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.

8th ed Fantasy has gotten a lot of flak lately over some of its rules changes, specifically Steadfast and how it is too powerful.

I think this negative view is unwarranted. Steadfast is just fine.


What is not fine, is terrain density.

If you are like most gamers I have seen. You toss down a couple hills and a couple forests. Maybe a single building. If you're feeling particularly adventurous you may put down a fence or a rock wall. And heaven forbid you use Mysterious Terrain. I'll admit, I am guilty of this too.

This is a grave mistake.The terrain rules are just as vital a section as unit types or the magic phase. Think about the random terrain generation table. You can easily end up with 8-10 pieces of terrain, not the typical lazy 3-5 pieces.

What does this have to do with steadfast? Take a look at just how much terrain denies steadfast. Forests, rivers, and swamps to name a few.

A river down the center of the board can make a big old "no steadfast" zone for you to catch the enemy in, and an obstacle to avoid with your own units. Not to mention the potential special effects a mysterious river can throw at you.


But terrain can do more than deny steadfast. Excluding any of the mysterious effects they may cause, some terrain can obstruct movement creating choke points. This can make taking very large units of infantry even more of a liability.

They may only be able to move through an area in a certain formation at an odd angle. Which can leave them vulnerable to a flank charge. They may even be unable to reform to face the enemy due to these obstructions.

A building may be tough to assault and remove a unit from, but on the other hand the building can also get in the way if they unit needs to get somewhere in a hurry.



Take a look at these 2 graphics.

The first shows what is likely a typical setup. While it may look pretty, the terrain may as well be non-existent as due to its positioning it will probably have no effect on the game. The forests are off to the side and unlikely to ever deny steadfast in a combat of importance. A hill really doesn't do much of anything, unless its one of the hills with special rules. And that tower is also too far from the action, you may have a ranged unit in there for the whole game doing nothing but giving you something to do in the shooting phase.


The second is much more interesting.

You have a river running through the center with a bridge in the middle. There is definitely going to be some important combats that have steadfast disrupted. But there is the bridge, which provides a way of crossing the river without losing steadfast.

But there isn't just the river to contend with. One side of the river has a cluster of buildings which could prove difficult to maneuver around, but also very defensible. The other side is covered in steadfast denying forests, but also has a tower, a wall, and a potentially magical hill on it.


There is nothing major wrong with 8th edition. Its actually a very well balanced game. If you are using all the rules, including proper use of terrain.

I'm really unfamiliar with 8ths rules. How does terrain disrupt steadfast? This is the first I've ever heard that mentioned.

This thread actually makes me want to look into the ruleset now. Does terrain still slow movement?

Terrain no longer slows movement, it either outright prevents it or does nothing.

But some terrain, such as rivers and forests, have rules such that a unit in them can never claim the steadfast bonus.

With forests, the rule is that if the majority of the models in the unit are at least partially in the forest the unit cannot be steadfast. Rivers are if any of the unit's members are in the river the unit loses steadfast.

We usually do it this way...

Each board gets 2d3 + 4 pieces of terrain. Hills, walls, forests, impassible, and closed buildings. We don't use rivers (no one has interest in getting a good set of road, let alone rivers). Players roll off. Winner places the first piece, which scatters 3d6. Players then alternate placements. No piece of terrain may be within 6" of the board edge or an already placed piece of terrain.

1 price of terrain may be magical. This generated by rolling a D6 when getting within 6" of it. On a 6, that piece is magical, roll to determine randomly what it is.

This actually creates a great variety. We actually hate the open building rules so we just play closed.

So it kinda ends up as a more scattered, random version of #2.

Option 1, sadly.
I'd rather my games looked like Option 2, this question has certainly made me wonder why myself and my regular opponents haven't bought any new terrain in years!

It makes more sense for their to be terrain as well, not that my groups recurring epic battle for Big-field-with-a-single-building- landia, isn't of vital importance, terrain can lead to some fun and diverse games. However, I would recommended being gentle on the mysterious terrain, I had a game where almost all of the buildings benefited my Skaven and did squat for my poor opponents high elves.

I say we fantasy players take the initiative and try to experiment with more terrain in our battles. I'll do my part to have a table next game that a non-psychopathic general would actually decide to fight for.

2, but then I think things work mostly well.

Maybe that's the point.

Sadly, in my meta more often than not it looks like 1.
For friendly games, it's more like 2, but anything in a league has the reek of 1.

Lately we have been rolling up per the book which has resulted in our tables looking like option 2 (except I dont own river terrain).

Many more buildings have been appearing than you ever encounter at a tournament and make for some interesting tactical options.

Regular forests and hills might as well not exist for all the impact they usually have.

My tables are normally packed with terrain, but I wouldn't cut off an area of the table with the river like that - unless for scenario reasons.

