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.

It's not just the tables. It's the edition, and the codicies. Marines are supposed to be able to function with minimal cover, and they just can't.

Also, we have a ton of terrain, just not much blocks LOS. If there has to be a bunch of walls on the table to make things work out, I don't think that's a good sign. Do you? Armies that actually benefit from cover sure love it.

I think GW is trying to force players into some kind of mandatory houseruling to fit amy particular game. Forge the narrative and what not. You can play with no terrain or with mountains everywhere, they don't care. Given that terrain is such an integral part of any military strategy, this is, I think, the biggest flaw in the BRB.

My group realized back in 6th that we'd have to do something about shooty spam builds, but nobody likes houserules for every game, so adding LOS blocking terrain was a good decision, imo. It'll still leave a few lanes open, but you can play the movement game much better with 2 or 3 lanes, than with an open board, like Paradigm said.

LOS blocks are much more important than forests, small ruins or barricades. In fact, those only benefit shooty armies even more, because your assault will be slowed down by too much terrain. As an assault army, I'd in fact rather play with a completely empty board, than with lots of terrain, but no LOS blockers.

I have a few people in my local meta that love to gun line, or play mobile shooting armies but they don't want blocking terrain. As an Ork player, I insist there be at least 2 or 3 blocking pieces that get placed in strategic places so both armies can take advantage of it.

It makes no sense from a 'narrative' or even a 'competitive' standpoint deny blocking terrain. I love to play assaulty Orks. You shouldn't deny one play style simply because it would put your play style at a slight disadvantage (While the other army is put at a HUGE disadvantage, with shooting being the least disadvantaged). I've played enough games with only cover providing terrain to know that getting just cover saves is not enough to get an assault army up the board with enough numbers to matter. Even for Orks.

I feel bad for any player who is forced to deal with people not willing to compromise. It makes a game that can be very enjoyable despite its flaws to becoming an infuriating few hours that one wished they had spent elsewhere.

I likes the explicit terrain rules in 6th