Switch Theme:

Terrain, the 3rd opponent  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

Boy, I really really wish this were the case, since I am the guy in charge of tryign to make functional tables out of a whole host of different terrain pieces mostly home-made, but honestly, it's just not.

Mostly due to the height restriction on the two actually impactful terrain traits, dense and obscuring. If those didnt exist I'd slap those traits on almost everything to try and make boards that function.

I'd really, REALLY love to be able to use my new homemade drukhari arena board to have a good game of 40k. but as it stands...man, I've got just zero ideas of how to make it work.


In these situations I think it's fine for you to declare things as obscuring even if they're below 5". But not having seen your terrain I imagine the rules could create a big mismatch to the visuals which could be jarring.


I do that with a couple of the pieces, the main issue is just that in order to create a board that feels like 'this is an arena that I am looking at' you typically would expect a large, mostly open area in the center, with structures more around the outside than the inside. The best I can do is I have a large central 'tent' piece that has a big platform that you can imagine sort of a master of ceremonies standing at and announcing, and then several area terrain pieces representing arena hazards that I declare as generous amounts of Dense Cover, such that basically every sight line across the arena that isnt blocked by the central tent crosses Dense cover.

But unless you move up the stands and have the battle such that the armies can be set up cowering behind the grandstands of the arena, you can't have anything approaching a satisfying game of 9th edition in such a board. Even with practically army-wide -1 to hit, getting the first turn is such a massive hilarious advantage that there's no good game to be had. And the problem with the way Obscuring works is that unless the terrain piece is either in or near my deployment zone, it's ridiculously easy to just ignore it by moving your unit laterally and sighting around the piece. Because it's all or nothing with both Dense and Obscuring - you're either 100% hidden, or you're 100% not hidden if I can sight even the tiniest bit of one model in the unit behind the piece.


So what possessed you to make a whole board that's practically useless?
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

Gladiatorial arena being an iconic Dark Eldar element? Not their fault the terrain rules/ core mechanics limit what's "functional"

 Crimson Devil wrote:
That's what 7th edition is about. Yelling "Forge the Narrative Pussy!" while kicking your opponent in the dick.
 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






ccs wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

Boy, I really really wish this were the case, since I am the guy in charge of tryign to make functional tables out of a whole host of different terrain pieces mostly home-made, but honestly, it's just not.

Mostly due to the height restriction on the two actually impactful terrain traits, dense and obscuring. If those didnt exist I'd slap those traits on almost everything to try and make boards that function.

I'd really, REALLY love to be able to use my new homemade drukhari arena board to have a good game of 40k. but as it stands...man, I've got just zero ideas of how to make it work.


In these situations I think it's fine for you to declare things as obscuring even if they're below 5". But not having seen your terrain I imagine the rules could create a big mismatch to the visuals which could be jarring.


I do that with a couple of the pieces, the main issue is just that in order to create a board that feels like 'this is an arena that I am looking at' you typically would expect a large, mostly open area in the center, with structures more around the outside than the inside. The best I can do is I have a large central 'tent' piece that has a big platform that you can imagine sort of a master of ceremonies standing at and announcing, and then several area terrain pieces representing arena hazards that I declare as generous amounts of Dense Cover, such that basically every sight line across the arena that isnt blocked by the central tent crosses Dense cover.

But unless you move up the stands and have the battle such that the armies can be set up cowering behind the grandstands of the arena, you can't have anything approaching a satisfying game of 9th edition in such a board. Even with practically army-wide -1 to hit, getting the first turn is such a massive hilarious advantage that there's no good game to be had. And the problem with the way Obscuring works is that unless the terrain piece is either in or near my deployment zone, it's ridiculously easy to just ignore it by moving your unit laterally and sighting around the piece. Because it's all or nothing with both Dense and Obscuring - you're either 100% hidden, or you're 100% not hidden if I can sight even the tiniest bit of one model in the unit behind the piece.