The more terrain, the better the game!

Fantasy with a lot of terrain looks (and plays) awfully stupid ... I know it's part of the gameplay of 8th Ed, but it just doesn't make sense at all
no "real army" (wood elves are not a real army in this case) of the ancient/medieval era would ever fight in a terrain-packed area ... so I loathe the terrain placement rules, even if they are designed to be "fun" and have "unexpected" results

Number two represent my games for the most, a well made board and terrain makes the game so much enjoyebal for all involved, and it also helps with getting into the spirit

TanKoL wrote:
Fantasy with a lot of terrain looks (and plays) awfully stupid ... I know it's part of the gameplay of 8th Ed, but it just doesn't make sense at all
no "real army" (wood elves are not a real army in this case) of the ancient/medieval era would ever fight in a terrain-packed area ... so I loathe the terrain placement rules, even if they are designed to be "fun" and have "unexpected" results

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest.

Well, it ain't like the romans really wanted to fight in there, and their leaders were complete morons who weren't strategists at all, politicians they were

It ain't that much of a battle and more of a ambush against a disorganized army, turning into a slaughter

In some specific scenarios, 8th Ed terrain rules are fine, but do you see any logic in a pitched open battle in a marsh? Or building a watchtower in the middle of a forest?

Depends. My Goblins would fight everywhere, just for the lulz. They aren't strategic masterminds anyway...

Anyways, terrain isn't used to recreate historical battles, it's there to balance the game and spice it up. Logic is nice to have, but it needs to step aside for other aspects of the game.

My games normally look like picture 2, but that's because my opponents and I like terrain that looks good and makes sense (we also come from Privateer backgrounds, where lots of terrain is normal, like most skirmish style games).

THe problem is that lots of terrain often boondoggles up formations and maximizing attacks... which is why lots of people don't like it, but i think that's kind of the point.

I'd rather have a nice looking battlefield and a good fun game than have less terrain and squeeze ever last attack out.


Just my preference - i can't stand it when terrain looks like a mish-mashed bunch of illogical nonsense.

-- Haight

Normally something like option 2. I enjoy the extra terrain and it does make the game better, epsecially with some extra hills in the back to put my Cannons on! Terrain does make the game better, though I wouldnt always put the river splitting the middle, I like having a variety present. Of course, sometimes I do like games with less, if it is a scenario or campahin game that calls for it, or just to get the action going a little quicker.

TanKoL wrote:
Fantasy with a lot of terrain looks (and plays) awfully stupid ... I know it's part of the gameplay of 8th Ed, but it just doesn't make sense at all
no "real army" (wood elves are not a real army in this case) of the ancient/medieval era would ever fight in a terrain-packed area ... so I loathe the terrain placement rules, even if they are designed to be "fun" and have "unexpected" results

That's not quite correct.

There was not a whole lot of open land in Europe prior to the Industrial revolution. While they might look for open areas, they were few and far between. Only occurring around cities or natural flood pains(which would still have a fair amount of trees.

Secondly, the forests represented in the game are not truly entire forests, but actually represent a dense stand of trees. Maybe a half acre or so. A forest would be the entire table covered roughly evenly in what the game calls forests.

I have read some cool rules online for fighting in a forest, as in the entire table counts as soft cover, small units can give up their first turn to "Hide", cannons have to roll a 4+ to hit but can splinter trees, cool stuff like that and then whatever you can come up with.

I love reading about "real battles" never being fought in such a dense area, when were playing a fantasy skirmish game.
Please find the historic reference on how to defend against Chimeras and Daemon Princes.

IMO, all I want from 9th edition is to have tall hills and forests block line of sight (no true LOS for forests). Right now, the only thing that actually blocks LoS (buildings) also blocks movement. Having things that block LoS and doesn't block movement would open up a lot more options.

-Matt

Option 1, but my group's lazy.

When we get around to games of importance, we'll do option 2 though. Very visually appealing.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
I love reading about "real battles" never being fought in such a dense area, when were playing a fantasy skirmish game.
Please find the historic reference on how to defend against Chimeras and Daemon Princes.

IMO, all I want from 9th edition is to have tall hills and forests block line of sight (no true LOS for forests). Right now, the only thing that actually blocks LoS (buildings) also blocks movement. Having things that block LoS and doesn't block movement would open up a lot more options.

-Matt

...and the return of difficult terrain please aka e.g. forests hindering movement again.

We have the exact same issue in 40k. Heaven forbid parts of the map cannot be shot at by other parts

Mapping has to face every terrain from jungles to tundra to desert. So they kind of went BLARGH and put them in. There's not a gigantic amount of rules on them.

But the terrain section is like 1 page and it basically says, "do what you want." I've seen people take turns setting up terrain on their side then the enemy's side. And you know if you place something totally suck, they'll do it back to you.