Switch Theme:

TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.  [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 nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 JNAProductions wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Trasvi wrote:
Its funny, because I find that CA missions heavily favor skew lists whereas ITC missions tend to punish them.
Particularly hordes - plaguebearers, ork boyz and termagant spam have dominated the few CA events I have seen because the strategy of "stand on point A until dead, by which time you have an unbeatable lead" turns out to be pretty damn good when that literally the only thing that needs doing.


We had this discussion a while back and sorry, but unless you're doing something super wrong hordes just don't have the staying power against focussed fire to survive more than a turn or two, assuming you wrote a half decent TAC list and didn't just load up on Heavy X S8 Dd6 weapons.
Pray tell, what focused fire takes out a -1 to-hit, 30 strong blob of Plaguebearers? And the one behind it? And the one behind that?
so uhh, why do we not keep hearing about how they are winning all non-ITC events then?
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





It is a simple fact that the game Warhammer 40,000 was not designed to support a type of terrain that totally blocks line of sight going in and out from all directions, enabling units that can shoot ignoring line of sight to be untargetable by shooting attacks except those that also ignore line of sight.

That is a completely undesigned-for mechanic that almost all ITC lists seem to be taking advantage of right now.

If you created any kind of rule like that - say, run a big tournament series where every army gets to take 1 unit that must be in-faction but costs no points, or a big tournament series where everyone gets to nominate 1 unit to deep strike 4" away from enemy units, you definitionally will skew what is good heavily towards armies that can take maximum advantage of this new mechanic you've introduced that the game designers definitely did not test for.

Sometimes, we are OK with these third parties playing kingmaker, because it makes the game more varied and fun. Because at the end of the day, playing a game made by an entity that makes money off there being units whose rules are good so you go and buy them for the rules means you will be playing a less balanced game.

Other times, it feels like the third party entitites are bringing their own biases to the table and worsening balance. Now is one of those times.
   
Made in au
Trustworthy Shas'vre






 Ordana wrote:
so uhh, why do we not keep hearing about how they are winning all non-ITC events then?


Honestly I don't hear anything much about events that aren't ETC or ITC. Once in a blue moon there is an event locally where hordes are vying for podium though.

Plaguebearer hordes *were* doing decently in both ETC and ITC events, but kind of fell out of favor to the 'Vesal soup' list which used 60 plaguebearers but was just able to win bigger.
Ork hordes are still doing great. Take 3 shokk attack guns, a squad of tank bustas then fill the remaining points with boyz and gretchin.
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





If by "great" you mean get occasional win or top-4 spot, have overall win rate somewhat under 50% and under 40% in ITC then sure.

It's hardly heavily favouring when you don't even get over 50% win rate

Also if they are so unkilable they should do just fine in ITC since ITC is kill point favouring system so you would be denying points to your opponent like no tomorrow.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/12 17:32:10


https://middleagedstrategybattlegamers.home.blog/2020/02/24/tneva82-winter-war-tournament-report/<- lotr painting blog

12 factions for Lord of The Rings
11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
5265 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights

 
   
Made in ie
Norn Queen






Dublin, Ireland

Been playing ITC quite a bit recently and would echo what others have said in that its quite one dimensional.
I agree that it gives some level of "stability" to the games and "attempts" to balance horde VS gunline VS mech etc etc but I actually really miss some of the randomness of maelstrom.

Only some mind you, they really need to do away with the d3 points rolls.

Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be

By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.

"Feelin' goods, good enough". 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

Whilst I didn't make this topic originally to focus on the ITC terrain rules, the magic boxes will have a huge impact on list creation.

People will build to take advantage of them by creating units that hide for board control and protection, whilst others will focus more heavily on no LoS firepower. It's another reason why the ITC meta can't be used to gauge the factions under the real rules.

I actually think that 1st floor blocking is good, but I also think people need to invest in more terrain that naturally provides it.

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





 Ishagu wrote:
Whilst I didn't make this topic originally to focus on the ITC terrain rules, the magic boxes will have a huge impact on list creation.

People will build to take advantage of them by creating units that hide for board control and protection, whilst others will focus more heavily on no LoS firepower. It's another reason why the ITC meta can't be used to gauge the factions under the real rules.

I actually think that 1st floor blocking is good, but I also think people need to invest in more terrain that naturally provides it.


1st floor blocking is well and fine, but a building that units can get in that is completely impenetrable from all sides heavily skews the units that are good in the game towards units that don't care about ever attacking (eg drones) and units that can use it as a mario star while they keep shooting at full effectiveness (eg thunderfires).
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

Absolutely. I have not found the Thunderfire to be an essential unit addition in my games using the CA missions.

There is nothing wrong with playing a home-brew, but when the people playing it demand balance fixes based on said home-brew it becomes a big problem. Some issues were painfully illustrated in the latest Chapter Tactics podcast - Ork players can't take Trukks because they give up gangbusters too easily, hence Orks are severely handicapped and their list variety diminished. And yet the ITC is supposed to be a source for Meta Data?

No it's not. The data it generates is ultimately meaningless beyond some vague indications of faction strength that can be argued or disputed. How can you talk about game balance when your home-brew missions remove units from being viable, and not because of rule shortcomings from GW's designers?

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





 Ishagu wrote:
Absolutely. I have not found the Thunderfire to be an essential unit addition in my games using the CA missions.

There is nothing wrong with playing a home-brew, but when the people playing it demand balance fixes based on said home-brew it becomes a big problem. Some issues were painfully illustrated in the latest Chapter Tactics podcast - Ork players can't take Trukks because they give up gangbusters too easily, hence Orks are severely handicapped and their list variety diminished. And yet the ITC is supposed to be a source for Meta Data?

No it's not. The data it generates is ultimately meaningless beyond some vague indications of faction strength that can be argued or disputed. How can you talk about game balance when your home-brew missions remove units from being viable, and not because of rule shortcomings from GW's designers?


I mean....you have not found the ability to halve movement, advance and charge rolls for two units in the enemy army for a couple CP to be an essential element of your gameplan?

I think Thunderfires are pretty much necessary regardless in a SM tac list, but just 1 instead of the 3 you see in ITC lists routinely.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Ground floor blocking LoS was a great stop-gap measure for us when 8th dropped but we're now finding it to be more of a hindrance than a help. The problem is that most ruins are big enough to cram most of an army inside/behind, making hiding an entire army too easy. We're starting to transition back to TLoS with ruins that are built in a more varied way, so some completely block LoS, while others do have gaps that you can see through. This has improved game quite a lot and has the added bonus of encouraging people to build more terrain too.

Regardless of terrain, TFC are ridiculous though. ITC or not, those things are way undercosted, especially considering the stratagems available. I know Ishagu is on some kind of quest to prove the perfection of CA19 missions but comments about how TFC are fine outside of ITC are so wide of the mark I don't think anyone will take them seriously.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 12:41:02


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

@Scotsman

They are good, no doubt about it!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 12:40:57


-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Ishagu wrote:
Absolutely. I have not found the Thunderfire to be an essential unit addition in my games using the CA missions.

There is nothing wrong with playing a home-brew, but when the people playing it demand balance fixes based on said home-brew it becomes a big problem. Some issues were painfully illustrated in the latest Chapter Tactics podcast - Ork players can't take Trukks because they give up gangbusters too easily, hence Orks are severely handicapped and their list variety diminished. And yet the ITC is supposed to be a source for Meta Data?

No it's not. The data it generates is ultimately meaningless beyond some vague indications of faction strength that can be argued or disputed. How can you talk about game balance when your home-brew missions remove units from being viable, and not because of rule shortcomings from GW's designers?


Gemini are supposedly so bad in ITC due to headhunter aka characters gives up secondaries. In real 40k having cheap characters you don't care too much whether they live or die can be actually ASSET. For one you can use them as sacrificial lamb to prevent shooting for a while. Not bad to prevent shooting for 16 pts...(gemini got price drop in CA19). And once they die you get miracle dice. And if you play maelstrom there's also card that gives you d3 vp if character dies.

It's basically for 1 pts cheaper extra wound extra attack zephyr without reroll but instead have character rule, ability to guard celestian if need be and minimum cost for unit just 16 pts.

Not biggest things ever but in real 40k worse ways to spend 16 pts. But in ITC gives easy kill points.

https://middleagedstrategybattlegamers.home.blog/2020/02/24/tneva82-winter-war-tournament-report/<- lotr painting blog

12 factions for Lord of The Rings
11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
5265 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights

 
   
Made in se
Regular Dakkanaut




Slipspace wrote:


Regardless of terrain, TFC are ridiculous though. ITC or not, those things are way undercosted, especially considering the stratagems available. I know Ishagu is on some kind of quest to prove the perfection of CA19 missions but comments about how TFC are fine outside of ITC are so wide of the mark I don't think anyone will take them seriously.


The TFC outperform a Wyvern that is 28pts more expensive against almost every target in the game there is. If we add in that it also outranges, have a smaller profile and can get IF doctrine, IF CT or MA added to that it makes the guard artillery laughable. Against units in cover or with - to hit penalties it gets even worse. And you dont even need a special detachment to get the good stratagems either. I thought guard artillery parks were boring and annoying to play against but then GW released marine 2.0 and took it to an entirely new level.

You could probably put a complete newbie in charge of an Imperial Fist artillery park with as much indirect fire as possible and only teach them how to measure range and roll shooting attacks. Dont even have to bother with the melee or psychic phase and just tell them to remove any units the enemy touches in melee. That newb wont win any tournaments but will still win some games in a tournament on pure auto pilot and make their opponent have a terrible time while doing it. It can easily kill a knight and bracket another with good rolls turn 1 from across the board with 0 line of sight required and there is nothing the knight player could even do to prevent that. 3 TFC, 3-6 whirlwinds, 3 eliminator squads and 3 rapier carriers or what ever they are called. A few cheap HQs for rerolls and a few troops to get double shooting CP.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 13:01:34


 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





Trasvi wrote:
Rocking a plaguebearer horde[...]
.
Hordes work because most armies can't afford to load up on the amount of firepower it takes to kill 150 plaguebearers

Ever considered that plaguebearers might be the problem, and not hordes in general? I can't recall any other horde army tabling others regularly.

200 boyz or 300 gretchen AND possibly have a chance at killing Marines.

Considering that I play orks, I can tell you that most armies have no trouble deleting 60 boyz per turn, lists tailored towards killing hordes can do twice that.
Neither 200 boyz nor 300 gretchin are viable armies when there are chess clocks involved.
It's also the ITC mindset that's showing. You usually don't need to kill your enemy to win CA missions, I usually win my games close to getting tabled and have lost games ten times my opponent's points left on the table.

On top of that, most missions don't actually favor hordes.
Crusade has six objectives, so hordes actually do have an advantage here. However, points are scored at the start of each players turn (starting T2), so you can deny points by just clearing the stuff actually on objectives.
Scorched earth is difficult, but with some sacrificial units in their backfield, you could raze their objectives for a quick boost and to deny them VP in further turns. This one also has scoring at the start of turn, just make sure you don't get tabled. In general hordes don't like turning around to handle something like terminators in their deployment zone.
Assention is also decent for hordes unless you snipe their characters. If you do, it's a free win, if you don't you need to keep your characters alive and try to interrupt the enemy character's scoring ones - which by no means requires you to kill the entire enemy army. Shifting 60 boyz and a KFF mek off an objective is a piece of cake compared to killing Maenus Calgar with Vitrix Honor guard sitting in one.
Frontline Warfare massively benefits hordes, but has scoring at the end of a battleround. If you go second, you can clear objectives to deny or even steal them from the other player.
Four Pillars requires you to hold two objectives (score at end of battleround) and kill more units than your opponent. Against most horde armies, people have no trouble doing that as you can control how much a horde army kills per turn. If mek guns are involved, winning this should not be a problem.
Lockdown really depends on which markers disappear when. But then again, fighting for objectives will win the missions, rather than killing as much as possible. Sometime using lascannons to kill boyz is the right thing to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trasvi wrote:
Ork hordes are still doing great. Take 3 shokk attack guns, a squad of tank bustas then fill the remaining points with boyz and gretchin.

Orks have had 0 top 4 ITC wins at GTs this year.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 13:28:40


 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





the_scotsman wrote:
It is a simple fact that the game Warhammer 40,000 was not designed to support a type of terrain that totally blocks line of sight going in and out from all directions, enabling units that can shoot ignoring line of sight to be untargetable by shooting attacks except those that also ignore line of sight.

That is a completely undesigned-for mechanic that almost all ITC lists seem to be taking advantage of right now.

If you created any kind of rule like that - say, run a big tournament series where every army gets to take 1 unit that must be in-faction but costs no points, or a big tournament series where everyone gets to nominate 1 unit to deep strike 4" away from enemy units, you definitionally will skew what is good heavily towards armies that can take maximum advantage of this new mechanic you've introduced that the game designers definitely did not test for.

Sometimes, we are OK with these third parties playing kingmaker, because it makes the game more varied and fun. Because at the end of the day, playing a game made by an entity that makes money off there being units whose rules are good so you go and buy them for the rules means you will be playing a less balanced game.

Other times, it feels like the third party entitites are bringing their own biases to the table and worsening balance. Now is one of those times.


People should note that magic boxes are not codified in ITC. It does show up in LVO a lot, but it is by no means standard.

   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
It is a simple fact that the game Warhammer 40,000 was not designed to support a type of terrain that totally blocks line of sight going in and out from all directions, enabling units that can shoot ignoring line of sight to be untargetable by shooting attacks except those that also ignore line of sight.

That is a completely undesigned-for mechanic that almost all ITC lists seem to be taking advantage of right now.

If you created any kind of rule like that - say, run a big tournament series where every army gets to take 1 unit that must be in-faction but costs no points, or a big tournament series where everyone gets to nominate 1 unit to deep strike 4" away from enemy units, you definitionally will skew what is good heavily towards armies that can take maximum advantage of this new mechanic you've introduced that the game designers definitely did not test for.

Sometimes, we are OK with these third parties playing kingmaker, because it makes the game more varied and fun. Because at the end of the day, playing a game made by an entity that makes money off there being units whose rules are good so you go and buy them for the rules means you will be playing a less balanced game.

Other times, it feels like the third party entitites are bringing their own biases to the table and worsening balance. Now is one of those times.


People should note that magic boxes are not codified in ITC. It does show up in LVO a lot, but it is by no means standard.


How are they not codified? Don't they dictate the terrain setup at their events?
   
Made in us
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
It is a simple fact that the game Warhammer 40,000 was not designed to support a type of terrain that totally blocks line of sight going in and out from all directions, enabling units that can shoot ignoring line of sight to be untargetable by shooting attacks except those that also ignore line of sight.

That is a completely undesigned-for mechanic that almost all ITC lists seem to be taking advantage of right now.

If you created any kind of rule like that - say, run a big tournament series where every army gets to take 1 unit that must be in-faction but costs no points, or a big tournament series where everyone gets to nominate 1 unit to deep strike 4" away from enemy units, you definitionally will skew what is good heavily towards armies that can take maximum advantage of this new mechanic you've introduced that the game designers definitely did not test for.

Sometimes, we are OK with these third parties playing kingmaker, because it makes the game more varied and fun. Because at the end of the day, playing a game made by an entity that makes money off there being units whose rules are good so you go and buy them for the rules means you will be playing a less balanced game.

Other times, it feels like the third party entitites are bringing their own biases to the table and worsening balance. Now is one of those times.


People should note that magic boxes are not codified in ITC. It does show up in LVO a lot, but it is by no means standard.


How are they not codified? Don't they dictate the terrain setup at their events?


the being more guidelines line applies. some go straight ITC standard some use a few house rules on top or don't apply others.

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





the_scotsman wrote:


How are they not codified? Don't they dictate the terrain setup at their events?


They do but magic boxes were created out of a desire for the FLG guys to still use the terrain they invested in and to curb big models. If you go look at the hosted missions and guidelines they are nowhere to be found.

This is the section on terrain guidelines:

In ITC events using any missions, the following modification to Ruins type terrain should be used: Ruins: For this event, the bottom level walls of all ruins are considered to block LoS even if they do not actually do so. This means existing openings in them such as those created by windows, doors, bullet holes, etc. block LoS. This rule does not mean the players create walls where none existed. If in doubt as to where to define these barriers, clarify with your opponent before the game begins.

   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


How are they not codified? Don't they dictate the terrain setup at their events?


They do but magic boxes were created out of a desire for the FLG guys to still use the terrain they invested in and to curb big models. If you go look at the hosted missions and guidelines they are nowhere to be found.

This is the section on terrain guidelines:

In ITC events using any missions, the following modification to Ruins type terrain should be used: Ruins: For this event, the bottom level walls of all ruins are considered to block LoS even if they do not actually do so. This means existing openings in them such as those created by windows, doors, bullet holes, etc. block LoS. This rule does not mean the players create walls where none existed. If in doubt as to where to define these barriers, clarify with your opponent before the game begins.


So, magic boxes aren't EXPLICITLY created, but you cannot follow this rule with a ruin building with 4 walls and not end up with a magic box.

contrary to GW's terrain series, I've seen a lot of building terrain with 4 walls. That tends to be a feature of most buildings.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





the_scotsman wrote:


contrary to GW's terrain series, I've seen a lot of building terrain with 4 walls. That tends to be a feature of most buildings.


Well, FLG owns a lot of 4 walled buildings with a roof and a door(s). Some are bunkerish types with shuttered windows and such.

So given the light rules of GW's design you either make these "impassable" terrain where you can sit on the roof or you let people go inside as ruins. And unless you create yet more rules for fire points and shooting in/out you're left with things like no LOS weapons shooting from inside without any downside.

It is just as easy for people to call them impassable and kill magic boxes for their tournament.

   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


contrary to GW's terrain series, I've seen a lot of building terrain with 4 walls. That tends to be a feature of most buildings.


Well, FLG owns a lot of 4 walled buildings with a roof and a door(s). Some are bunkerish types with shuttered windows and such.

So given the light rules of GW's design you either make these "impassable" terrain where you can sit on the roof or you let people go inside as ruins. And unless you create yet more rules for fire points and shooting in/out you're left with things like no LOS weapons shooting from inside without any downside.

It is just as easy for people to call them impassable and kill magic boxes for their tournament.


By gws rules youd go "entirely on" the ruin, gain cover and still be in los.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





There are half a dozen terrain elements that can be represented with buildings and damaged buildings.

Why do people always use ruins??

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 22:31:19


 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Rules wise or actual how stuff is build wise?
   
Made in jp
Regular Dakkanaut





I think the name magic box infers that its something crazier than what it really is...a 4 sided building.

I think FLG rules on this is a pretty elegant solution.

Does it make sense that infantry can move through it? Yes. Does it make sense that a building should provide LOS cover. Yes.

I think the only update I could suggest is that actual ruins provide a -1 to hit, where as solid buildings provide blocking LOS.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Smirrors wrote:
I think the name magic box infers that its something crazier than what it really is...a 4 sided building.

I think FLG rules on this is a pretty elegant solution.

Does it make sense that infantry can move through it? Yes. Does it make sense that a building should provide LOS cover. Yes.

I think the only update I could suggest is that actual ruins provide a -1 to hit, where as solid buildings provide blocking LOS.

Yeah everything you say makes sense. Does it make any sense that you can't destroy said building and everything inside with a demolisher cannon? No...not really. I think it is a very terrible solution. If you can't shoot through it/into it should be impassible. Then we would start to get somewhere.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/14 03:05:08


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Xenomancers wrote:
 Smirrors wrote:
I think the name magic box infers that its something crazier than what it really is...a 4 sided building.

I think FLG rules on this is a pretty elegant solution.

Does it make sense that infantry can move through it? Yes. Does it make sense that a building should provide LOS cover. Yes.

I think the only update I could suggest is that actual ruins provide a -1 to hit, where as solid buildings provide blocking LOS.

Yeah everything you say makes sense. Does it make any sense that you can't destroy said building and everything inside with a demolisher cannon? No...not really. I think it is a very terrible solution. If you can't shoot through it it should be impassible. Then we would start to get somewhere.


But then do some buildings have more toughness/wounds? Which ones? What happens when they're "destroyed"? The terrain pieces are often not destructible themselves - do you remove an entire terrain piece? TOs likely won't be able to have rubble to replace them with as well - terrain is expensive. Especially for 450 tables.

   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Smirrors wrote:
I think the name magic box infers that its something crazier than what it really is...a 4 sided building.

I think FLG rules on this is a pretty elegant solution.

Does it make sense that infantry can move through it? Yes. Does it make sense that a building should provide LOS cover. Yes.

I think the only update I could suggest is that actual ruins provide a -1 to hit, where as solid buildings provide blocking LOS.

Yeah everything you say makes sense. Does it make any sense that you can't destroy said building and everything inside with a demolisher cannon? No...not really. I think it is a very terrible solution. If you can't shoot through it it should be impassible. Then we would start to get somewhere.


But then do some buildings have more toughness/wounds? Which ones? What happens when they're "destroyed"? The terrain pieces are often not destructible themselves - do you remove an entire terrain piece? TOs likely won't be able to have rubble to replace them with as well - terrain is expensive. Especially for 450 tables.
Yeah I agree with that. I have toyed around with buildings/ruins having a toughness and wound total and treat it like a vehicle if it is destroyed - on a 1 anything inside is slain. A standard building having maybe like 10 wounds 4+ save and t6. Infantry can shoot out of it. If they are within 1 inch of a wall. That kind of stuff. The ITC solution though I think creates more problems than it fixes. I think it is clear that the game needs more dynamic terrain rules and still weapons need to hit less if fired indirect.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:
Rules wise or actual how stuff is build wise?


Rules wise.

You want terrain with the same rules as ruins but that infantry cannot freely travers? You got it.

You want terrain that gives cover just because you are standing behind it without being on it? You got it,

You want terrain that doesn't give cover but is passable only by infantry? You got it.

You want terrain that slows down infantry but not tanks? You got it.


I would like to highlight especially the second one.

People like to say that terrain doesn't do anything in this game because you use TLoS and just seeing an antenna makes you fully vulnerable, but that is true only for ruins. You got no less than 4 terrain element rules which give cover just because you are near it and are partially obscured from the target.
Sometimes you really think that players get a CA, see the points, see the missions (ITC players skip this step) and then drop it somewhere.
Spoiler: Terrain rules have been updated!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/14 06:01:23


 
   
Made in jp
Regular Dakkanaut





Well Imperial Fists do extra damage to buildings and even have a psychic power based around it but the game currently doesnt really use buildings in the terrain sense.
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles






Magic boxes are pretty terribly implemented with the "infantry move through ruins" rules. A unit can stand right outside a building, charge through the wall like the kool-aid man, and murder units inside without any fear of overwatch. It further rewards non-LOS shooting/abilities even more. Seems a little silly that a flamethrower or shotgun camping a doorway cannot overwatch, but a mortar can overwatch against something directly on the opposite side of the wall. Especially when you consider "there are holes etc that infantry can climb through" but those same "holes" aren't big enough to shoot out of? It was a decent stopgap before people starting using better terrain, but it's time to rip the band aid off.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: