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.

As to the discussion of cylinders and whatnot, I prefer defined size categories that everything fits within rather than anything that must be measured.

Whilst largely impossible to remove completly, I feel that imaginary invisible cylinders lead to "modelling for advantage" for more.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As to the discussion of cylinders and whatnot, I prefer defined size categories that everything fits within rather than anything that must be measured.

Whilst largely impossible to remove completly, I feel that imaginary invisible cylinders lead to "modelling for advantage" for more.

Firstly, how do you model for advantage if your models volume is defined by it's base? Secondly, why can't it be both? I'm pretty sure thats how Infinity works. Your models volume is as wide as its base and has high as its category, hence why it has little templates for measuring LoS you can put down.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As to the discussion of cylinders and whatnot, I prefer defined size categories that everything fits within rather than anything that must be measured.

Whilst largely impossible to remove completly, I feel that imaginary invisible cylinders lead to "modelling for advantage" for more.

Firstly, how do you model for advantage if your models volume is defined by it's base?

Exactly what I was going to say. The defined silhouettes means that you're modeling for modeling since it means squat for the actual LoS of the game.

Some "cylinder" games just have it so the top of the cylinder is the highest point on the model.

Part of the reason why the game is unbalanced at times is because of the pure amount of information players know going into a tournament.

Such information is terrain, and tournaments should have varied boards/tables. Some very heavy density, some around middle, some quite a minimal amount of density.

When you are drawn your opponent, you are also drawn a board at random also. It is then just as much pot luck what board you get as to what opponent you get. You will be guaranteed at least one game on each board type (would need an algorithm of sorts to sort players and tables, it would take a bit of work but it would be possible). Some may get 3 or 4 games on the same type of board, some may get a more varied type of game.

Plan for that then, at which point the best players will still rise to the top but won't be able to guarantee wins necessarily just because their army is incredibly skewed to a take huge advantage of terrain format.

But hey, I'd really mix things up if I ran a tournament anyway, needing to bring an army that can compose a 1000, 1500 and 2000 point list the would be based upon the round, custom games/objectives that also can't be planned for necessarily.... The best players will adapt, everyone else will be challenged and have a good time. Yeah it would be a fair bit of planning/effort on the organisers part, but that's part of the problem I perceive, people just want to run a tournament in a copy and paste format to try and earn some fairly easy money (and as an event organiser myself in sports, people aren't running tournaments for the sake of the game, they want to get some money out of it in the end).

Dude the OP blatantly demonstrated that the game doesn’t work unless the board is saturated with line of sight blocking terrain. The discussion is the fact that any other sort of terrain is a mild inconvenience at best when it comes to the first turn advantage, and most alpha strikes shoot/charge right through it. At worst the terrain has one or more of the 75% of terrain rules that are irrelevant.
With the current terrain rules and lethality of the edition, the game is fundamentallly unbalanced and gives a 10% advantage to the first turn.
Unless lethality is scaled back or terrain rules actually significantly reduce shooting effectiveness significantly more so than it does now that first turn advantage is going to dominate who goes first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe we need to bring back the 4+ Cover save...

I am definitely pro 4+ blanket cover save over how the game functions right now.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Part of the reason why the game is unbalanced at times is because of the pure amount of information players know going into a tournament.

Such information is terrain, and tournaments should have varied boards/tables. Some very heavy density, some around middle, some quite a minimal amount of density.

When you are drawn your opponent, you are also drawn a board at random also. It is then just as much pot luck what board you get as to what opponent you get. You will be guaranteed at least one game on each board type (would need an algorithm of sorts to sort players and tables, it would take a bit of work but it would be possible). Some may get 3 or 4 games on the same type of board, some may get a more varied type of game.

Plan for that then, at which point the best players will still rise to the top but won't be able to guarantee wins necessarily just because their army is incredibly skewed to a take huge advantage of terrain format.

But hey, I'd really mix things up if I ran a tournament anyway, needing to bring an army that can compose a 1000, 1500 and 2000 point list the would be based upon the round, custom games/objectives that also can't be planned for necessarily.... The best players will adapt, everyone else will be challenged and have a good time. Yeah it would be a fair bit of planning/effort on the organisers part, but that's part of the problem I perceive, people just want to run a tournament in a copy and paste format to try and earn some fairly easy money (and as an event organiser myself in sports, people aren't running tournaments for the sake of the game, they want to get some money out of it in the end).

Tables with varying terrain (not symmetrical) is what many 40K tourneys were years/decades back. It didn't really impact who'd ultimately win the tourneys; better players with the tuned lists won, whether RTT, Ard Boyz, or GTs. Those same players also learned about, at a minimum, what types of terrain and density would be used for an event which impacted their list design. Symmetrical terrain was a response to uneven terrain layouts which held the potential to sway the outcome of the game based on a single dice roll. Tourney players vocalized their concerns and organizers responded to those paying for the events. My first experience with the symmetrical terrain at a large event was Circa NOVA 2012 (5th edition). Some people don't care for it, but looking at the number of large events today which utilize the concept is an indicator the players so pay and attend these events want it or, at least, are accepting of it.

To the OP. I am enjoying the GW layout. I made my own and one can place whatever terrain that suits their aesthetic as it is based on keywords. GW rules explicitly state players can do this. As far as the layout, I found it very challenging in a good way. In most previous games (tourney and pick-up), this particular layout opened up the usage of Defensible, which I rarely had the opportunity to use. There were sufficient LOS blockers as well as usable lanes of fire. Additionally, there is very little issues where one encountered wobbly models; playable terrain. Terrain layout still did not seem to aid flyers or titanic models, but I think that is more a 9th edition issue than terrain layouts.

The only thing I did not care for was how models/terrain pieces could be bumped and slide on the plexiglass. To remedy that, I purchased a set of GW sized tourney bases from 3D6 Wargaming that replicates the plexiglass bases but uses the same material game mats and objectives are made from.

I'm sure more improvements will be made once the GW Tourney circuit ends. I'm confident Mike Brandt will go through and assess what worked and what needed improvement for the next series of tourneys. He has always been open to constructive criticism and adjusts accordingly.

If you want to play an actual 3 player game check out Kill Team Dominator 600 (KTD600).

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/801635.page

Pretty slick and balanced style, but yes terrain is a major factor in it as well.