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.

There's nothing wrong with minimal LOS... in the context of a narrative scenario, say desert warfare in North Africa. Strategic command probably wouldn't send a bunch of alpine troops kitted for winter warfare.

The whole idea of standardized terrain is bizarre from that perspective. But otherwise you can't establish a competitive yardstick, I guess.

Battle of kursk on the open steppes of the ussr comes to mind.

 Jancoran wrote:
ITC tournament standard is an LOS blocker in the middle as well as 25% around the rest of it. We got out our Gekkalculators and figured out that with the three standard deployment zones, the best way to arrange a board was buildings at 45 degree angles towards the center point, and an LOS blocker in the middle. this created the maximum chance fora fair deployment zone, given the three primary types of deployment. Fun fact.

Sounds good to me. Still not really ideal though. For someone who uses Heralds to summon, and plenty of CC units, not having LOS blocking terrain pretty much hands me a loss (if I go up against a shooty army like Tau or WarCon).

I see los blocking terrain being a necessity as a serious irritation. It's basically an admission that shooting is undercosted because assault units need a free handicap.

There are of course those magical assault units that dont need this handicap and then they become godly on this kind of board.

I also don't find the game very tactically appealing when there is no LOS blocking terrain. It almost reduces it to the level of a board game where the best list wins.

It basically means units (if they have enough range) can just shoot anything on the map. At this point it just feels like rolling dice and the terrain and tactics don't even mean much. In other words, no LOS terrain = List vs List with the best math hammer winning.

I like my positions to actually matter. Secondly, I also hate not using impassable terrain. It allows models to just seamlessly roll though the entire map.

There have been games where I've hidden a unit behind cover and my opponent just charges straight through all the terrain, including the walls of buildings. I was like "wtf".

Now I always talk it over with my opponents beforehand.

Even with LOS blocking terrain, it's exceedingly difficult to get out of the LOS of scatterbikes and other fast shooters. Unless your terrain piece is MASSIVE.

Doesnt matter WHY it makes sense. it does. That is enough for me.

I come to enjoy the game, not lose by default. The game changed and with it the need for balance. Only the liberals care about words like "should" and "deserves". The REALITY is that the game REQUIRES an LOS blocker to make the game more dynamic and interesting.

Anything that makes it more interesting is instantly good. As napolean often said and as i often now say: Success requires no explanation. Failure allows for none.

I enjoy this game a lot and the Tau Empire are my jam. I think they would be a lot less fun if there were no terrain to stop us from raining death at will, at range until your smoldering boots are all thats left. dont get me wrong. I want lots of smoldering boots in front of me. I just want it to be a struggle. LOS blocking terrain is one thing that helps it become one.

"The REALITY is that the game REQUIRES an LOS blocker to make the game more dynamic and interesting. "

There is a "why" behind this conclusion. It just doesn't exist in a vacuum. I suspect it's supported by test games.

I find it bizarre that something that is *required* is never mentioned in the rule book and costs no points. Again, basically, it's a handicap for assault lists. Except GW never admits this nor even mentions how much terrain to use, much less what *specific kind*.

"Success requires no explanation"

It does if you are trying to teach. It also does in science, but that's another snowball.

Martel732 wrote:
"The REALITY is that the game REQUIRES an LOS blocker to make the game more dynamic and interesting. "

There is a "why" behind this conclusion. It just doesn't exist in a vacuum. I suspect it's supported by test games.

I find it bizarre that something that is *required* is never mentioned in the rule book and costs no points. Again, basically, it's a handicap for assault lists. Except GW never admits this nor even mentions how much terrain to use, much less what *specific kind*.

"Success requires no explanation"

It does if you are trying to teach. It also does in science, but that's another snowball.

I have played over 2000 games of Warhammer 40,000 since 2004. its clear to me beyond any doubt that LOS blockers make it a better game. incidentally, this isnt science and it isnt teaching. I'm just explaining a subjective fact that has been generally agreed on and is supported by all the experiences of all the people playing it. If you disagree great. if you dont, let it go. thats my advice.

I didn't say I didn't agree. I said it's weird that is has no point costs and no formality in the rules ANYWHERE. Obviously BA get better if there is more crap to hide behind, and at the same time, most players with shooty lists want less for me to hide behind.

Another way to view is assault lists function at the whim of the person setting up the board. That seems like a serious weakness in the system.

Again, basically, it's a handicap for assault lists.

No, it helps shooting units too (units with short range that need to get into range).

I am all for impassible terrain too. I don't think the opposite is fair either (melee units moving all over the map, even though walls).

I like a mix of both. It's also why I bring lists that are shooting + melee.

 Whitebeard wrote:

Again, basically, it's a handicap for assault lists.

No, it helps shooting units too (units with short range that need to get into range).

I am all for impassible terrain too. I don't think the opposite is fair either (melee units moving all over the map, even though walls).

I like a mix of both. It's also why I bring lists that are shooting + melee.

Short range shooting units functions more like assault units, though. At least, that's how I see them.

Martel732 wrote:
I didn't say I didn't agree. I said it's weird that is has no point costs and no formality in the rules ANYWHERE. Obviously BA get better if there is more crap to hide behind, and at the same time, most players with shooty lists want less for me to hide behind.

One way I've played which has worked out well is that each player takes turns placing a single piece of terrain of their choice, and after each player places X pieces of terrain, any player can choose to stop placing terrain on their turn and start the rest of the game. For what it's worth, it's fun, nobody feels cheated, and usually ends up with a fun board to play on.

There's lots of ways to do it , obviously. It just seems like a VERY critical step to have no formalism at all.

yeah that works. I tend to like a handicap, so i let my opponent set the board up and other than the LOS blocker, i leave it to them. Seems unfair for me to set it all up and i want their to be no arguments after the game as to whether "my placement of terrain" was the "only reason why" I won. I hate excuses, so i simply take them away by not caring about the terrain other than that one element that i think all games need. The LOS blocker.

Martel732 wrote:
There's lots of ways to do it , obviously. It just seems like a VERY critical step to have no formalism at all.

File it under "forge the narrative", I suppose.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:
yeah that works. I tend to like a handicap, so i let my opponent set the board up and other than the LOS blocker, i leave it to them. Seems unfair for me to set it all up and i want their to be no arguments after the game as to whether "my placement of terrain" was the "only reason why" I won. I hate excuses, so i simply take them away by not caring about the terrain other than that one element that i think all games need. The LOS blocker.

I've played a couple games where one person sets up the entire board, and the opponent auto-wins the initiative roll off.

Not I. But I mean I'm not discounting that experience. Just saying I think that the terrain has never been the trouble. I can always object a little if its just too crazy but I tend not to. Again: terrain wont make the decision in my game. Reserves are always a thing if it becomes necessary. At tournaments you have to live with whats there.

 Whitebeard wrote:

Again, basically, it's a handicap for assault lists.

No, it helps shooting units too (units with short range that need to get into range).

And ofc it also helps those shooters that have range but would perhaps like to set up so that the entire enemy gunline can't obliterate them on turn one.

I can see how someone with a shooty army would find it nice to see all of the enemy assault guys closing in, but when he faces another shooter it's just a matter of who can wipe out key units faster. Is that even fun?

Spetulhu wrote:

 Whitebeard wrote:

Again, basically, it's a handicap for assault lists.

No, it helps shooting units too (units with short range that need to get into range).

And ofc it also helps those shooters that have range but would perhaps like to set up so that the entire enemy gunline can't obliterate them on turn one.

I can see how someone with a shooty army would find it nice to see all of the enemy assault guys closing in, but when he faces another shooter it's just a matter of who can wipe out key units faster. Is that even fun?

Good question.

Martel732 wrote:
Battle of kursk on the open steppes of the ussr comes to mind.

Exactly.

Theoretically, you'd think BA would do something intellligent, like use heavy armor, indirect fire, and superior range to fight mech forces over open ground.

Jump units wouldn't come into play unless they're moving through a covered approach like a canyon, or digging out entrenched forces in urban warfare.

Force construction rules contextual on mission and scenario might solve that problem. Tau/Eldar standoff shooting wouldn't be so obnoxious if every tourney also had a few close quarters missions, where shooting-focused armies need to play a scenario to their weakness. Asymmetrical balance is difficult but pretty interesting from a design standpoint.