So what possessed you to make a whole board that's practically useless?


Basically, I got a ton of 3d print files for drukhari terrain for free from a patreon, I knew nobody else had a drukhari board and I like making boards that aren't the standard ruined imperial city, and it was early in the edition and I thought large amounts of dense cover could make up for there being a smaller amount of Obscuring on demand.

But apparently its all fine and perfectly balanced, because if you make sure the board is chockablock full of just the one functional terrain keyword out of the dozen or so that exist, then the game isnt decided by the 'who goes first' roll-off! Dang, everything must be really great!

Also, sarcasm aside, come on, editions change. A huge amount of the terrain I built for 7th ed was practically unusable for 8th, and a whole bunch of the sector mech terrain I tried to build with 8th in mind (huge superstructures designed to as close as possible entirely block LOS) are basically unusable in 9th because now theyre just huge areas of the board with the Dense keyword that lacks the all-important Obscuring keyword that makes terrain do anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Eldarain wrote:
Gladiatorial arena being an iconic Dark Eldar element? Not their fault the terrain rules/ core mechanics limit what's "functional"


yeah, you know what also doesn't work at all?

-A big tunnel complex built from GW's own Zone Mortalis terrain sets. What, is it all one single piece of Obscuring cover? Is it 300 individual pieces, each one being a wall segment?

-a big sprawling Sector Mechanicus setup from GW's own Sector Mechanicus sets. Hope you like completely unbroken sight-lines because its ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL dense baby!

-An ork junkyard board with the terrain GW's released for orks - hopefully this one will be useful again soon after i manage to paint up the kill team terrain, but I suspect only 8 big random walls tossed around the board for no reason will only slightly improve the experience. Silly terrain builder, you didnt think the ork junk piles we sold you would DO anything in-game, did you?

-An eldar forest glade with 4 big eldar terrain pieces whoops I mean only 4 functional terrain pieces on the whole board all those trees do practically nothing unless you houserule them to be not forests

I think it should be a sign that an edition of 40k's terrain system has failed, yet again, 9 editions in a row, when it reaches the point of "Everything Is A Ruin".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/18 17:30:25


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I am a bit frustrated that the old awesome variety of potential tables have been reduced essentially to ruins.
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Daed, I so respect your intentions here, love the thread, but do not envy your position. Scotsman is on fire… and there is no way that current terrain rules and table sizes and move stats and damage output and … Unit laid it out… are optimal. Hence, you are in a “make the best of it situation” and that is really a tough place to be, but you do it well and in good humour. Bravo.

   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Daedalus81 wrote:
In all of the games I've played with sufficient terrain movement mattered and casualties were pretty low on turn one. I know many people are frustrated with the urban, symmetrical terrain and I get it, and giant Ls. What if those Ls were dense jungle that infantry could conceivably cross ( breachable ) and blocks LOS until you touch it ( obscuring )? It has the same net effect. Similar to this:

Spoiler:


I get what you're trying to do here, increasing the variety of terrain visually, but why does it have to be BREACHABLE? Look at the example terrain from NOLA: everything is BREACHABLE. That's all upside for infantry and vehicles with FLY, and downside for vehicles without FLY. There needs to be more terrain that isn't BREACHABLE, to slow down infantry and allow vehicles and bikes/cavalry to benifit from their higher movement, and vehicles with FLY need to pay more for that advantage. Some actual barricades/obstacles with DIFFICULT GROUND would be good as well. The current gw boards are too heavily skewed towards infantry and anything with the FLY keyword.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

GW's terrain rules are really just one big L.

