielding 3 broadsides, 2 riptides, and a mix of warriors and pathfinders), and guard and white scar combo, running 3 russes, vets, and bikes.

In terms of the three story piece of terrain, I had at the center line but hugging the far edge of the table, and it was the only piece of terrain in that area. Also, any time I've seen said piece of terrain on the table no one actually bothers to climb the whole way to the top, it's more of just a blocker for LoS, and it's extremely well made and painted (a custom job by the store owner).

As to the suggestion of a d3 per 2x2, no, they definitely don't approve of that. It's hard to get them to agree to 6 pieces of terrain when we're on a 4x6. Also, small pieces of terrain are "pointless", and "get in the way".

It's not like I'm trying to make every single game set up this way. Out of the dozen or so games that I've played against the tau player, I only actually set up what I consider to be proper terrain once, and have ever since been accused of "always making a wall up the middle".

I actually just got home from a game there against another DA player, and he actually insisted on the same thing as well, that I wanted too much terrain. I was honestly just trying to help the guy out, he mostly just had footslogging tac squads and terminators that he didn't want to deep strike, so I suggest we set up a few "streets" for our table (it was our swamp table, so I recommended using a bunch of our particularly decrepit ruins to make a partially sunken city of sorts) but he only let me place one large building and a few around the edges. Needless to say, my dev squads and dreadnought made quick work of his army.

My opponent puts terrain on his side of the board so he can camp his Fire Warriors in them...
And says ALL terrain can be seen through because tons of terrain "isn't fun".



Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
 
   
Made in au
Lady of the Lake






I don't see the issue, but if it makes them feel better maybe get some other person to place the terrain or place it before rolling for table sides. Basically give them less reasons to whine about it without being so blunt as telling them to deal with it.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Vallejo, CA

kingbobbito wrote:It's not like I'm trying to make every single game set up this way. Out of the dozen or so games that I've played against the tau player, I only actually set up what I consider to be proper terrain once, and have ever since been accused of "always making a wall up the middle".

Well, as William Gibson once said, before you diagnose yourself with a problem, first make sure you're not surrounded... well... you know the rest.

Anyways, 40k's rules used to say 25% of the board had to be terrain, and more recently, that you should have D3 pieces per square. The game has never been written, even now, assuming that you would have only a little terrain on it. Anyone who insists otherwise is playing a different game than you are.


Your one-stop website for batreps, articles, and assorted goodies about the men of Folera: Foleran First Imperial Archives. Read Dakka's favorite narrative battle report series The Hand of the King. Also, check out my commission work, and my terrain.

Abstract Principles of 40k: Why game imbalance and list tailoring is good, and why tournaments are an absurd farce.

Read "The Geomides Affair", now on sale! No bolter porn. Not another inquisitor story. A book written by a dakkanought for dakkanoughts!
 
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






Honestly, sounds like they're trying to gimp you. Terrain is probably one of the most important aspects of the game and you should have a decent amount. I would argue 33%-50% of the board should be terrain, as its one of the great equalizers against shooty armies. As a Daemons player, cover is god The only other thing I would suggest is try agreeing to get a neutral 3rd party to set up terrain and see if that helps. Without seeing pictures, it really sounds like they just want to stand back and shoot you with little thought.

~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Sanctus Slipping in His Blade






Never been a fan of planet bowling ball myself. Why exactly aren't your opponents okay with using the games recommended rules for terrain placement? 1-3 items per 2' square doesn't have anything to do with the size or LOS block capability of a terrain piece.

We generally roll for each square before we start placing terrain, then roll to see who places the first piece then alternate pieces till all the 2' squares are filled up to their die roll. If your opponents aren't happy with how the terrain lines up, maybe they should try to balance your placement with terrain choices of their own? If they can't put a little thought into maxing out the squares they think are most important to be "wide open" with terrain pieces that they want their instead of the LOS blockers you might want, too bad.

If you have a specific/limited terrain collection available, there is nothing stopping them from taking the biggest remaining LOS blocker available and plopping it up tight against a deployment zone table edge. If they don't focus on getting the terrain THEY want into the appropriate place early, they can instead put the terrain YOU want in areas that are of no use to you and quite likely a benefit to themselves.

Takes a lot less effort to put some though into choosing good ground to fight on than it does to beat up your opponent for not wanting to play on planet bowling ball.


A ton of armies and a terrain habit...


 
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





Sedona, Arizona

 Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
My favorite games have been on cityfight tables with 1-3foot high buildings/ruins..and flyover bridges connecting them..we just played with victory conditions that ended the game when fufilled..no turn limit...ahh those were the days.

I love tones of terrain, so long as its set up in realistic patterns...streets and blocks of buildings..stands of trees..etc.

makes for much better looking and more tactically varied games..rather than pooltable shooting gallery.


^

City fights are far and away the most fun kind of game - and I don't mean the rules, I just mean terrain setup.

It makes the game much more tactical and helps out lots of armies / units which would struggle, whilst also taking away from the "power players".

.. Eldar still kind of wreck in them though.

   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 kingbobbito wrote:
Also, small pieces of terrain are "pointless", and "get in the way".


Isn't "getting in the way" the entire purpose of terrain? Sounds like you've got a bunch of TFGs who don't want to allow anything that might disrupt their perfectly-crafted shooting army and cost them a game.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in au
Frenzied Berserker Terminator






Sounds like there's no room for compromise with these types of players.

This leaves two solutions in my mind:

1. Tell them that you disagree with their choice of terrain, that playing on Planet Lawn Bowls isn't fun, and so you will no longer be playing against them.

2. Beat them at their own game - take the cheesiest, shootiest list you can manage and blast them off the table.
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's supposed to be 25% terrain coverage, the NOVA Open uses many center pieces that are 12" wide and perfectly opaque, there is nothing wrong with doing that.

There should still be firing lanes, not firing boulevards.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: