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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
40k isn't chess. People need to take whatever lists they want.

Yeah, like I say in my posts, I agree. But people wanting to make it "tighter" in a competitive sense want to make it more like chess, to allow for player skill to determine the outcome more. I'm not that interested in that, but what I'm suggesting is that lists would be a bigger element than terrain in any such endeavor.

Jidmah: You cut off my quote, was that on purpose?
In my opinion list building isn't much of a skill. There's some skill to it, but the lists are designed so poorly by GW that it's not that difficult to see the over powered options and put them together. If the game was more competently designed for balance I would say list building might be more relevant. As is, you can just google powerful lists. I do acknowledge that people often make interesting or unique lists, but that's not really playing the game in my opinion, that's what happens at the table.

And like I said, I'm just proposing this if you want to see who is the best at playing 40K, it would be a bigger deal to limit lists than to limit terrain. Terrain has a much smaller unbalancing effect than lists. If you wanted, you could do it like chess and have people swap sides after a game and play multiple sets.

I would not like that, personally, because that's not why I go to tournaments (not that I got that often any more). But if people think determining the best player is important I think those would be logical steps to take. If not, then yeah, let's all take individualised lists and play on unique terrain. Sounds much more appealing to me personally.

 vict0988 wrote:
"Terrain features cannot be set up on top of objective markers." 2020 mission pack.

So the maps are legal but can you move a 6" fat Monolith through all the maps or are they effectively banned?

As a general note for the thread. I think the confusion comes from people mixing up objective marker itself and the control zone.

Objective markers are just the 40mm part. Not the 40mm+6".

Didn't monoliths have Fly?

It has fly, but you still have to fit it.

The monolith model is big and quite low on the base for a flying model.

 Da Boss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
40k isn't chess. People need to take whatever lists they want.

Yeah, like I say in my posts, I agree. But people wanting to make it "tighter" in a competitive sense want to make it more like chess, to allow for player skill to determine the outcome more. I'm not that interested in that, but what I'm suggesting is that lists would be a bigger element than terrain in any such endeavor.

Jidmah: You cut off my quote, was that on purpose?
In my opinion list building isn't much of a skill. There's some skill to it, but the lists are designed so poorly by GW that it's not that difficult to see the over powered options and put them together. If the game was more competently designed for balance I would say list building might be more relevant. As is, you can just google powerful lists. I do acknowledge that people often make interesting or unique lists, but that's not really playing the game in my opinion, that's what happens at the table.

And like I said, I'm just proposing this if you want to see who is the best at playing 40K, it would be a bigger deal to limit lists than to limit terrain. Terrain has a much smaller unbalancing effect than lists. If you wanted, you could do it like chess and have people swap sides after a game and play multiple sets.

I would not like that, personally, because that's not why I go to tournaments (not that I got that often any more). But if people think determining the best player is important I think those would be logical steps to take. If not, then yeah, let's all take individualised lists and play on unique terrain. Sounds much more appealing to me personally.

I agree with your steps to determine "the best player". And eventually i believe 40k might reach that point. This might be an easy implementation for team events especially.

TO will just publish a list of 4-8 or more lists 3 months(or at the start of a season) in advance if not earlier.
Players will acquire the models either through borrowing or purchasing them.
Terrain will be set, misions will be set.

Eventually it might become like a MOBA for competitive play. There will be customisation, but it will be much more limited. What will matter will be pairing at a team level; who plays vs who. (For customisation think like warlord traits and psychic powers but not models.)

If such a thing happens it will mean a paradigm shift for the competitive scene. Will probably result in a drop of attendance initially, because players who like the current way will stop attending. But if implemented correctly, future attendance might grow exponentially, for sure if supported by GW. Just imagine them selling "Aeldari 2025 GT Army" as a pack where you just purchase and build those models, maybe even snap fit.

I don't see it as an impossibility but it would need GW support to take a hold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
It has fly, but you still have to fit it.

The monolith model is big and quite low on the base for a flying model.

To be honest i didn't realyl think of such big models when i was designing the maps. But will try to keep them in mind in the next version.

The WTC maps where i am part of the team as well are brutal though when it comes to large models. They literally invalidate certain models and that is by design.

What is the reasoning behind invalidating large models to that extent?

 Jidmah wrote:
What is the reasoning behind invalidating large models to that extent?

One of the more prioritised goals is to provide enough Los-Block at the deployment zone and movement lanes when approaching the enemy. So you do need some cover in certain intervals.

Another one is to null the first turn advantage, which seems to be a success from a team event we are monitoring.

 pizzaguardian wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
"Terrain features cannot be set up on top of objective markers." 2020 mission pack.

So the maps are legal but can you move a 6" fat Monolith through all the maps or are they effectively banned?

As a general note for the thread. I think the confusion comes from people mixing up objective marker itself and the control zone.

Objective markers are just the 40mm part. Not the 40mm+6".

Didn't monoliths have Fly?

Monoliths and Repulsors lost fly in 9th.

 pizzaguardian wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
What is the reasoning behind invalidating large models to that extent?

One of the more prioritised goals is to provide enough Los-Block at the deployment zone and movement lanes when approaching the enemy. So you do need some cover in certain intervals.

Another one is to null the first turn advantage, which seems to be a success from a team event we are monitoring.

Yeah, but you are also making entire archetypes relying on larger vehicles auto-lose the game. If that map is properly scaled, it would be impossible to run any sort of mechanized ork list on it, for example.

The base that is supplied with buggies is 150x95mm, so it wouldn't fit through most of those 3" gaps at all, let alone a battlewagon with a deff rolla or a naut. And those aren't even the largest models around. Driving a unit of warbikers across that board is also likely to be impossible.

IMO tables like that are massively skewing the game towards elite units and infantry.

 Jidmah wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
What is the reasoning behind invalidating large models to that extent?

One of the more prioritised goals is to provide enough Los-Block at the deployment zone and movement lanes when approaching the enemy. So you do need some cover in certain intervals.

Another one is to null the first turn advantage, which seems to be a success from a team event we are monitoring.

Yeah, but you are also making entire archetypes relying on larger vehicles auto-lose the game. If that map is properly scaled, it would be impossible to run any sort of mechanized ork list on it, for example.

The base that is supplied with buggies is 150x95mm, so it wouldn't fit through most of those 3" gaps at all, let alone a battlewagon with a deff rolla or a naut. And those aren't even the largest models around. Driving a unit of warbikers across that board is also likely to be impossible.

IMO tables like that are massively skewing the game towards elite units and infantry.

If you love ork buggies, look at the new WTC tables, and cry. I hope then will get their heads out of their behinds soon, but for now... Jid do you "play WTC" in you neck of the woods in Germany ?

Nah, those tournaments usually happen in big cities all around Germany and there is little reason for me to drive 3+ hours when I can reach dozens of stores in just an hour.
TTM is fairly active though, and while they don't have a unified rule-set, they do suggest that people use WTC table set-ups for their events.

Other than that, most stores just do whatever. Personally, I play most of my games at a club I'm part of.

 pizzaguardian wrote:


To be honest i didn't realyl think of such big models when i was designing the maps. But will try to keep them in mind in the next version.

The WTC maps where i am part of the team as well are brutal though when it comes to large models. They literally invalidate certain models and that is by design.

To be blunt, that seems like bad design. If you're going to start getting involved in rebalancing the game like that why bother doing it through stealth nerfs and tangential design choices? Why not just release your own version of 40k for the WTC, balanced how you like? One of the reasons it's bad is because it seems to be a reaction to problems that just no longer exist. Really large vehicle models like the Monolith and Knights are nowhere near the most powerful in the game (if they ever were).

Slipspace wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:


To be honest i didn't realyl think of such big models when i was designing the maps. But will try to keep them in mind in the next version.

The WTC maps where i am part of the team as well are brutal though when it comes to large models. They literally invalidate certain models and that is by design.

To be blunt, that seems like bad design. If you're going to start getting involved in rebalancing the game like that why bother doing it through stealth nerfs and tangential design choices? Why not just release your own version of 40k for the WTC, balanced how you like? One of the reasons it's bad is because it seems to be a reaction to problems that just no longer exist. Really large vehicle models like the Monolith and Knights are nowhere near the most powerful in the game (if they ever were).

You say make your own 40k, but at the same time complain about making the terrain maps. So do you want WTC make their own rules or not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
What is the reasoning behind invalidating large models to that extent?

One of the more prioritised goals is to provide enough Los-Block at the deployment zone and movement lanes when approaching the enemy. So you do need some cover in certain intervals.

Another one is to null the first turn advantage, which seems to be a success from a team event we are monitoring.

Yeah, but you are also making entire archetypes relying on larger vehicles auto-lose the game. If that map is properly scaled, it would be impossible to run any sort of mechanized ork list on it, for example.

The base that is supplied with buggies is 150x95mm, so it wouldn't fit through most of those 3" gaps at all, let alone a battlewagon with a deff rolla or a naut. And those aren't even the largest models around. Driving a unit of warbikers across that board is also likely to be impossible.

IMO tables like that are massively skewing the game towards elite units and infantry.

Well, the intent is to have at least 4.5" gap between ruins if not. If that gap is missing let me know and i will fix it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Nah, those tournaments usually happen in big cities all around Germany and there is little reason for me to drive 3+ hours when I can reach dozens of stores in just an hour.
TTM is fairly active though, and while they don't have a unified rule-set, they do suggest that people use WTC table set-ups for their events.

Other than that, most stores just do whatever. Personally, I play most of my games at a club I'm part of.

Everytime..

 pizzaguardian wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:


To be honest i didn't realyl think of such big models when i was designing the maps. But will try to keep them in mind in the next version.

The WTC maps where i am part of the team as well are brutal though when it comes to large models. They literally invalidate certain models and that is by design.

To be blunt, that seems like bad design. If you're going to start getting involved in rebalancing the game like that why bother doing it through stealth nerfs and tangential design choices? Why not just release your own version of 40k for the WTC, balanced how you like? One of the reasons it's bad is because it seems to be a reaction to problems that just no longer exist. Really large vehicle models like the Monolith and Knights are nowhere near the most powerful in the game (if they ever were).

You say make your own 40k, but at the same time complain about making the terrain maps. So do you want WTC make their own rules or not?

I don't want them to, but if you're going to do it then at least be up-front about it rather than implementing some weird stealth-nerf through different means.

My main criticism, though, is that it's "fixing" a non-existent problem in the first place, thereby showing how bad most homebrew versions of the game are.

 pizzaguardian wrote:
Well, the intent is to have at least 4.5" gap between ruins if not. If that gap is missing let me know and i will fix it.

4.5" is fine. The goonhammer WTC map posted earlier had most gaps just 3" wide.

Big stuff shouldn't be able to move freely around the board.

There need to be 4 things when setting up terrain.

Choke Points
Fatal Funnels
Open lanes
Impassable terrain

All 4 force difficult choices for both sides.

Terrain is the 3rd adversary and should not be taken lightly.

I wouldn't consider an 80 point buggy to be "big stuff". It's also not really a 3rd adversary when only a few armies are affected by it, while elite armies and those with flying vehicles just don't care.

Slipspace wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:


To be honest i didn't realyl think of such big models when i was designing the maps. But will try to keep them in mind in the next version.

The WTC maps where i am part of the team as well are brutal though when it comes to large models. They literally invalidate certain models and that is by design.

To be blunt, that seems like bad design. If you're going to start getting involved in rebalancing the game like that why bother doing it through stealth nerfs and tangential design choices? Why not just release your own version of 40k for the WTC, balanced how you like? One of the reasons it's bad is because it seems to be a reaction to problems that just no longer exist. Really large vehicle models like the Monolith and Knights are nowhere near the most powerful in the game (if they ever were).

You say make your own 40k, but at the same time complain about making the terrain maps. So do you want WTC make their own rules or not?

I don't want them to, but if you're going to do it then at least be up-front about it rather than implementing some weird stealth-nerf through different means.

My main criticism, though, is that it's "fixing" a non-existent problem in the first place, thereby showing how bad most homebrew versions of the game are.

The problem solved is the first turn advantage, a by product is big models beinf effected. This consequence is not unintended because we knew this would happen when designing the maps. It was a willing tradeoff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:
Well, the intent is to have at least 4.5" gap between ruins if not. If that gap is missing let me know and i will fix it.

4.5" is fine. The goonhammer WTC map posted earlier had most gaps just 3" wide.

Ah that one, from the draft version that was released privately and got leaked. The one you are commenting from a sketch without actually seeing the document. The one which has disproprotionate terrain that are bigger than the actual terrain.

Do you see where i am getting at?

I think the original question boils down to what you feel is most important for your tournament.

Having a Fixed Board or a Procedural Board (Dynamic Board that follows specific generation rules) tests players in different ways, the ability to plan or the ability to adapt. GW doesn't have a fixed definition of the vision how their game should be played so it falls to the individual to decide which of those two qualities are of higher importance when determining a "Skill Level". Due to this I would say its best to go with what the event organizers feel is a truer test of those qualities.

The other half of the consideration is are you making these changes to be more player friendly or more spectator friendly.

As many other posters have mentioned there is a stagnation to seeing the same boards over and over so Procedural Boards appeal to that sensibility. There is also something to be said as to putting even more emphasis on the planning stage of the hobby and Fixed Boards may be a step too far down that road. having said that playing on Procedural Boards can be a extremely frustrating experience from a player perspective if the rules for their generation aren't rock solid. (This exact issue has been pointed out earlier as a single missed generation rule led to a whole army archetype becoming extinct)

That frustration is made worse by the hobby's front loaded time and money costs.

For my personal taste, as primarily a spectator of late I like symmetrical boards, to me this isn't really any different than any other traditional or E sport I watch and the dice keep things varied enough IMO, but I feel that opinion isn't the most common.

TL;DR: Establish which skill is more important to event organizers (Planning or Adapting) then decide if you want to emphasize Competitive Experience or the Spectator Experience. Proceed from there.

 Halfton wrote:
I think the original question boils down to what you feel is most important for your tournament.

Having a Fixed Board or a Procedural Board (Dynamic Board that follows specific generation rules) tests players in different ways, the ability to plan or the ability to adapt. GW doesn't have a fixed definition of the vision how their game should be played so it falls to the individual to decide which of those two qualities are of higher importance when determining a "Skill Level". Due to this I would say its best to go with what the event organizers feel is a truer test of those qualities.

The other half of the consideration is are you making these changes to be more player friendly or more spectator friendly.

As many other posters have mentioned there is a stagnation to seeing the same boards over and over so Procedural Boards appeal to that sensibility. There is also something to be said as to putting even more emphasis on the planning stage of the hobby and Fixed Boards may be a step too far down that road. having said that playing on Procedural Boards can be a extremely frustrating experience from a player perspective if the rules for their generation aren't rock solid. (This exact issue has been pointed out earlier as a single missed generation rule led to a whole army archetype becoming extinct)

That frustration is made worse by the hobby's front loaded time and money costs.

For my personal taste, as primarily a spectator of late I like symmetrical boards, to me this isn't really any different than any other traditional or E sport I watch and the dice keep things varied enough IMO, but I feel that opinion isn't the most common.

TL;DR: Establish which skill is more important to event organizers (Planning or Adapting) then decide if you want to emphasize Competitive Experience or the Spectator Experience. Proceed from there.

These are very interesting points !
Adapting, a hundred times over. Planning is great for people who d9nt do an6thing other with their lives than play and think about 40k. I spend waaay too much time on that hobby, and still I think it is unfun to know 60% of the parameters when going to a tournament.
Planning is for nerds, adapting is for the true strategists (I a am mostly joking here, I would be one of the players complaining if I attended a tournament with lots of « surprise ! » stuff instead of what I had planned for, as I too am a nerd).
Asymetrical maps were more fun though, and current WTC maps a still need A LOT of work (sorry pizzaguardian)

 pizzaguardian wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:
Well, the intent is to have at least 4.5" gap between ruins if not. If that gap is missing let me know and i will fix it.

4.5" is fine. The goonhammer WTC map posted earlier had most gaps just 3" wide.

Ah that one, from the draft version that was released privately and got leaked. The one you are commenting from a sketch without actually seeing the document. The one which has disproprotionate terrain that are bigger than the actual terrain.

That's why I said "assuming it's properly scaled".

Do you see where i am getting at?

Yes, in fact, I do. You are absolutely unwilling to accept any and all criticism and attack anyone who dares do anything but shower you in praise over how perfect your awesome maps are. I wonder why you even started this thread to begin with.

 Jidmah wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:
Well, the intent is to have at least 4.5" gap between ruins if not. If that gap is missing let me know and i will fix it.

4.5" is fine. The goonhammer WTC map posted earlier had most gaps just 3" wide.

Ah that one, from the draft version that was released privately and got leaked. The one you are commenting from a sketch without actually seeing the document. The one which has disproprotionate terrain that are bigger than the actual terrain.

That's why I said "assuming it's properly scaled".

Do you see where i am getting at?

Yes, in fact, I do. You are absolutely unwilling to accept any and all criticism and attack anyone who dares do anything but shower you in praise over how perfect your awesome maps are. I wonder why you even started this thread to begin with.

I am as unwilling to accept your feedback as much as you are willing to give useful feedback.


But to be fair, i read this thread several times to gather what i can out of it. There are several points made that are valid like big units unplayable. That is true and a trade-off we have decided to make. That is not "unwilling to accept feedback", that is disagreeing with the feedback given.

 addnid wrote:

 Halfton wrote:
I think the original question boils down to what you feel is most important for your tournament.

Having a Fixed Board or a Procedural Board (Dynamic Board that follows specific generation rules) tests players in different ways, the ability to plan or the ability to adapt. GW doesn't have a fixed definition of the vision how their game should be played so it falls to the individual to decide which of those two qualities are of higher importance when determining a "Skill Level". Due to this I would say its best to go with what the event organizers feel is a truer test of those qualities.

The other half of the consideration is are you making these changes to be more player friendly or more spectator friendly.

As many other posters have mentioned there is a stagnation to seeing the same boards over and over so Procedural Boards appeal to that sensibility. There is also something to be said as to putting even more emphasis on the planning stage of the hobby and Fixed Boards may be a step too far down that road. having said that playing on Procedural Boards can be a extremely frustrating experience from a player perspective if the rules for their generation aren't rock solid. (This exact issue has been pointed out earlier as a single missed generation rule led to a whole army archetype becoming extinct)

That frustration is made worse by the hobby's front loaded time and money costs.

For my personal taste, as primarily a spectator of late I like symmetrical boards, to me this isn't really any different than any other traditional or E sport I watch and the dice keep things varied enough IMO, but I feel that opinion isn't the most common.

TL;DR: Establish which skill is more important to event organizers (Planning or Adapting) then decide if you want to emphasize Competitive Experience or the Spectator Experience. Proceed from there.

These are very interesting points !
Adapting, a hundred times over. Planning is great for people who d9nt do an6thing other with their lives than play and think about 40k. I spend waaay too much time on that hobby, and still I think it is unfun to know 60% of the parameters when going to a tournament.
Planning is for nerds, adapting is for the true strategists (I a am mostly joking here, I would be one of the players complaining if I attended a tournament with lots of « surprise ! » stuff instead of what I had planned for, as I too am a nerd).
Asymetrical maps were more fun though, and current WTC maps a still need A LOT of work (sorry pizzaguardian)

Asymetrical maps are definitely more engaging to play i agree. And some of the earlier drafts had actual asymetrical terrain. We had to decide against it because there is no "skill" involved in choosing deployment zones. It is simply a dice roll, so if you win it you gain an advantage. You can't plan for it in a realistic way.

However from this thread i got the idea of "tilted maps". They would be maps where one side has advantage in their deployment zone but the other one has better movement lanes into the midfield. That will be a thing i try in the next version of the maps for WY. WTC maps on the hand depend on the feedback of the captains of WTC. For every version we collect internal feedback from the WTC players and change the maps accordingly.

And no need to apologise i am not offended, even with Jidmah on this thread i just find it silly that he says things like he doesnt play WTC or 6 maps per mission is not enough variety. (if somebody can preplan an event of 3 rounds in 3 different missions with 6 variants each if not more, all power to them personally)

On the note of "procedural board" s; although they are a great idea, implementing it in real life might be a problem for totally non game related reasons. That terrain has to be available, purchased by the TO's, carried to the event location and then stored after the event. These are not small challenges for TO's. They might slow down the matches if you decide that players redo the maps at the start of every game, where players scramble to place the terrain during game time. If you decide to generate the maps before the event, that problem is mostly handled and you can just place the terrain on the board and tape the map next the board so players can fix it at the start of the game.

If you disagree that map packs should be a thing at all, thats entirely understandable as well. You might think that this part of the game should essentially be random and not be available for preplanning. I can't really say anything about that, that is your opinion about how this game should be played and thats just fine.

The map packs for WTC simply came to be because of the need to preplan the event for logistics purposes. We needed to know how much terrain we need, we wanted to have board that had different terrain density and pair the players for that. After that point there really isnt much of a leap to simply place the terrain in the inventory on a board and measure the distances. One might disagree with any of those above steps, but TO's from all across the world regularly make those decisions, they know what their terrain inventory is, they know what density of terrain they can provide and those are limiting factors as much as available space of the venue or the beer in the kegs!

I like the idea of tilted maps.

Maps should be asymmetrical, since there is a decision step bound to that.

The challenge is in not making that decision easy.

Tilted maps could be the right way to do that.

So, for my ProHammer games I'm playing over Tabletop Simulator, I put together a package of virtual terrain pieces along with a procedure for setting up the board.

Procedure is here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e4hr6cgaA2JsYqvi4aDdjvkzwlzQd8ir2LLPOiRzlDw/edit?usp=sharing

Basically what I did was organize pieces of terrain that are intended to be placed as one "set" into a "bag." So for example, I have 3 different base-plates for a forested/rocky zone plus an assortment of trees. I organized those into three sets (A/B/C versions), each in its own bag.

I then defined a range of terrain TYPES - for example "temperate woods" and created a bigger bag that then contains multiple copies of all of the individual set-bags.

I then developed a process for determining, based on the biome and landscape type, how many pulls from each type of terrain the players make. Players alternate making a pull and the placing the specific terrain pieces on the board. I'll post some screen-shots of the results - it's pretty cool and makes for some nice boards. You can see in the bottom of the document all of the terrain TYPES that I put together. These are broadly broken down into:

* Area Terrain (forest, ruins, shrubberies, etc.)
* LOS Blocking Terrain (solid buildings, walls, industrial structures, towers)
* Obstacles (barricades, tank traps, sand bags, razor wire, etc.)
* Special items (archways, statues, bunkers, mission specific stuff)

Part of the process is also determining the DENSITY of terrain, which defines the minimum and maximum amount of each type of terrain that be used.

I'm thinking this will be a nice foundation for a map-based campaign module I'm working on. If the campaign map defines the biome, landscape type, and density - players could try and choose a place to fight that is favorable to them (ie. guard might want to find a sparse wasteland to fight in, orks a nice dense industrial zone, etc.)

Thats pretty neat actually.