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.

 dracpanzer wrote:

 Crabpuff wrote:
True it could end up that way. You could also tone down the effects. But terrain is supposed to give (dis)advantages, not just be a LOS/cover tool.

We've played tournaments before with themed boards, snow boards had a chance each turn to kick up a white out, which in 6ed would be like rolling for Night Fight every turn. Areas of deep snow were considered difficult for vehicles, but area cover for infantry. We've always used the rule that our woods areas block LOS through them, but you could see 6" into them where they only provided cover up to that distance. Did play on a swamp board once where the methane gasses could explode if you fired a template weapon. Dropping a 5" blast on your heavy flamer sister was a bit of a surprise, but fun.

Its things like that that add a little extra spice sometimes. Not all battles happen on the terrain of your choosing, sometimes you get a bum deal.

It is nice with something different, and i can understand the frustration from CC oriented players coming to a tournament with very little terrain and loads of LoS.

 Crabpuff wrote:
Its things like that that add a little extra spice sometimes. Not all battles happen on the terrain of your choosing, sometimes you get a bum deal.

Which might be fun in a "casual" game (not really IMO, but some people like random events), but it's completely broken for tournaments. The primary goal of a tournament mission is to provide a level playing field, not to randomly screw over one of the players because the random terrain result is bad for their army and good for their opponent's army.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crabpuff wrote:
Its things like that that add a little extra spice sometimes. Not all battles happen on the terrain of your choosing, sometimes you get a bum deal.

Which might be fun in a "casual" game (not really IMO, but some people like random events), but it's completely broken for tournaments. The primary goal of a tournament mission is to provide a level playing field, not to randomly screw over one of the players because the random terrain result is bad for their army and good for their opponent's army.

That is the problem its almost never level. No to little terrain help certain types of armies, lots of generic ruins help others. Hell even the scenarios sometimes give advantage to some players. The first turn roll is random and that can be a big advantage or disadvantage.

 Crabpuff wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crabpuff wrote:
Its things like that that add a little extra spice sometimes. Not all battles happen on the terrain of your choosing, sometimes you get a bum deal.

Which might be fun in a "casual" game (not really IMO, but some people like random events), but it's completely broken for tournaments. The primary goal of a tournament mission is to provide a level playing field, not to randomly screw over one of the players because the random terrain result is bad for their army and good for their opponent's army.

That is the problem its almost never level. No to little terrain help certain types of armies, lots of generic ruins help others. Hell even the scenarios sometimes give advantage to some players. The first turn roll is random and that can be a big advantage or disadvantage.

So why make it even worse?

Maybe it's the ork in me but I like randomness or the Type-A , I don't see it as being worse only a challenge.

 Peregrine wrote:


Which might be fun in a "casual" game (not really IMO, but some people like random events), but it's completely broken for tournaments. The primary goal of a tournament mission is to provide a level playing field, not to randomly screw over one of the players because the random terrain result is bad for their army and good for their opponent's army.

So why make it even worse?

The problem is this "level playing field" is always "wide open field that favour X/Y/Z armies and playstyles and gaks on everyone else" which is horrible.

I personally think that "always having terrain that favours X/Y/Z factions on every board" is much worse than "terrain that favours certain random factions/playstyles on each board" and would like to hear what others think about that.

So much of the game is already random (ie, first turn, night fight, warlord traits, psychic powers, assault distance, reserves, mysterious terrain, board edges), I think that having random terrain on boards would simply be playing into 40k's style. All that a standardization attempt would do is tilt the game as a whole in favour of whatever army best suits the mass produced terrain (hint: it's gunlines and corner forts).

I tend to imagine the forests from those Star Wars jetspeeder battles.. Ha! Definitely room to fight in there!

Mysterious forest rules cover the "dangerous, hard to fight in," aspect, if that's what you're looking for. Personally, I think those rules are a nuisance to play with.

You gotta use your imagination with wargaming. Magnetized tree stands can help with practicality issues, however.

At the start of a battle, when you're placing terrain just place trees everywhere, use the forrests that are available, or put together some Lego trees lol. It's really all you can do with the current rules and availability and practicality of things. Don't be sandy, and just make the best of it.

(Sorry 4 phone post)

My group uses up to three of these for Mysterious Woods when we play, but it can be a pain in the ass to move some models into and through it.

 kronk wrote:
My group uses up to three of these for Mysterious Woods when we play, but it can be a pain in the ass to move some models into and through it.

The trees are removable aren't they?

Yep. But we also still like to keep them in place as much as possible for determining TLoS for hiding vehicles and MCs, though.

MC's get cover in area terrain these days..

There are many important points here, the level playing field for one. The realm of battle board can be put together so it levels at the centre. It makes an enormous difference how the board is set up. too bad its always flat and covered with a couple buildings and a stand of three trees.

 Crabpuff wrote:
That is the problem its almost never level. No to little terrain help certain types of armies, lots of generic ruins help others. Hell even the scenarios sometimes give advantage to some players. The first turn roll is random and that can be a big advantage or disadvantage.

But the point is that the terrain shouldn't make that lack of balance even worse, especially with the roll of a die. Consider the following table for a D6:

1-3: All shooting ranges are cut in half because of poor visibility.
4-6: All movement distances are cut in half because of high gravity.

This is "fair" in the sense that the chances of winning are equal, but it's not very much fun because one player gets a huge advantage purely by random chance. It might be "realistic" to have weather be unpredictable, but it's going to be extremely frustrating when a random weather effect cripples your army.

 Dakkamite wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Which might be fun in a "casual" game (not really IMO, but some people like random events), but it's completely broken for tournaments. The primary goal of a tournament mission is to provide a level playing field, not to randomly screw over one of the players because the random terrain result is bad for their army and good for their opponent's army.

So why make it even worse?

The problem is this "level playing field" is always "wide open field that favour X/Y/Z armies and playstyles and gaks on everyone else" which is horrible.

Every tournament I've played in has had plenty of good terrain. Your definite statement is thus incorrect. If the problem is that people don't have good enough terrain the solution isn't to feth terrain up more.

I can weigh in on this one too guys..

At the Bugeater, we try to use the "Reverse Mirror" layout.

We include at least one "Woods" and one "Ruins" on each table side on opposing corners. And a large"ish" blocking piece on the center.

It seems to satisfy every type of army.

 hippesthippo wrote:
I tend to imagine the forests from those Star Wars jetspeeder battles.. Ha! Definitely room to fight in there!

Mysterious forest rules cover the "dangerous, hard to fight in," aspect, if that's what you're looking for. Personally, I think those rules are a nuisance to play with.

You gotta use your imagination with wargaming. Magnetized tree stands can help with practicality issues, however.

Roll a D6 at the start of each turn - on a roll of a 1 you are beaten by Ewoks

I think GW should make scenario not only with missions, but terrain as well, where the players must adapt to the playingfield and forcing armies to bring balanced armies.