Everyone at my shop's been playing with the recommended GT terrain layouts recently, and I haven't really been enjoying it. I feel like the excessive line of sight blocking terrain promotes a "trading" meta where you throw out a few units and bait out other units. It's been pretty obnoxious with units like Riptides and Eldar that move out of obscuring, shoot, then move back behind obscuring. The winner basically becomes who can play the trading game better.
I've always been a fan of the ITC layouts of 8th edition (hills in 2 corners, ruins in 2 corners, dense on the sides, and two line of sight blocking center pieces).
I "feel" that it shows that gwknows that their fancy new terrain rules don't work very well to curb the excessive lethality that they've built into most of the 9th edition codexes outside of big Obscurring area pieces, and that's why they spam them all over their tournament boards.
It's interesting to hear people descibe them as "terrain everywhere".
They look quite light to me.
There's a large amount of the board just not covered, with lots of sightlines.
I don't mind a trading game, as that's both an abstraction of real war and interesting from a gameplay point of view. Better than the free-swinging haymaker game we'd get on less restrictive terrain.
That said, I do stand firmly in the same camp as auticus above: the game is better when there is no terrain template and every scenario is uniquely built. Variety between table setups keeps the game fun and harder to calculate through beforehand.
As someone with very little interaction with the competitive 40K world I'm curious about this issue.
When these layouts were released people freaked out (because they look like extremely boring, unaesthetic, and unrealistic planned neighbourhoods).
But at LVO (the most competitive 40K event?) they used player-placed terrain (which looked like extremely erratic, unaesthetic, and unrealistic earthquake epicentres).
So are the layouts even being adopted by the competitive scene, or are many of them aping the LVO conditions?
I don't like nor use them and I also won't play in any event that uses them because of several reasons.
These layouts only use Ruins and 4 pieces of Dense cover that are in almost useless locations on both templates. These setups leave out things like barricades, objects like crates, difficult terrain forests, etc..... The ruins locations also don't work well on certain missions and the firing lanes on Table B are all sorts of screwed up. Tables A and B are also murder to non-flying vehicle movement. Vehicles can move over barricades, but not through the walls of ruins.
I like setting up a table to the mission which I think is better as you can place terrain and setup your firing lanes that make sense to where the objectives are. I usually setup the entire table for my opponent and always ask him if he would like anything moved, removed, or added and not once has someone even changed my table setup.
Because of the lethality power creep and literally everything getting AP -1 and AP -2 the table does need to be setup with enough LOS blocking to make sure your not losing too much per turn, but having some Dense cover in the middle of the board to hand out more -1 to Hit helps protect all unit types including vehicles or using (barricades / difficult area terrain) to slow down fast CC units running across the table.
The recommended terrain layouts are just boring, uninspired, and only use Ruins to attempt to balance the game. There are other terrain types and ways to setup the table with good firing lanes that don't feel like just moving another unit into the open to get destroyed......Well until the next codex comes out with all AP -4 weapons with re-roll everything for 1cp.
I am currently working on Necron terrain for my own table and will absolutely post some pics of what I think makes a good terrain setup for some criticism when I get the chance.
But at LVO (the most competitive 40K event?) they used player-placed terrain (which looked like extremely erratic, unaesthetic, and unrealistic earthquake epicentres).
This is definitely way worse than 2 boring templates. I would rather have good tournament organizers that know how to make a fair and balanced terrain setup using more than 2 different terrain types. I don't think people are really asking for miracles here. We know there is only so much that can be done about the power creep.
kirotheavenger wrote: It's interesting to hear people descibe them as "terrain everywhere".
They look quite light to me.
There's a large amount of the board just not covered, with lots of sightlines.
It isn't "terrain everywhere". It's an over-reliance on one type of terrain over all of the others: big OBSCURRING area terrain pieces, in a symmetrical layout. Noir Eternal explained it very well.
Grimtuff wrote: Awful awful homogenisation that the usual crowd are going to toss themselves off over, just like with the "standard" board sizes for 40k.
What 'usual crowd' do you mean? So far the opinions in this thread are (rightly, imo) very negative.
I think you should be able to game terrain, games should be decided on the table, not by lottery of who goes to what table. It's unfair for Monoliths to be terrible in a tournament, but you can test out ahead of time whether they'll be terrible (if they cannot move then the answer is probably that they'll be terrible). I have tried using Monoliths on dense tables just to see what it was like, but it was something I sought out and not something I want to have sprung on me by surprise.
There is no balanced terrain setup, for that to be possible GW would have needed to set down rules for their competitive playtesters about what terrain to use and then balance the points costs based on their feedback. All long-ranged weapons would have to be in the same ballpark of efficiency to mobility/durability ratio, all ignore LOS weapons would have to be in the same ballpark, all melee, slow, tanky, etc, etc. Instead we see a few long-ranged units that are good, a few aircraft, a few vehicles, lots of infantry, a few transports. There is no rhyme or reason to which units are OP. So if you make a table that is good for aircraft it is fair to the overcosted aircraft and unfair for the undercosted aircraft and vice versa.
The game isn't being properly playtested, which led to AdMech being released and this terrain pack was meant to mitigate how OP AdMech were, unfortunately it also nerfs a bunch of units that do not need nerfs and buffs units that do not need buffs.
I think the silliest thing is that you have objectives inside terrain, which goes against the rules.
kirotheavenger wrote: It's interesting to hear people descibe them as "terrain everywhere".
They look quite light to me.
There's a large amount of the board just not covered, with lots of sightlines.
One thing you may be doing differently is not playing them as Area Terrain.
This looks pretty open - but if you look close you can see the plexiglass footprint which would cause issues trying to cut those corners in a vehicle etc.
Until you turn it into a 2D squares and rectangles because of the Area Terrain
The Gray areas are the terrain footprints, the blue is open, the Orange is a 3" buffer for the fortification placement rules they were talking about the green is a Hammerfall bunker.
When people build their version of the map the terrain might go to the edge of the plexiglass or even be slightly larger or maybe a piece of terrain gets bumped, that's when you prevent models like a Monolith from moving.
What's wrong with objectives in buildings anyway? The idea that objectives should only be in the open doesn't make any sense, unless I'm missing somethin.
Spoletta wrote: We have a terrain system which technically allows a lot of different possibilities and we are restricting the boards to only 2 terrain types.