Or rather multiple L's, spread around in a symmetrical fashion.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
In all of the games I've played with sufficient terrain movement mattered and casualties were pretty low on turn one. I know many people are frustrated with the urban, symmetrical terrain and I get it, and giant Ls. What if those Ls were dense jungle that infantry could conceivably cross ( breachable ) and blocks LOS until you touch it ( obscuring )? It has the same net effect. Similar to this:

Spoiler:


I get what you're trying to do here, increasing the variety of terrain visually, but why does it have to be BREACHABLE? Look at the example terrain from NOLA: everything is BREACHABLE. That's all upside for infantry and vehicles with FLY, and downside for vehicles without FLY. There needs to be more terrain that isn't BREACHABLE, to slow down infantry and allow vehicles and bikes/cavalry to benifit from their higher movement, and vehicles with FLY need to pay more for that advantage. Some actual barricades/obstacles with DIFFICULT GROUND would be good as well. The current gw boards are too heavily skewed towards infantry and anything with the FLY keyword.


You could, but I think you'd just make FLY more valuable over all - there's only so much of a cost increase than you can do. Bikes can do really well, but too many people treat them like a disposable unit that needs to get into melee asap rather than being a little more ponderous.

   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You could, but I think you'd just make FLY more valuable over all - there's only so much of a cost increase than you can do. Bikes can do really well, but too many people treat them like a disposable unit that needs to get into melee asap rather than being a little more ponderous.

Yes, but FLY is currently underpriced in most instances. And the overuse of OBSCURING + BREACHABLE terrain in gw's own tournament boards shows that the other terrain traits aren't impactful enough. DENSE + DIFFICULT GROUND, for instance, could be made more impactful by uncoupling "modifiers/conditions" to hit as described by The_Scotsman in the other thread. If we want greater terrain, and unit, variety, then gw needs to look at why certain types are underutilized, including in their own tournaments.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
You could, but I think you'd just make FLY more valuable over all - there's only so much of a cost increase than you can do. Bikes can do really well, but too many people treat them like a disposable unit that needs to get into melee asap rather than being a little more ponderous.

Yes, but FLY is currently underpriced in most instances. And the overuse of OBSCURING + BREACHABLE terrain in gw's own tournament boards shows that the other terrain traits aren't impactful enough. DENSE + DIFFICULT GROUND, for instance, could be made more impactful by uncoupling "modifiers/conditions" to hit as described by The_Scotsman in the other thread. If we want greater terrain, and unit, variety, then gw needs to look at why certain types are underutilized, including in their own tournaments.


Yea, totally agree. Self inflicted penalties should not be limited.

   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

Seems like a simple fix would be to make dense areas obscuring if you're completely on the other side of them, like it used to be in 4e?

It wouldn't get rid of the problem of units evaporating whenever they are in the open, but it would increase the diversity of terrain types with a function.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Da Boss wrote:
Seems like a simple fix would be to make dense areas obscuring if you're completely on the other side of them, like it used to be in 4e?

It wouldn't get rid of the problem of units evaporating whenever they are in the open, but it would increase the diversity of terrain types with a function.


As a 'quick fix' it's not too bad, personally I think the keyword system could be greatly greatly reduced and just apply the system of 'do not limit self-imposed penalties (ala advancing and firing assault, firing thru cover, firing at long range)' while keeping the '6s always hit' rule to avoid screwing over low-bs armies too hard.

Imagine a terrain system like this:

ALL TERRAIN:

-can be moved over by any model, paying movement for going up, over, and across the terrain piece
-can be moved thru by infantry, swarms and beasts, paying a flat 2" penalty for each piece they move through
-if a model cannot be placed such that the entire base or hull is not hanging over the edge of a terrain piece, then it cannot end its move on that terrain piece
-Any model within 2" of a terrain piece and that terrain piece is closer to the attacking model than the target model, it adds +1 to save rolls
-Any model more than 50% obscured by terrain or other models not in the attacking or target unit, subtract 1 from hit rolls for that attack
-Any model at the end of the movement phase can be given a 'hiding' chit, hidden units cannot declare shooting attacks or charges, hidden units also cannot be targeted if they are over 50% obscured by terrain or other models and subtract 1 from hit rolls that target hiding units if they are less than 50% obscured.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Master of the Hunt





Philadelphia

Apple fox wrote:
40k tournament tables are the worst most depressing things in the hobby.

I think most 40k tables are really bad an uninteresting, which I don’t think the rules really help with.


You're right on.

Its just that the time, storage space, and money is spent on minis and not on terrain.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Dudeface wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
There's a problem if the game is only "balanced" if you set up terrain in a very specific way. A good ruleset would require a minimal amount of terrain but function just fine with varying degrees of different types of terrain, ranging from lightly forested all the way up to city fight. At the moment the GW GT terrain "balances" the game by making it nigh-on impossible to shoot anything round 1. That's fine, I guess, but it's missing the real problem, which is the absurd level of lethality that makes this necessary in the first place.

I also find it pretty comical that GW have all these different types of terrain and terrain traits in the rulebook and their own tournament tables boil down to masses of Ruins and a few token Dense pieces.


You mean the rulebook with rules for open and narrative play offer more options than a tightly controlled tournament table? Hardly surprising.


The problem is when you're trying to set up terrain for an open/narrative game but have to treat it like designing a tournament table, because there's a very specific balance to strike between having wide enough lanes that vehicles can traverse them and having them be too wide and not allow units to stay hidden long enough. Those tournament tables end up being ruins and dense terrain because those are the terrain types that really matter, without occupying so much space that they block movement.

It's easy to build a table that either functionally provides no defense and leads to a quick and lethal game, or one where vehicles and monsters are just useless because they can't participate. It actually takes a lot of effort to put together a good terrain setup.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Plus, and I know I'll probably get attacked for saying this, but armies need to operate in all kinds of terrain.

Having a strict way terrain MUST be to have the battle make any sense at all is a game design failure.

Can you imagine a World War II miniatures game where, if you weren't playing in Stalingrad, you just had absolutely skewed results? Like there was never any combat over open fields (or in the woods, or around a bridge/river, or in a flooded or swampy area, or across hedges/hedgerows, or in small villages with little buildings...)

That game would be laughed out of the room for being unrealistic.

Similarly, in 40k, we're not trying to be realistic (before anyone says so) but there's still a universe to adhere to - a universe in which tanks and infantry still have a place on the battlefield. Any battlefield, not just a ruined city.
   
Made in us
Waaagh! Warbiker





I think that there should be like, a pretty sizable list of different matched play missions that are all based around being a little asymmetrical in layout, like make ‘‘em balanced and have some sample terrain layout for em. I’d love to see how quickly some armies would crumble in an assault on a defensive line type mission.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Plus, and I know I'll probably get attacked for saying this, but armies need to operate in all kinds of terrain.

Having a strict way terrain MUST be to have the battle make any sense at all is a game design failure.

Can you imagine a World War II miniatures game where, if you weren't playing in Stalingrad, you just had absolutely skewed results? Like there was never any combat over open fields (or in the woods, or around a bridge/river, or in a flooded or swampy area, or across hedges/hedgerows, or in small villages with little buildings...)

That game would be laughed out of the room for being unrealistic.

Similarly, in 40k, we're not trying to be realistic (before anyone says so) but there's still a universe to adhere to - a universe in which tanks and infantry still have a place on the battlefield. Any battlefield, not just a ruined city.


You shouldn't get attacked for that. I think those types of terrain and generally viable if you follow the basic guidelines. Like there are hedgerows big enough to hide tanks, so, similarly sized features could work. It's just very expensive to do it well.

Similarly changes in elevation block line of sight really well, but that's no easy accomplishment other than the big hills of yore. A big hill you climb is not much different from a windowed ruins you go into. Just put rubble and such on top so it's clear you still get cover like you were in a ruins.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/19 16:49:59


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

Going back to the notion of the terrain as the third players, back in the 5th edition I strongly expected GW to add terrain to people's armies so that it didn't need to be supplied by a third party; if you're taking a defensive army it would be smaller by the terrain and fortifications you'd want, and jungle fighters like the Catachan could be assured of having some jungle to fight in.

I believe they added some fortifications, but the notion didn't really jive with the plastic tables/boards they produced, and so on. It's cool to see Necromunda reproduce the old Zone Mortalis in plastic for us mortals.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Plus, and I know I'll probably get attacked for saying this, but armies need to operate in all kinds of terrain.

Having a strict way terrain MUST be to have the battle make any sense at all is a game design failure.

Can you imagine a World War II miniatures game where, if you weren't playing in Stalingrad, you just had absolutely skewed results? Like there was never any combat over open fields (or in the woods, or around a bridge/river, or in a flooded or swampy area, or across hedges/hedgerows, or in small villages with little buildings...)

That game would be laughed out of the room for being unrealistic.

Similarly, in 40k, we're not trying to be realistic (before anyone says so) but there's still a universe to adhere to - a universe in which tanks and infantry still have a place on the battlefield. Any battlefield, not just a ruined city.


You shouldn't get attacked for that. I think those types of terrain and generally viable if you follow the basic guidelines. Like there are hedgerows big enough to hide tanks, so, similarly sized features could work. It's just very expensive to do it well.

Similarly changes in elevation block line of sight really well, but that's no easy accomplishment other than the big hills of yore. A big hill you climb is not much different from a windowed ruins you go into. Just put rubble and such on top so it's clear you still get cover like you were in a ruins.



yes, but it also looks silly. A hedgerow high enough to hide a tank isn't entirely what I'm talking about, really - not entirely. "Similarly Sized" to 5" tall is like, five times the height of a man in 40k. Those are HUGE, whatever pieces you've built.

And a big hill you climb is absolutely different. Hills would have to be measured to go over (e.g. you measure diagonal/vertical movement) which is considerable when they're 5" tall. Ruins, meanwhile, are breachable, and therefore you can walk right through them (if you're infantry; for some reason, vehicles can't go through them despite being WAY better at actually breaching things than men).
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I think a table with some hills slowing units down doesn't sound too bad.

Hedgerows would indeed need to be smaller, but you could either just give them the keyword or abstract it.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think a table with some hills slowing units down doesn't sound too bad.

Hedgerows would indeed need to be smaller, but you could either just give them the keyword or abstract it.


A tank could cross a hill, but cannot cross a ruin. Hills cannot be ruins. What keywords would you give a hill?

Giving them the keyword doesn't do anything if theyre short, because the Keyword references the Rule, and the Rule says "If the terrain piece is 5" high etc etc".

But yes, I could write my own terrain rules to compensate for GW's inability to do so, thank you.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/19 17:11:07


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I'd give it ruins and breachable. Tanks need not apply. Just add tank traps or w/e. You could have normal traversable hills that tanks can go on that are just obscurable and exposed.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd give it ruins and breachable. Tanks need not apply. Just add tank traps or w/e. You could have normal traversable hills that tanks can go on that are just obscurable and exposed.


So you're saying it's just a ruin that behaves like a ruin and looks different. That's not exactly what people mean when they say "the terrain rules are broken."

Again, to go back to the World War 2 game: "Nah, you can play outside Stalingrad, just count the flooded swampland as rubble and the haybales as buildings." ... that's just going to provoke eyerolls.

9th's terrain is better than 8th's but could still be improved. And hills are already in the core rules, and don't do anything.


EDIT:
In fact, the terrain rules have this gem (now that I've checked on hills):
"Hills are considered part of the battlefield rather than a terrain feature."
WHAT? As far as abstractions go, that's the worst yet. Terrain features are the battlefield.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/19 17:31:02


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Nurglitch wrote:
Going back to the notion of the terrain as the third players, back in the 5th edition I strongly expected GW to add terrain to people's armies so that it didn't need to be supplied by a third party; if you're taking a defensive army it would be smaller by the terrain and fortifications you'd want, and jungle fighters like the Catachan could be assured of having some jungle to fight in.

I believe they added some fortifications, but the notion didn't really jive with the plastic tables/boards they produced, and so on. It's cool to see Necromunda reproduce the old Zone Mortalis in plastic for us mortals.


yeah its too bad GW produces so much 40k terrain that doesnt function in the game.

the whole Zone Mortalis set, the Sector Mechanicus sets, all the fortifications with rules so bad you cant use them (so, all of them..) the recent ork junkyard stuff. Just yesterday I painted up a webway portal because it was in a big pile of donated terrain to match my druhari board and I was just thinking 'welp, too bad this is just a pretty object to look at that does nothing ruleswise on the board.."

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd give it ruins and breachable. Tanks need not apply. Just add tank traps or w/e. You could have normal traversable hills that tanks can go on that are just obscurable and exposed.


So you're saying it's just a ruin that behaves like a ruin and looks different. That's not exactly what people mean when they say "the terrain rules are broken."

Again, to go back to the World War 2 game: "Nah, you can play outside Stalingrad, just count the flooded swampland as rubble and the haybales as buildings." ... that's just going to provoke eyerolls.


Assuming we're being polite & not laughing you away from the table/out of the room.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
9th's terrain is better than 8th's but could still be improved. And hills are already in the core rules, and don't do anything.


EDIT:
In fact, the terrain rules have this gem (now that I've checked on hills):
"Hills are considered part of the battlefield rather than a terrain feature."
WHAT? As far as abstractions go, that's the worst yet. Terrain features are the battlefield.


Yeah, but it's an important distinction. It effects the placement of objectives. And other terrain features.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Otherwise, I believe, hills would not be able to have terrain placed on top, as I don't think you can place terrain on terrain.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Sometimes I wonder whether I'm somehow playing a completely different game than everyone else...

Next to none of the complaints here apply to my games, be it GT missions, open war dadhammer or narrative crusade. I have at least four types of terrain in each game, 25% coverage and at least half of it is not obscuring. I guess I must be doing this "not having fun" thing wrong.
The only thing I can really agree on is that those tournament tables look ugly and boring.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/20 09:18:39


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Jidmah wrote:
Sometimes I wonder whether I'm somehow playing a completely different game than everyone else...

Next to none of the complaints here apply to my games, be it GT missions, open war dadhammer or narrative crusade. I have at least four types of terrain in each game, 25% coverage and at least half of it is not obscuring. I guess I must be doing this "not having fun" thing wrong.
The only thing I can really agree on is that those tournament tables look ugly and boring.


Playing a different game has been the bane of Warhammer since forever. How many times has "are you playing on planet bowling ball" come up in topics?

8th was particularly bad where you had ITC, Maelstrom, and Eternal War. ITC played wildly differently from the base and it showed. The game is at parity a little more than it used to be, but it will still be nearly impossible to reconcile the difference in experience simply because it is so open ended on terrain.

The game should be accessible to people not taking the extra care on "how to set a table up properly". I just don't know the best way to tackle that. There are some good suggestions that are relatively minor tweaks that seem possible, but we likely won't see major changes from what we have now.

   
Made in ch
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





Apple fox wrote:
40k tournament tables are the worst most depressing things in the hobby.

I think most 40k tables are really bad an uninteresting, which I don’t think the rules really help with.

And to think it wasn't five years ago people laughed at Warmahorde tables. Having every other battlefield consist of sightless L-shapes is pretty depressing.
   
Made in ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

The title to this thread is pretty instructive to me. This term of "the third opponent" is thrown around a lot these days.

Funnily enough, it's a misremembered term. The term is actually "the third army". As in, the visual presentation and quality of the terrain is as important to wargaming as that of the players' armies.

Prescriptive terrain setups being an important balancing factor to the game may be technically good for gameplay, but it damages the quality of 40k as a wargame in the same way that prescriptive army lists/model selection would be.

It's not that far off from the game telling you what army you need to play.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/20 14:29:23


Thought for the day
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: