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.

Seldom have I seen roads on a battlefield. Having an extra 6'' on movements sounds great, but it is never implemented it seems. GW have even taken down roads from its website. Have you ever used a road in a battle, and how frequently do you use it?

We had a game shop that had roads built into one of the tables, but no one really used the Roads rule with them. I think it was just covered for the sake of completion (vehicles usually = roads of some sort. If they didnt, someone somewhere is going to whine about how GW didnt see the obvious).

Not really... though i wouldn't mind using them.

We had one once when we did the Battle for Cold Steel Ridge...though we didnt really have any vehicles that used them...too busy stomping 'nids.

We've used roads in games, but only for visual decoration to make things look more interesting. We didn't actually use the rules for them.

once, and it was for a special mission.

I think roads are a little confusing. On the one hand, they effect the battlefield, so should count as terrain. On the other hand, a sufficiently wide road running across the board is going to eat up a SERIOUS amount of your 25% of terrain, and no one wants that.

My gaming group frequently use Roads. Our 3 table tops are cityscape/Roads on one side and regular grass/plains on the other side. As are table are sectional as well, it means we can mix and match the Road layouts to suit our tastes. It works out rather well for us.

I use roads when I know it doesn't aid my opponent.

Ailaros wrote:once, and it was for a special mission.

I think roads are a little confusing. On the one hand, they effect the battlefield, so should count as terrain. On the other hand, a sufficiently wide road running across the board is going to eat up a SERIOUS amount of your 25% of terrain, and no one wants that.

The 25% is a guideline not the total amount allowed.


I think I've played maybe one game with a road, of course it was one of my first games with Eldar so I didn't really care at all.

Just the other day when I ran Mech Guard we had roads all over the place. Needless to say, I got to the objectives much, much faster than the footslogging Sisters I was up against. I plan on building up some kind of a freeway interchange thing for my board in the future, because those extra six inches make you just fly along!

Ailaros wrote:once, and it was for a special mission.

I think roads are a little confusing. On the one hand, they effect the battlefield, so should count as terrain. On the other hand, a sufficiently wide road running across the board is going to eat up a SERIOUS amount of your 25% of terrain, and no one wants that.

Who seriously measure terrain?

I find 25% needs to be the minimum. Sci-Fi armies on open plains just doesn't make any sense. More terrain makes for a more aesthetically pleasing and tactically challenging game IMO.

Very rarely, but on occasion.

Never used roads, even though my FLGS has them.

It's rare for my group of gamers to use roads in our games, last time we did they didnt see much use!

Griever wrote:

Ailaros wrote:once, and it was for a special mission.

I think roads are a little confusing. On the one hand, they effect the battlefield, so should count as terrain. On the other hand, a sufficiently wide road running across the board is going to eat up a SERIOUS amount of your 25% of terrain, and no one wants that.

Who seriously measure terrain?

I find 25% needs to be the minimum. Sci-Fi armies on open plains just doesn't make any sense. More terrain makes for a more aesthetically pleasing and tactically challenging game IMO.

It seems as if most people overestimate the coverage a piece of terrain gives to the table.

I did a poll that asked how many CD sized bits of terrain do you need for 25% coverage of a standard sized table. The average answer was about 18. The correct answer is 48.

Of course, the width, thickness and height of terrain pieces make a difference, and so do the number of them and how close they are put together.

I don't think we've ever used roads to be honest. We haven't really built enough small terrain to have really different looking tables yet. Next game we're going to try roads and bridges though. After watching a bunch of Apocolypse game setups on youtube we got a bunch of ideas for terrain layouts.

I have no problem with roads, even though i play eldar and nids..., its in the rulebook so we use it.

I don't have issues with them. I've used them only a few times, but I don't see them as having huge advantages or disadvantages (unless you play an army that doesn't use vehicles or only has Skimmers).

Giving a 35 point box of invincibility even more maneuverability is just absurd. Transports really do not need even more speed per turn, so no I never play with them.

Isn't that like saying an Assault 4 weapon should only get 2 shots because it doesn't really need any more? Rules are rules.

I usually find roads to be too restricting. You have to start and end on them, and how often are the roads going to be going where you want to go? Also with how vehicles fire and passengers disembark, I rarely move fast enough to worry about the extra 6".

If you are playing against orks with battlewagons and trukks.... Stay as far from the road network as you can. That extra 6" is often what they need to pull of a massive assault. You can't even through a rhino road block in its way because the rollas will just crunch right through it.

Roads add an interesting bit of variety to the game, but in the store I played at that had them, considering it was a war torn cityscape,we also had a lot of barricade and debris terrain that could be placed as desired, so very rarely could anyone have an uninterrupted, consequence free ride.

I certainly do. Lots of roads and ruins!

Even though roads aren't especially useful in game terms (as notabot says, it's not often you start and end on a road) they do make your buildings and ruins make sense rather than just being plonked in the middle of nowhere.

I have used roads ONCE, since my friend was really eager to try out a 'motor way' scenario' where the whole place was a large road on a Imperial large scale motor way, and all cover/terrain was wrecked vehicals.

I didn't know this and decided too bring my foot guard, whilst everyone else was mech.

*FUUUUUUUUUUUU-*

No, never have.

Better question: Who's used the rules for Rivers, taking advantage of the Chimera's "amphibious" rule?

We have had both built-in and loose roads among our terrain, but have never bothered to actually use the Road rules.

The amphibious rule for Chimera is just there for fluff imo, and it makes me proud to have never met a IG player who has modeled or had a river on a table to only use the rule.

I've used roads and bodies of water to tactical advantage. Imperial Guard wasn't always a power army, and the coolness of an amphibious vehicle often made me go out of my way to cross a river or pond, making engine growls and sloshing sounds as I did so.

yeenoghu wrote:Isn't that like saying an Assault 4 weapon should only get 2 shots because it doesn't really need any more? Rules are rules.

No.

The point is that some armies get an advantage from roads and most of the the others don't, so it's unfair.

In fact, if you count roads as part of the terrain allocation, it is a double hit to skimmer armies. They get no advantage from the roads, but they lose some of their advantage of being able to jump terrain, because there is less terrain that needs jumping.

Gavo wrote:No, never have.

Better question: Who's used the rules for Rivers, taking advantage of the Chimera's "amphibious" rule?

I played in a tourny and 1st game had a river going accross the centre of the board.

Yeah I was fighting mech guard. He did use amphibious.