Because this is Tournament Edition 40k, so even terrain has to be part of the meta, specifically is has to never get in the way of the meta, and thus must be the same bland layouts each time to match the bland mission design.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What's wrong with objectives in buildings anyway? The idea that objectives should only be in the open doesn't make any sense, unless I'm missing somethin.
Knights?
Spoletta wrote: We have a terrain system which technically allows a lot of different possibilities and we are restricting the boards to only 2 terrain types.
Because this is Tournament Edition 40k, so even terrain has to be part of the meta, specifically is has to never get in the way of the meta, and thus must be the same bland layouts each time to match the bland mission design.
Don't forget it also looks like GW is leaning into it as well. Vehicles were frequently bad even before these terrain templates. Aeldari and Tau both got some Shoot And Scoot ability. A resurgence of Indirect Fire.
That strikes me as a Knights problem, not a problem with objective placement.
Breton wrote: Don't forget it also looks like GW is leaning into it as well. Vehicles were frequently bad even before these terrain templates. Aeldari and Tau both got some Shoot And Scoot ability. A resurgence of Indirect Fire.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What's wrong with objectives in buildings anyway? The idea that objectives should only be in the open doesn't make any sense, unless I'm missing somethin.
Warzone Nachmund wrote:Terrain features cannot be set up on top of objective markers.
It's just silly that GW couldn't make a terrain pack without breaking their own rules.
That strikes me as a Knights problem, not a problem with objective placement.
It strikes me as a game design problem - if the faction has to play pure, and can't play the game that way - that's a game design issue.
Breton wrote: Don't forget it also looks like GW is leaning into it as well. Vehicles were frequently bad even before these terrain templates. Aeldari and Tau both got some Shoot And Scoot ability. A resurgence of Indirect Fire.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What's wrong with objectives in buildings anyway? The idea that objectives should only be in the open doesn't make any sense, unless I'm missing somethin.
Probably an overreaction to 8th edition ITC terrain with "magic boxes".
I've not played on the GW terrain yet, I play on a couple of different UK "fixed" terrain set ups regularly instead, which I, in a very unbiased fashion, believe are far superior to the US led GW setup.
Glasshammer have altered their terrain positioning since Nachmund came out to allow more maneuverability for Knights. As they note, 5" of space is enough for a 130mm base to fit through which I assume lets a Knight fit through.
Terrain like this is the only way to have a sensible game of 40k in my opinion. If you are building your own one off terrain board, you should probably be trying to replicate the basic concepts shown in these layouts.
Even with these terrain set ups, you still have occasional problems with armies with large "footprints" being unable to hide turn one. And in a tournament game, if your unit isn't hidden turn one it is probably dead turn one.
I'm not buying the "it would be boring playing lots of games on this terrain" argument from the usual suspects, because lets face it as we know from the goonhammer survey, 55% of 40k players play less than 1 game a month and only 21% more than 2 games a month. You can play 9 "unique" games on the Glasshammer terrain. That is 9 months of gaming for 55% of people and probably 900 months for some of the posters on here.
I'm also not buying the "oh my gosh, you can game the terrain" argument from the same motley collection of posters. If you go to a tournament, you will meet plenty of players that barely know the GW missions they are about to play, are these the same players that are supposed to be studying the terrain for hours on end to extract every advantage? No, the people who do game the terrain are the ones who are already "gaming" the missions, "gaming" the meta, "gaming" the game basically. At that point it just adds a new interesting layer to preparation for the small number of players who actually have a chance of winning the tournament.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What's wrong with objectives in buildings anyway? The idea that objectives should only be in the open doesn't make any sense, unless I'm missing somethin.
Warzone Nachmund wrote:Terrain features cannot be set up on top of objective markers.
It's just silly that GW couldn't make a terrain pack without breaking their own rules.
Wasn't this done because GW let people replace a terrain pice with a faction terrain?
Not you HBMC, you are a good lad with many sensible posts that I hit the exalt button on.
Some of the I-don't-play-40k-but-have-lots-of-opinions-on-it-crowd are already here, but I expect the other 'game designers' will migrate over from "what now?", "what 40k should be", "railgun vs knights" and the "do they completely just make it up" threads.
Just a general frustration comment given how gummed up threads get with posts from people who clearly haven't played much 9th edition.
All the worst play experience tournaments I've been to have been where each table was different with a bunch of terrain taken from the venue's available selection. These tournaments are just as easy to game as the fixed terrain ones, you just take the best shooting army in the meta because you can almost always guarantee huge fire lanes onto something important in a couple of your matches.
Some of the I-don't-play-40k-but-have-lots-of-opinions-on-it-crowd are already here, but I expect the other 'game designers' will migrate over from "what now?", "what 40k should be", "railgun vs knights" and the "do they completely just make it up" threads.
Just a general frustration comment given how gummed up threads get with posts from people who clearly haven't played much 9th edition.
One does not need to eat dog gak to know it will taste bad...
H.B.M.C. wrote: What's wrong with objectives in buildings anyway? The idea that objectives should only be in the open doesn't make any sense, unless I'm missing somethin.
Probably an overreaction to 8th edition ITC terrain with "magic boxes".
I've not played on the GW terrain yet, I play on a couple of different UK "fixed" terrain set ups regularly instead, which I, in a very unbiased fashion, believe are far superior to the US led GW setup.
Glasshammer have altered their terrain positioning since Nachmund came out to allow more maneuverability for Knights. As they note, 5" of space is enough for a 130mm base to fit through which I assume lets a Knight fit through.
Terrain like this is the only way to have a sensible game of 40k in my opinion. If you are building your own one off terrain board, you should probably be trying to replicate the basic concepts shown in these layouts.
Even with these terrain set ups, you still have occasional problems with armies with large "footprints" being unable to hide turn one. And in a tournament game, if your unit isn't hidden turn one it is probably dead turn one.
I'm not buying the "it would be boring playing lots of games on this terrain" argument from the usual suspects, because lets face it as we know from the goonhammer survey, 55% of 40k players play less than 1 game a month and only 21% more than 2 games a month. You can play 9 "unique" games on the Glasshammer terrain. That is 9 months of gaming for 55% of people and probably 900 months for some of the posters on here.
I'm also not buying the "oh my gosh, you can game the terrain" argument from the same motley collection of posters. If you go to a tournament, you will meet plenty of players that barely know the GW missions they are about to play, are these the same players that are supposed to be studying the terrain for hours on end to extract every advantage? No, the people who do game the terrain are the ones who are already "gaming" the missions, "gaming" the meta, "gaming" the game basically. At that point it just adds a new interesting layer to preparation for the small number of players who actually have a chance of winning the tournament.
We play mostly on UKTC and i must say it killed almost all melee armies. Only custodes are fine on it, because they dont`t really need terrain.
It`s to open with to little place to hide big footprint models and armies.
Vehicles with 10 or less move are hard stuck on this terrain, since in most missions there is nothing in the middle except ruins that give -1 to hit and are hard ground.
60% of the games are just decided by the who go first roll, so i`m not a fan on this setup. Would personally would prefer terrain that decrease the value of the fist turn.
We play mostly on UKTC and i must say it killed almost all melee armies. Only custodes are fine on it, because they dont`t really need terrain.
It`s to open with to little place to hide big footprint models and armies.
Vehicles with 10 or less move are hard stuck on this terrain, since in most missions there is nothing in the middle except ruins that give -1 to hit and are hard ground.
60% of the games are just decided by the who go first roll, so i`m not a fan on this setup. Would personally would prefer terrain that decrease the value of the fist turn.
The boards I personally like are the ones that look like a bombed out city block(or a natural version hills, trees, etc thereof). Building ruins arranged to give the appearance of streets and cross streets between them
There should be SOME fire lanes. These lanes should not be universally dominant (like a 12" but should provide a risk/benefit calculation for their use as faster more dangerous vs slower less opportunistic routes for units. Especially the larger ground bound vehicles.
The theoretically long axis fireline across the middle of no-man's-land can either be interrupted by a central building or create a coveted spot to fight over. If there's a building there shouldn't be an objective in/near it.
In that vein but as a seperate point for emphasis - only VERY rarely should a scoring objective share location with a sweet spot location (i.e. great building cover you can stack infiltrating camo cloaked units in, the anchor point of one of those firelanes, areas commonly selected by secondaries like "The Center Of The Board" and so on) Triple Dipping with - Center of Board, with a ruined building you can stack lasfusil camo cloaked eliminators in, AND secure an objective - that's just too much King of The Mountain
Grimtuff wrote: One does not need to eat dog gak to know it will taste bad...
My own analogy is you're in prison awaiting trial and looking for legal advice, do you:
(a) Get that advice from someone who has both experience of trials and actual experience in the area of relevant law.
(b) Get that advice from someone who has experience of trials.
(c) Ask the Sovereign Citizen sitting in the cell next to you, rocking back and forth, mumbling about eating dog gak.
Marin wrote: We play mostly on UKTC and i must say it killed almost all melee armies. Only custodes are fine on it, because they dont`t really need terrain.
It`s to open with to little place to hide big footprint models and armies.
Vehicles with 10 or less move are hard stuck on this terrain, since in most missions there is nothing in the middle except ruins that give -1 to hit and are hard ground.
60% of the games are just decided by the who go first roll, so i`m not a fan on this setup. Would personally would prefer terrain that decrease the value of the fist turn.
Thanks, that is an interesting take. Was this on version 1 of the terrain or the more recent version? They did go back and add in more ruins (removing the large vents that were "forests" that provided dense cover and difficult ground which you do mention). If you have the actual terrain at your club, there was an "expansion pack" that has the extra ruins they added to the later version.
I can see an issue for melee vehicles without fly. In my experience with UKTC, melee armies can work in the terrain, but the best melee options are often either INFANTRY that can go through the walls or units with FLY that can also go through the walls. I've lost a few games to Vanguard Vets staging behind one of the mid board ruins one turn, then moving in for the kill on the next turn. I can see how their might be an issue for Bladeguard Vets style units, as to move from your deployment zone to a safe mid board staging area probably needs an above average advance roll. I am planning on trying some melee heavy Necrons soon-ish at a tournament with this terrain, I'm quite confident that I'll be able to move up the Skorpekhs behind the mid board ruins then attack the next turn.
Grimtuff wrote: Remember bro, next time you criticise food you're not allowed to as you're not a pro chef....
I personally like this idea, maybe when I play games and feel intense boredom I'm actually having fun, I just don't know any better, which in retrospect makes 40k the best game I ever played.
Grimtuff wrote: One does not need to eat dog gak to know it will taste bad...
My own analogy is you're in prison awaiting trial and looking for legal advice, do you:
(a) Get that advice from someone who has both current experience of criminal trials and has a relevant Law degree.
(b) Get that advice from someone who has previous experience of criminal trials and has a relevant Law degree.
(c) Get that advice from someone who has current experience of criminal trials but has never been to Law school.
(d) Get that advice from someone who has previous experience of criminal trials but has never been to Law school.
(e) Get that advice from someone who has no experience of criminal trials but has a relevant Law degree.
(f) Get that advice from someone who has no experience of criminal trials and has never been to Law school.
(hint: Very, very few people on the 40k side of Dakka fall into a/b/e, and even fewer fall into f)
There, your analogy is now accurate. I will accept as payment a drápa of no less than 20 stanzas composed in my honor.
Mmm. I like the idea that having an opinion on whether you feel a game is fun to play is exactly like being in prison. Its an enlightening take, to say the least.
Voss wrote: Mmm. I like the idea that having an opinion on whether you feel a game is fun to play is exactly like being in prison. Its an enlightening take, to say the least.
I think the debate though is whether or not you can decide how a game feels to play based on reading the rules and watching batreps alone vs. actually playing.
I'm not sure anyone is debating the opinions or invalidating the feelings of those who have actually played even a handful of times.
And I'm not going to say you can't have an opinion without playing- obviously, we all have some experience gaming, and we can project and extrapolate. And we can also all remember the things we liked about previous versions, look at this ruleset and see that those things are clearly not there now, and that is certainly going to create strong opinions and feelings, all of which are valid.
But a game that doesn't include some of the things that you liked about previous editions MIGHT still be more fun than you think it will be if you actually try it.
I'll admit that I've don the same thing to other games- I assume I wouldn't like Dust or Chain of Command when I look at the models. I assume I wouldn't like alternate activations in 40k but I've never actually tried it. So I too offer opinions on things I haven't directly experienced from time to time.
Sorry to disappoint, but the only reason people have these discussions is to 'debate the opinions' and invalidate other people's positions, even before they present them.
Certainly when they preface any response before it happens by claiming the 'usual suspects' will show up with their biased opinions (as opposed to their own 'unbiased' opinion).
I think the debate though is whether or not you can decide how a game feels to play based on reading the rules and watching batreps alone vs. actually playing.
You don't have to know the lore, know the rules or ever play a w40k, but if you see one player just remove models and the other not. And after 20 min, the player with the models on the table asked the one without the models, if he wants to stop. You know that at best something was very bad about that specific game being played. And we have seen games like that at the top tables of large GT with both players being very good.
How many games of csm vs something else then IG, one has to see to know that playing csm is probably not fun . Or when someone thinks about starting the game, but all the lists he finds online are practically clones of each other. Bonus points if they don't include the models that he actually likes.
If I see a 30 plus year old get explained how interactions of army, sub faction, stratagem work and they just quit the game on the spot. I think it is telling. Specially as a lot of the problems GW games have, specially w40k, don't exist for other table top games or are an minimal.
If I see a 30 plus year old get explained how interactions of army, sub faction, stratagem work and they just quit the game on the spot. I think it is telling. Specially as a lot of the problems GW games have, specially w40k, don't exist for other table top games or are an minimal.
Indeed, there are big differences between editions 3 to 5 and the current incarnation of the game.
Returning vets need to learn the game anew.
Well I don't know, besides reading a bit of old GK codex, how prior editiont to 8th looked like. But even in 8th, the layers of interactions was lower. Sure if someone was trying to be an a-hole and spread 120 pox walker 2" from each other it was annoying. But when you have to keep track of opponents CP count, sub faction, stratagem, warlord trait etc interactions, the primaries and secondaries they do it gets a bit much. Specially when what you are playing is not a game of 15-20 models vs another 15-20 models.
As I said it is a good system for high end tournament players. The multi layer complexity helps weed out the weaker and worse players, and actually makes it easier for better players to progress. Eliminates a lot of the problems with turn 1-2 match ups. Oddly enough, a bit like in some sports.
One thing you may be doing differently is not playing them as Area Terrain.
This looks pretty open - but if you look close you can see the plexiglass footprint which would cause issues trying to cut those corners in a vehicle etc.
That does look fairly awful. I get the plexi bit actually means there is more terrain than at first glance, but it looks so artificial.
Epic Had a neat way of handling it where both players set up roughly 12 pieces of terrain between them (or it was set up by a tounrey organiser), then the highest strat ratihg picked sides. For comparison Marines were 5, 'Guard 2. The highest got to choose which long edge or which corner and put down the first unit (garrisons and then stuff in the deployment zone).
I confess to lacking the enthusiasm to open my 40k rulebook, but the Epic one is online and easily cut and paste...
We recommend the use of terrain features when playing tournament games in preference to modular terrain (see the Appendices for a more detailed description of the two types of terrain).
• Terrain features can be of pretty much any type, but should be roughly 15-30cm across. Hills can be up to twice this size. See below for a note of how to deal with rivers and roads.
• Divide the table into 60cm (2 foot) square areas. The total number of terrain features placed should be equal to twice the number of 60cm square areas. For example, if you were playing on a 120cm by 180 cm, you would have six areas and should place 12 terrain features.
• Within the limits above, place between 0-4 features in each 60cm square.
• The terrain may include one river. Rivers count as a terrain feature for each area that they run through. They need to enter on one table edge and leave from another, and should not be greater in length than the shortest table edge. For example, on a 120cm by 180cm table, the river should not be more than 120cm long. There should be a bridge or ford
every 30cm along the river.
• Roads may be added after all terrain features have been placed. Any number of roads may be used. They need to enter on one table edge and either exit from another or end at a terrain feature
Gadzilla666 wrote: I "feel" that it shows that gwknows that their fancy new terrain rules don't work very well to curb the excessive lethality that they've built into most of the 9th edition codexes outside of big Obscurring area pieces, and that's why they spam them all over their tournament boards.
They do a good job, really. The use, or lack thereof, of barricades and other such terrain isn't mutually exclusive. Those things work fine and I think the avoidance is more, because they wanted something to help vehicles. Barricades create a problem for larger footprints, which can move over, but not stand on that terrain and dense is the one thing that vehicles can pick up, so that was basically the go to.
I don't think the problem is terrain at all. It's the power of ooLOS shooting and decidedly over tuned armies. It looks more and more likely that Custodes points were set based on Tau, Eldar, and perhaps new Nids.
I actually prefer the GW terrain to planet bowling ball of the past. That said I personally prefer a more asymetrical tabel where each quarter has a decnet trrain setup but it is not a mirror. I also really like some tall thematic piece in the center of the board which the gw system lacks (like i have one big piece for every theme of terrain I have built) I don't find people in my area insisting on the GW style often but its a decent enough baseline to go by
G00fySmiley wrote: I actually prefer the GW terrain to planet bowling ball of the past. That said I personally prefer a more asymetrical tabel where each quarter has a decnet trrain setup but it is not a mirror. I also really like some tall thematic piece in the center of the board which the gw system lacks (like i have one big piece for every theme of terrain I have built) I don't find people in my area insisting on the GW style often but its a decent enough baseline to go by
If setup is purely symmetrical, choice of battle side will be superfluous. One roll of D6 less.
G00fySmiley wrote: I actually prefer the GW terrain to planet bowling ball of the past. That said I personally prefer a more asymmetrical tabel where each quarter has a decnet trrain setup but it is not a mirror. I also really like some tall thematic piece in the center of the board which the gw system lacks (like i have one big piece for every theme of terrain I have built) I don't find people in my area insisting on the GW style often but its a decent enough baseline to go by
If setup is purely symmetrical, choice of battle side will be superfluous. One roll of D6 less.
true, and by asymmetrical I don't mean one barren side just not necessarily the exact same sized footprint and maybe one quarter of the table has 2 medium and a small piece of terrain modeled as burnt out shops or shipping containers along with a few little scatter pieces of cargo boxes, meanwhile the opposite quarter has one larger piece as a blown out 2 story building husk and scatter terrain of burnt out cars around it. Both quarters have cover and lien of sight blocking but its not just "here are 4 large building ruins, plus smaller corner pieces and 2 identical diagonal pieces on the edge since they came in the terrain kit"
still i don't hate the gw setup since at least its playable
Gadzilla666 wrote: I "feel" that it shows that gwknows that their fancy new terrain rules don't work very well to curb the excessive lethality that they've built into most of the 9th edition codexes outside of big Obscurring area pieces, and that's why they spam them all over their tournament boards.
They do a good job, really. The use, or lack thereof, of barricades and other such terrain isn't mutually exclusive. Those things work fine and I think the avoidance is more, because they wanted something to help vehicles. Barricades create a problem for larger footprints, which can move over, but not stand on that terrain and dense is the one thing that vehicles can pick up, so that was basically the go to.
That's a major concession for a game that used to focus more heavily on infantry, as well as allow vehicles to enter ruins, roll over barricades, etc.
Ugly boards because the terrain rules are sorely lacking in certain areas, basically.
Because playing on the same symmetrical mirror tables over and over again leads to high player burnout as boredom creeps in and things become super sterile.
Insectum7 wrote: That's a major concession for a game that used to focus more heavily on infantry, as well as allow vehicles to enter ruins, roll over barricades, etc.
Ugly boards because the terrain rules are sorely lacking in certain areas, basically.
Some tournaments allow super heavies to ignore terrain less than 3", which makes some ruins a lot more traversable. The rules actually contain solutions to these problems - people just don't really use them. It could be made that barricades don't have unstable so that you can technically stop on them or tournaments could rule that vehicles don't care about unstable under an inch.
Obscuring terrain also does not need to be ruins. It could be a crop of tall trees, a ridgeline, a heavily burning wreck, etc.
Tournament terrain is going to adhere to market forces and go for the cheapest option that still serves the purpose and looks nice.
G00fySmiley wrote: I actually prefer the GW terrain to planet bowling ball of the past. That said I personally prefer a more asymetrical tabel where each quarter has a decnet trrain setup but it is not a mirror. I also really like some tall thematic piece in the center of the board which the gw system lacks (like i have one big piece for every theme of terrain I have built) I don't find people in my area insisting on the GW style often but its a decent enough baseline to go by
If setup is purely symmetrical, choice of battle side will be superfluous. One roll of D6 less.
The problem is you still have to roll for attacker and defender to see who deploys the first unit. Another benefit of mirrored tables is you don't have to move your army to the other side of the table.
You're at a downside if you are the defender on a symmetrical board, ideally the downside of being the defender and placing units down first is offset by a slight advantage in terms of terrain.
auticus wrote: Because playing on the same symmetrical mirror tables over and over again leads to high player burnout as boredom creeps in and things become super sterile.
I get that some people can feel that way. Terrain looks tickle the back of my brain occasionally, but it's never been something that disrupted my enjoyment so far. Were I ambitious I'd be buying a 3D printer and trying my hand at making alternatives.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I "feel" that it shows that gwknows that their fancy new terrain rules don't work very well to curb the excessive lethality that they've built into most of the 9th edition codexes outside of big Obscurring area pieces, and that's why they spam them all over their tournament boards.
They do a good job, really. The use, or lack thereof, of barricades and other such terrain isn't mutually exclusive. Those things work fine and I think the avoidance is more, because they wanted something to help vehicles. Barricades create a problem for larger footprints, which can move over, but not stand on that terrain and dense is the one thing that vehicles can pick up, so that was basically the go to.
I don't think the problem is terrain at all. It's the power of ooLOS shooting and decidedly over tuned armies. It looks more and more likely that Custodes points were set based on Tau, Eldar, and perhaps new Nids.
No, they don't, really.
Yes, barricades can slow down, or even flat out stop big/slow/bracketed vehicles, but they also slow down infantry, and at best give them LIGHT COVER, so the vehicle can at least shoot at them. Meanwhile, those big ruin walls flat out stop any vehicles without FLY, and since they're all OBSCURRING + BREACHABLE, infantry get full protection from shooting, while being able to "Kool-aid Man" right through them at no cost to their movement.
And vehicles only benefiting from DENSE is one of the many problems with the current terrain rules. But even then, it's not much help if all of the DENSE cover is on the outer edges of the board, unless you only intend to use your vehicles as static gun inplacements. There needs to be a greater mix of terrain types spread throughout the board to offer advantages/disadvantages to more unit types. If it has to be symmetrical for "competitive fairness", fine. But you shouldn't be over-relying on a couple of types, and if you have to, then that means that the others aren't working well enough.
Agreed on ignore LOS shooting and some armies being over tuned. It's bizarre that whoever wrote the Tyranids codex figured out how ooLOS shooting should work, but it didn't carry over into Tau and other armies.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I "feel" that it shows that gwknows that their fancy new terrain rules don't work very well to curb the excessive lethality that they've built into most of the 9th edition codexes outside of big Obscurring area pieces, and that's why they spam them all over their tournament boards.
They do a good job, really. The use, or lack thereof, of barricades and other such terrain isn't mutually exclusive. Those things work fine and I think the avoidance is more, because they wanted something to help vehicles. Barricades create a problem for larger footprints, which can move over, but not stand on that terrain and dense is the one thing that vehicles can pick up, so that was basically the go to.
I don't think the problem is terrain at all. It's the power of ooLOS shooting and decidedly over tuned armies. It looks more and more likely that Custodes points were set based on Tau, Eldar, and perhaps new Nids.
No, they don't, really.
Yes, barricades can slow down, or even flat out stop big/slow/bracketed vehicles, but they also slow down infantry, and at best give them LIGHT COVER, so the vehicle can at least shoot at them. Meanwhile, those big ruin walls flat out stop any vehicles without FLY, and since they're all OBSCURRING + BREACHABLE, infantry get full protection from shooting, while being able to "Kool-aid Man" right through them at no cost to their movement.
And vehicles only benefiting from DENSE is one of the many problems with the current terrain rules. But even then, it's not much help if all of the DENSE cover is on the outer edges of the board, unless you only intend to use your vehicles as static gun inplacements. There needs to be a greater mix of terrain types spread throughout the board to offer advantages/disadvantages to more unit types. If it has to be symmetrical for "competitive fairness", fine. But you shouldn't be over-relying on a couple of types, and if you have to, then that means that the others aren't working well enough.
Agreed on ignore LOS shooting and some armies being over tuned. It's bizarre that whoever wrote the Tyranids codex figured out how ooLOS shooting should work, but it didn't carry over into Tau and other armies.
Yea I get you. I'd like to see dense occasionally interspersed rather than cast out to the edges. The concern there is a couple pieces could dictate the whole flow of the game and cripple Orks.
I think the best way to solve that problem though is to just make vehicles without invulnerables or damage mitigation better.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Making all table layouts the same makes chosing a side completly irrelevant. It shouldn't.
Why is this important? With the IGOUGO system why punish the person who lost a single die roll?
you're already punishing the person that lost a single dice roll tho (turn order)
When we say "asymetric terrain" we don't mean one half covered in ruins and the other fully exposed, just something that doesnt look so sterile. Maybe one side as more smaller ruins than the other so if i'm running vehicles, i should pick the side with bigger ruins but if i'm running infantry heavy, i'd rather have the multiple small ruins.
Its a level of tactics that actually requires skill and lowers the impact of listbuilding since you can't just build a list based on what you know the terrain layout will be like
Yea I get you. I'd like to see dense occasionally interspersed rather than cast out to the edges. The concern there is a couple pieces could dictate the whole flow of the game and cripple Orks.
It has the same problem as the current gak mission design. They both favor specific army lists and reward specific styles of game play. Together they create an environment where every game is largely exactly the same each and every time. It is why there is no diversity of winning factions across events, no diversity of units, no diversity of army lists within a faction. It is why we see the same faction with the same army list win over and over and over.
The only reason this unimaginative terrain layout exists is to remove a random / uncontrollable aspect to pander to and make the game more predictable for competitive players.
oni wrote: Together they create an environment where every game is largely exactly the same each and every time.
Not even true in the slightest.
It is why there is no diversity of winning factions across events, no diversity of units, no diversity of army lists within a faction. It is why we see the same faction with the same army list win over and over and over.
This has absolutely nothing to do with terrain. Lists are absolutely not the same at all. There is no net listing in 9th.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I "feel" that it shows that gwknows that their fancy new terrain rules don't work very well to curb the excessive lethality that they've built into most of the 9th edition codexes outside of big Obscurring area pieces, and that's why they spam them all over their tournament boards.
They do a good job, really. The use, or lack thereof, of barricades and other such terrain isn't mutually exclusive. Those things work fine and I think the avoidance is more, because they wanted something to help vehicles. Barricades create a problem for larger footprints, which can move over, but not stand on that terrain and dense is the one thing that vehicles can pick up, so that was basically the go to.
I don't think the problem is terrain at all. It's the power of ooLOS shooting and decidedly over tuned armies. It looks more and more likely that Custodes points were set based on Tau, Eldar, and perhaps new Nids.
No, they don't, really.
Yes, barricades can slow down, or even flat out stop big/slow/bracketed vehicles, but they also slow down infantry, and at best give them LIGHT COVER, so the vehicle can at least shoot at them. Meanwhile, those big ruin walls flat out stop any vehicles without FLY, and since they're all OBSCURRING + BREACHABLE, infantry get full protection from shooting, while being able to "Kool-aid Man" right through them at no cost to their movement.
And vehicles only benefiting from DENSE is one of the many problems with the current terrain rules. But even then, it's not much help if all of the DENSE cover is on the outer edges of the board, unless you only intend to use your vehicles as static gun inplacements. There needs to be a greater mix of terrain types spread throughout the board to offer advantages/disadvantages to more unit types. If it has to be symmetrical for "competitive fairness", fine. But you shouldn't be over-relying on a couple of types, and if you have to, then that means that the others aren't working well enough.
Agreed on ignore LOS shooting and some armies being over tuned. It's bizarre that whoever wrote the Tyranids codex figured out how ooLOS shooting should work, but it didn't carry over into Tau and other armies.
Yea I get you. I'd like to see dense occasionally interspersed rather than cast out to the edges. The concern there is a couple pieces could dictate the whole flow of the game and cripple Orks.
I think the best way to solve that problem though is to just make vehicles without invulnerables or damage mitigation better.
I don't really know how they'd go about making vehicles without invuls and damage mitigation better besides just making them cheaper, and if they swing too hard in that direction we could end up with parking lots again. I'd just add that TITANIC units ignore anything less 3" for movement houserule you mentioned above and allow "normal" vehicles to benefit from LIGHT COVER, at least from area terrain.
I don't really know how they'd go about making vehicles without invuls and damage mitigation better besides just making them cheaper, and if they swing too hard in that direction we could end up with parking lots again. I'd just add that TITANIC units ignore anything less 3" for movement houserule you mentioned above and allow "normal" vehicles to benefit from LIGHT COVER, at least from area terrain.
higher toughness, more wounds, 2+ save on any heavy vehicle, 3+ on light vehicles.
I don't really know how they'd go about making vehicles without invuls and damage mitigation better besides just making them cheaper, and if they swing too hard in that direction we could end up with parking lots again. I'd just add that TITANIC units ignore anything less 3" for movement houserule you mentioned above and allow "normal" vehicles to benefit from LIGHT COVER, at least from area terrain.
higher toughness, more wounds, 2+ save on any heavy vehicle, 3+ on light vehicles.
Make vehicles tanky
I meant without rewriting all of the current vehicle datasheets. Right now the only vehicles that are waiting on 9th edition rules are the Venom Crawler, KLOS, and everything in the Guard Codex. Oh, and Knights (ugh).
I could vaguely understand it from the "nooo... you can't play 40k competitively" crowd - but the idea you'd turn up to tournaments and terrain would be random doesn't strike me as enjoyable at all.
I don't know though whether the terrain explicitly causes an exchange meta. I think 40k has sort of always had that at the top. The issue I think is that damage is so high, you get so reliable and consistent exchanges. So if you pushed your whole army forward to try at target saturation, opponents just go "thanks, I'll kill your whole army". I think at BS3 with inevitable rerolls dense just isn't a consistent enough swing to matter.
I'd be tempted to say less terrain should have breachable - but I think it would represent quite a big change and it would further exaggerate the advantages of fly. But it might be sensible if you could sort out the above.
Tyel wrote: So if you pushed your whole army forward to try at target saturation, opponents just go "thanks, I'll kill your whole army".
This is a thing I feel people struggle with - you absolutely don't need to engage your full army at every possible opportunity. It's also why ooLOS is a problem and your interaction Tau becomes just whether or not you can position to avoid extra AP on the good units.
I think the way they handle line of sight needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch, and that the terrain rules keep having problems because they are inadequate for fixing a fundamentally broken LoS mechanic.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the way they handle line of sight needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch, and that the terrain rules keep having problems because they are inadequate for fixing a fundamentally broken LoS mechanic.
"If any weapon shoots a target it does not see, it can only hit on unmodified 6's"
Well, presumably the actions would all happen on their turn - move rhino, blow away any other visible units, and go to town.
Vehicles aren't trash so much as too many of them are a liability. Sometimes I can't roll 5s to save me life so mentally it's the same as not having an invulnerable.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of indirect fire in 9th edition, other than the somewhat unintuitive interaction with dense cover.
Dense cover is a bit clunky in action. It is odd how much better a 10 ton tank (toe in a single mm of its base) is at hiding in forests than infantry (need all the infantry in or behind the forest).
The massive flaw with regard to indirect fire is as usual the GW points setting team (probably a team of 1 intern) and the power creep/undercosting they are doing.
9th edition codexes:
Space Marine indirect - Fine.
Death Guard indirect - Fine.
Sisters indirect - Fine.
Orks indirect - Badly undercosted initially and 'fixed' amateurishly.
Tau indirect - Insanely undercosted.
Eldar indirect - Somewhere between badly undercosted and insanely undercosted.
Tyranid indirect - Taking steps in the right direction.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the way they handle line of sight needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch, and that the terrain rules keep having problems because they are inadequate for fixing a fundamentally broken LoS mechanic.
All they really need to do is make height classifications or change LoS from true to base-to-base. It's not a complex fix.
Spare thine rage for the eventual release of codex chaos space marines..,
I have an inclination that it will need it.
Also seconded on fixed tables.
If lethality is such a problem , maybee tone it down? Or here another intersting thought, cutting down the size of the boards and expanding the threat range of a WHOLE LOT OF ARMIES, was a stupid idea? NVM that the terrain keywords and associated rules are just.... meh, further why not hybridise the old system of a cover throw with the new system of +1 SV?
If your armore = better than cover save, then +1 if your armor worse than cover save then cover save. (4+ standard once again) make manouvre and seizeing cover actually matter...
Spare thine rage for the eventual release of codex chaos space marines..,
I have an inclination that it will need it.
But then all the codex creep and "new rules only exist to sell new kits" crowd will be left confused!
I do think we have and can fairly state that we already had codexcreep, respectively a severe case of it, ever since drukhari.
I also think that GW in true GW fashion is quite likely to produce another lashwhip dp obliterator debacle that makes playing regular CSM annoying as hell once again.
I personally despise standard terrain layouts, they ruin the immersion of the game (yes this is a game, not a sport), remove the innovation and tactics that adapting your play to different battlefields brings and its just boring and predictable to play on the same layout every time.
That said..... I fully understand why larger tournaments use standard layouts, when you are at the stage of needing hundreds of tables worth of terrain then a standard layout is really the only way to go - personally I'd still like to see a few different layout types to mix it up. These could cover different amounts of terrain but also different varieties - urban, rural, wasteland - all offer different terrain types and rules.
The bigger issue is with game rules - I actually like the base terrain rules and their keyword system, they work well in principle but they just don't survive contact with the absurdity that is the newer codexs that have been coming out and jumping the shark by about 20M.
The smaller table size was something I didn't like but again could understand but they have continually exasperated the table size issue by constantly increasing units movement speed, adding additional abilities to move more and ignore penalties of movement and on top of that they have been wholesale increasing weapons ranges on units that are moving faster on a smaller table!!!!!! For feths sake what did they expect to happen!!
For me all these discussions boil down to the same problem, the base rules of 9th are actually pretty good or even very good - but the codex design, layering of mass amounts of additional rules, mountains of strats and the codex creep (more like leap!) are completely ruining the game.
Spare thine rage for the eventual release of codex chaos space marines..,
I have an inclination that it will need it.
But then all the codex creep and "new rules only exist to sell new kits" crowd will be left confused!
I do think we have and can fairly state that we already had codexcreep, respectively a severe case of it, ever since drukhari.
I also think that GW in true GW fashion is quite likely to produce another lashwhip dp obliterator debacle that makes playing regular CSM annoying as hell once again.
It's not a consistent creep I wouldn't say, GSC aren't making waves, sisters and DG both made some ok results but were at best the bridesmaid rather than the bride, Tsons barely made a dent. Essentially, GK & Orks were a flash in the pan, Drukhari and AM were OP and everyone else was just "ok". If it was consistent codex creep it would be every new book that came out, but it isn't. The "good" books are getting better, the "bad" books are probably still very competitive into the rest of the crowd.
If that was aimed at my HBMC, the same bunch that insist that GW intentionally shifts rules to sell new stuff and that every book is aimed to catch in the WAAC tournament hopper stereotype because they have to have the new hotness. Those same ones who would claim any new kit is obviously OP to sell etc.
That said..... I fully understand why larger tournaments use standard layouts, when you are at the stage of needing hundreds of tables worth of terrain then a standard layout is really the only way to go - personally I'd still like to see a few different layout types to mix it up. These could cover different amounts of terrain but also different varieties - urban, rural, wasteland - all offer different terrain types and rules.
I agree with this. I didn't talk about this part in my post on the first page but I am not entirely against using standard load outs for tournaments. Having 3 load outs instead of 2 as well as utilizing the other terrain types on more balanced boards would make the games a little more interesting IMHO. Things like Dense terrain are a little wonky with units and vehicles but its the only way to get a -1 to hit on the table right now. I try to look at terrain as what bonuses they are granting on the table and right now ruins grant a nice +1 Armour, Defensible, and Obscure but its not the only bonuses that exist in 9th, just the only ones that exist in tournaments.
If that is how they are playtesting the game, it kind of sheds a light as to why everything is getting extra AP, as they are play testing all the units with +1 armour that they probably shouldn't have.
Spare thine rage for the eventual release of codex chaos space marines..,
I have an inclination that it will need it.
But then all the codex creep and "new rules only exist to sell new kits" crowd will be left confused!
I do think we have and can fairly state that we already had codexcreep, respectively a severe case of it, ever since drukhari.
I also think that GW in true GW fashion is quite likely to produce another lashwhip dp obliterator debacle that makes playing regular CSM annoying as hell once again.
It's not a consistent creep I wouldn't say, GSC aren't making waves, sisters and DG both made some ok results but were at best the bridesmaid rather than the bride, Tsons barely made a dent. Essentially, GK & Orks were a flash in the pan, Drukhari and AM were OP and everyone else was just "ok". If it was consistent codex creep it would be every new book that came out, but it isn't. The "good" books are getting better, the "bad" books are probably still very competitive into the rest of the crowd.
If that was aimed at my HBMC, the same bunch that insist that GW intentionally shifts rules to sell new stuff and that every book is aimed to catch in the WAAC tournament hopper stereotype because they have to have the new hotness. Those same ones who would claim any new kit is obviously OP to sell etc.
to be fair on the ork front it was GW acting quickly on the codex. for some reason they are super fast to nerf the NPC factions, I imagine if anything is too good in the Tyranid faction they will do the same. Orks had the freebootas buggy and plane list that was the only list making top tables. GW response within 3 weeks of codex release was to limit every faction to 2 planes, only allow only 1 unit of each buggy type so they have to be taken in clunky squadrons or just one of each type there were a few other nerfs in there to the book as a whole in there too. To be fair mission accomplished they are right in the middle of the pack now, I just wish GW was equal in speed for dealing with overpowered stuff from other books. Eldar and Harlies really cannot believe how good that book is looking and the weekend tournament results are showing. If they are treated equal both would get serious nerfs soon, but they are not an NPC faction so i forsee them ruling the roost for the next 6 months with only minor nerfs.
I think Ork timelines can be exaggerated because of the weird/greedy approach to releasing the Codex. So if you bought the Snagga box you got the book about 6~ weeks before it was individually released in early September. You then had a further 8~ weeks before the November FAQ undermined Speedwaaagh.
Which then produces rather weird results because in some places you had tournaments with the book being valid for about 3 months - and others for barely 1.
Tyel wrote: I could vaguely understand it from the "nooo... you can't play 40k competitively" crowd - but the idea you'd turn up to tournaments and terrain would be random doesn't strike me as enjoyable at all.
That's literally how terrain was handled for tournaments for decades until ITC blandified things in 8th. The idea of set, non-random terrain is insanely new.
You'd get some amazing tables before this boring cookie cutter suburbification of battle fields, too.
Tyel wrote: I think Ork timelines can be exaggerated because of the weird/greedy approach to releasing the Codex. So if you bought the Snagga box you got the book about 6~ weeks before it was individually released in early September. You then had a further 8~ weeks before the November FAQ undermined Speedwaaagh.
Which then produces rather weird results because in some places you had tournaments with the book being valid for about 3 months - and others for barely 1.
most tournaments do not allow a new codex if it is limited release, I am sure there were some out there that did as its up to the event organizer but for the most part it was just about a month of play pre nerf. Again it acoomplished making the strongest ork build (and only the one competitive build holding up the codex) a middle of the road army. The complaint other than the rest of the book needing a look is that its was such a quick response to beat it back after so long of dark eldar and admech supremacy. meanwhile we have Custodes needing some nerfs but can't have an imperium army see quick nerfs.
G00fySmiley wrote: The complaint other than the rest of the book needing a look is that its was such a quick response to beat it back after so long of dark eldar and admech supremacy. meanwhile we have Custodes needing some nerfs but can't have an imperium army see quick nerfs.
GK got nerfed in 3 months, comparing the DE who stayed the same for almost a year, and then nerfs to other stuff made them awesome again. Harlis were great for months in early 9th ed, and now they are great again. On the other hand a ton of marines have been bad since the 8th post 2.0 nerfs and recived no fixs. GK waited more then half of 9th to get +1W. IG have been bad since soup died, and are slotted in for the last 2-3 books of the 9th ed. That is possible entire edition of being bad.
G00fySmiley wrote: The complaint other than the rest of the book needing a look is that its was such a quick response to beat it back after so long of dark eldar and admech supremacy. meanwhile we have Custodes needing some nerfs but can't have an imperium army see quick nerfs.
GK got nerfed in 3 months, comparing the DE who stayed the same for almost a year, and then nerfs to other stuff made them awesome again. Harlis were great for months in early 9th ed, and now they are great again. On the other hand a ton of marines have been bad since the 8th post 2.0 nerfs and recived no fixs. GK waited more then half of 9th to get +1W. IG have been bad since soup died, and are slotted in for the last 2-3 books of the 9th ed. That is possible entire edition of being bad.
I agree on guard, i in my head actually never think of them as a main faction more in the NPC catagory with orks and Tyrranids. While greyknights were nerfed (which was needed) much like orks they did it in a way that did not invalidate themand rather left with a few middle of the road builds. GK areunfortunately lacking the tools to deal with some matchups though, so like orks, who they are about on par with power wise, they run into some hard counters and even share one in custodes.
Harlies are the new boogie man, the meta will adapt but they and craftworlds are just to good for the points and have to many tools in their box to deal with for most armies.
I disagree with in 8th marines ever being truly bad though, they were lower mid tier sure and some of the specialty marine chapters liek Gk have had it worse, but plain codex space marines has in the 5 editions i have been playing never truly been the worst book bottom 1/3, absolutely, but they are never allowed into 7th edition orks or current imperial guard/chaos demon levels of useless.
No, they're from that YouTube channel. He's been posting to 40k terrain groups on Facebook for a while, but has just set up the YT channel to show off BatReps and terrain and other things.
Having gone from last playing in 5th edition (with terrain made from random things from our college dorm room) to trying to figure out 9th edition, I can confirm terrain has been a nightmare to understand and remember. I'm still trying to figure out when I want to put my guys in the big ruins building and when I want to put them behind it. I feel like a well designed terrain ruleset would encourage you to hide dudes inside buildings pretty much every time because they're good defensive positions.
I went back and looked at the 5th edition rules for terrain and line of sight and they are so much simpler.
I'm a vehicle heavy guard player and I always found myself wishing the old tables were larger (I wanted to flex my 240" earthshaker range so badly), but I understood why that wouldn't really work. The smaller tables are a bit of a disappointment, although it certainly make the demolisher take a much more viable option (especially as I run spotting detail, giving it 30" range). Circling back to the topic of the thread though, I feel the smaller table size has limited the battlefield layout. For what it's worth, we used to design out dorm room battlefield to have a covered approach for troops and a more open approach for vehicles iirc. I don't think that's really as viable with the lethality these days though (and almost certainly not with the current guard codex). That said, I used to only count on my tanks to be effective for one turn because my friend played eldar and he could just keep causing crew shaken (or worse) once he got ahold of them...so I guess not much has changed there haha.
Grimtuff wrote: Awful awful homogenisation that the usual crowd are going to toss themselves off over, just like with the "standard" board sizes for 40k.
I'll continue to ignore both.
I like the new board sizes. Games are quicker and melee armies are more of a threat. On the old 6x4, especially on short edges deployment, a melee army got shot off the table before doing anything unless they all came in from DS. The only issue is it feels like weapon ranges were made for the old, larger table size. My melee guys with bolt pistols shouldn't be in firing range of the entire enemy army by turn 2.
Grimtuff wrote: Awful awful homogenisation that the usual crowd are going to toss themselves off over, just like with the "standard" board sizes for 40k.
I'll continue to ignore both.
a melee army got shot off the table before doing anything
Just use more terrain bro something something planet bowling ball
