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
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I'm going to preface this post that it is a very tournament slanted post and if you're not into tournaments you probably won't care for it.

Also, terrain is not a replacement for balance issues. It will not solve DE or Admech or ooLOS spam.

In the latest metawatch GW showed off a GFWR of 49% at NOLA Open. The rounds vary a bit - likely due to the missions.

Spoiler:
They also listed win rates by faction:

Spoiler:
There's a few surprising results there, but that may be due to the bracketing system.

Let's compare NOLA and the London GT.

Here's sample terrain for the London GT:
Spoiler:

And here's NOLA:
Spoiler:

Here's a firing lane comparison between the two:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:


So, I think it's safe to saw that GW's terrain layout is better. And this is where I think some people fall flat in their games.

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:


Here's the LGT top 16:
Spoiler:
Ad Mec
Deathwatch
Death Guard
Sisters
Ad Mec
Drukhari
Drukhari
Ad Mec
Aeldari
Death Guard
Drukhari
Chaos
Drukhari
Ad Mec
Ad Mec
White Scars 5-0


And NOLA:

Spoiler:
Cult Mechanics
Drukhari
Orks
Death Guard
Drukhari
Imperial Knights
Space Wolves
Thousand Sons
Salamanders
Death Guard
Custodes
Blood Angels
Harlequins
Adepta Sororitas
Iron Hands
Grey Knights


Again - no idea what ratio is attributable to brackets, win-path pairing, or terrain, but my hunch is that good terrain is crucial.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






hey just, quick one here, quick question.

....is every battle ever fought fought between two opposing armies that know each other are there but can't see each other at all?

Because it seems kind of like a dumb way to strategically set up a battle to me, just, conceptually, from a narrative standpoint.

Just, every time:

"Yep, men, theyre there, just cant see em through these big L-rocks/Big L-buildings/Big L-walls of trees/big L-walls of ice/giant tetris blocks on Forgeworld Tetriton, curse their over-productive zeal!!"

"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





 the_scotsman wrote:
hey just, quick one here, quick question.

....is every battle ever fought fought between two opposing armies that know each other are there but can't see each other at all?

Because it seems kind of like a dumb way to strategically set up a battle to me, just, conceptually, from a narrative standpoint.

Just, every time:

"Yep, men, theyre there, just cant see em through these big L-rocks/Big L-buildings/Big L-walls of trees/big L-walls of ice/giant tetris blocks on Forgeworld Tetriton, curse their over-productive zeal!!"


Well, terrain is crucial in Napoleanics. Simple hills allow you to hide units from enemy view. In games without fog of war it's pretty crucial and I don't think any modern army would casually deploy if they knew they were about to contact the enemy.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

*looks at the tournament tables*

Disgusting...

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

 
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





Another "the game is balanced if you try this ONE WEIRD TRICK" post from Daed.


 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
Another "the game is balanced if you try this ONE WEIRD TRICK" post from Daed.


You mean following the guidance of the actual rulebook?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
*looks at the tournament tables*

Disgusting...


And what if they visually were not ruins?

What if they were slightly assyemtrical, but still balanced?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/18 02:21:01


   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And what if they visually were not ruins?
Wouldn't make a damned bit of difference.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What if they were slightly assyemtrical, but still balanced?
Then some whiny tournament player would start screeching about it not being balanced.

Symmetrical tables at tournaments didn't used to be a thing. Now they're a fething plague of L-shaped bull gak.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/18 02:43:20


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





Well, if it's anything a tournament player will listen to it's data.

The biggest hurdle for tournaments is economics.

Local games don't have to follow the template, but they need to be mindful of terrain keywords and lanes.

   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Another "the game is balanced if you try this ONE WEIRD TRICK" post from Daed.


You mean following the guidance of the actual rulebook?


This?
Unless otherwise noted, when setting up terrain features, use the guidelines detailed on pages 266-269. Terrain features cannot be set up on objectives


Given that pages 266-269 are two very vague paragraphs and 10 pictures (of very open tables with terrain that mostly doesn't block LOS at all), I'm not sure where you're going with this.
The things they really do suggest is using a mix of area terrain and obstacles (which means not just loading the table with walls) and being open enough that tanks and large models don't get trapped.

They do mention obscured terrain near the middle of the table, but don't support that with pictures at all- open columns and windows abound, and the first pic on page 268 is just three crates, a few pipes and then buildings lining the edges! The last picture is a single crate in the middle with a ring of pipes, and three whole buildings on the left edge.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/18 03:29:22


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







Ignoring the main thrust of the post for a moment, I wonder why Imperial Knights were top of the tree when Chaos Knights were at the bottom - assuming they're referring to "pure" armies there, anyway.

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




Terrain has been important in every edition of the game. I would never set it up in a symmetric layout for a game but I understand why they've done this for tournaments.

I think a better layout is one that provides the same obstructed fire lanes, cover bonuses and forces decisions for movement but looks like a real environment. So if you're fighting in a city you should have distinct roads, plazas, city blocks, etc.

I'd like to start going to tournaments next year, just to get some experience paint outside of my small group, but I would get very bored playing games on the same setup over and over. If GW are going to provide TOs with some ideal setup examples/rules they should give some thought to more diverse layouts that offer the same advantages without the bland artificial appearance of the ones used at NOLA.
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

Thanks for the data Daedalus, I'm interested to look through it even as someone who does not play tournaments so it's nice to have it cross posted here.

The Knights/Chaos Knights win rates also really stood out to me, I'd have assumed they were pretty similar factions?

Also, the Tyranid score is REALLY low, wow. And Necrons too? They recently got updated so that is surprising. Overall a fairly even distribution between Imperial and Xenos factions, with Chaos as a faction actually faring worst. Seems like some effort from the design studio really is needed there.

On the terrain question, I still find it weird that people want to balance and homogenize terrain before balancing and homogenizing lists, if the tournament is supposed to be a test of player skill. If it's so important for it to be balanced that every board has to have the same layout, but then you've got all these wildly differently balanced factions and lists within those factions, it just seems weird to me. Either go all out, wacky cool terrain and very diverse lists for what is essentially a fun day out to play a bunch of games with the competition as the nominal excuse (which I feel was what tournaments mainly were when I still attended them) or actually balance things to make them a proper test of skill rather than a crapshoot in terms of matchup.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut






I can see multiple reasons for the Chaos Knight scoring. One is that there might very well not have been all that many players, which always is something that can lead to pretty extreme scoring. The other is that there is a lot of overlap with Imperial Knights, perhaps also in terms of player base. Which means that because one of them is better, players will tend more towards that one.

It's the same as win rates for different subfactions. Take the various space marine chapters for instance. It's pretty easy to play as another one while getting some pretty big bonuses for it. So, the most competitive players will generally switch to the most powerful chapter(s) which will further increase their win rate when compared to less powerful ones. After all, only the true diehards will be playing Blood Wolves when they can instead play Ultra Angels.

   
Made in gb
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought




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.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Don't call terrain the 3rd opponent!!

As soon as you suggest it can immobilize unfortunate vehicles (you know, like an opponent could) 40k players go ballistic.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Dysartes wrote:
Ignoring the main thrust of the post for a moment, I wonder why Imperial Knights were top of the tree when Chaos Knights were at the bottom - assuming they're referring to "pure" armies there, anyway.


ranged knights work OK on tournament terrain boards, melee knights are useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.


Yeah, except...have you ever tried to actually PLAY a narrative or open play game with a less than super duper dense table?

It's just kind of a miserable 2-turn experience that feels more like a game of Magic the Gathering than a wargame.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/18 12:08:39


"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 de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 the_scotsman wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
Ignoring the main thrust of the post for a moment, I wonder why Imperial Knights were top of the tree when Chaos Knights were at the bottom - assuming they're referring to "pure" armies there, anyway.


ranged knights work OK on tournament terrain boards, melee knights are useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.


Yeah, except...have you ever tried to actually PLAY a narrative or open play game with a less than super duper dense table?

It's just kind of a miserable 2-turn experience that feels more like a game of Magic the Gathering than a wargame.




   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




It is partly due to the reduction of the table size. Combined with GW's crazy obsession about close combat in a futuristic setting with bigger guns than you can ever imagine.

I played 40k in 2nd and 3rd. You still needed some terrain or the shooty armies won by default, but movement was way more restricted so you could actually outmaneuver opponent's guns. Same with WFB, archers had range that mattered. You could often just march your guys across the table and only worry about some artillery here and there. In both games, but most certainly in WFB distance was a "piece of terrain".

Now... most armies have several units that can cross the board in a single turn. Or shoot indirect anywhere they want. Back in the days a Basilisk could hide in a corner and you had to make a dedicated effort to reach it.

It is also worth noting that in the current meta the dominant armies are not limited by terrain. Flying transports, flyers, indirect spammable artillery, high mobility heavy guns and strong melee. You need to take exceptionally good advantage of terrain to have a chance against those due to to the terrain. Too many guns that get range almost across the board. When melee has threat ranges of 18"+ guns don't feel like guns if they are the same, yet the real problem is the combat threat ranges. Lots of terrain just makes this worse. By offering ways to progress across the board in cover and then unleash the carnage in melee.

What the lack of terrain does though is to make people think there is something wrong with the boards, that 1st turn skews the game, and that certain units are unplayable.

To be honest, there are so many other things wrong with competitive 40k that terrain is the least of the problems.

What I do agree with is how uninspiring most of the terrain is. I strongly prefer to play on decorative boards and would for a competitive game happily accept "bases" and pseudo-terrain rules in order to get some pretty and asymmetric terrain on the table. That dense forest in one side of the board? it just happens to be same rule-based terrain type as the ruins on the other side. Except when you play you can choose to attack through the forest or the ruins, not "left side" or "right side" and none of that "your left or my left?" mess.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
Another "the game is balanced if you try this ONE WEIRD TRICK" post from Daed.


Since I played my first table-top game in '89, adjusting the amount of terrain used in any game from battle to battle until you find the sweet spot for the game feel your group wants has been a thing.

To describe this as a weird trick seems odd to me. Everyone who I personally have played with regularly for the past 32 years would call it either business as usual or common sense.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





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.


That's a fair statement, but I think it is difficult to make a system the uses the quantity of models we have now and get it to play fast without having some measure of lethality. That and I really enjoy the dynamic the terrain allows as far as movement goes.

Visually? It isn't fantastic, but more creative minds can fix that. The system is general enough that you just need to attach keywords to whatever terrain.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Daedalus81 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.


That's a fair statement, but I think it is difficult to make a system the uses the quantity of models we have now and get it to play fast without having some measure of lethality. That and I really enjoy the dynamic the terrain allows as far as movement goes.

Visually? It isn't fantastic, but more creative minds can fix that. The system is general enough that you just need to attach keywords to whatever terrain.


I mean, 4th edition had almost as many models as now and played relatively quickly. My IG army I am building right now I am explicitly building to be playable in both 4th and 9th edition games. My total army list is within appx. 150 points (which is like 1 chimera and a couple HWS more in 9th than in 4th).

The differences are:
1) Reduced lethality. Moving a unit generally reduces its firepower and maximum range (exceptions are certain vehicles and Assault weapons, which are usually short ranged anyways). This reduces the number of units that can fire whilst maneuvering - and therefore the number of dice needed to roll.
2) Reduced lethality. There are very few (no, in my case) rerolls outside of twin-linked weapons. This saves time (and reduces lethality since twin weapons can't do any more damage than their singular counterpart). I disagree with that abstraction and prefer 9th's iteration of twin weapons, but it does reduce lethality and the absence of rerolls saves time.
3) Reduced lethality. No stratagems/auras/orders means units just do what they do - typically between 14 and 20 lasgun shots and/or a heavy weapon and/or special weapon in my case. It takes about 0.02 seconds to resolve a Guard Infantry Squad's shooting in 4th. I suspect that is the same as many factions; differentiation in capability is reflected in statline changes.
4) Reduced lethality. Lack of ability to splitfire means one doesn't get to maximize one's firepower against whatever targets. Want the missile launcher to shoot a tank? Well, you don't need to worry about the lasguns or flamer. Saves time.
5) Lack of a damage stat (Random or otherwise). Units are either Instant Death'd or they take 1 wound (which usually kills a model). Resolving the damage of an attack in 9th is actually sometimes quite a long step, especially random damage and multiwound models.
6) Reduced lethality. Effects that cause "pinning" (for example) rather than outright casualties are a thing. When my Chimeras get asploded, my unit becomes Entangled, which means they can't move or shoot the next turn (are pinned). One entire fewer unit's worth of dice to roll!
7) Reduced lethality. Given that tanks are immune to small arms, there's a reduction in the "roll to see if you roll to see if your opponent gets to roll to see if you get to damage" thing that 40k has going in every edition. In 9th, there is a lot of "tons of dice, small effect" where you're throwing something like 40 attacks to see if you can get a single wound on a target. By making that target immune, it saves tons of times. If this happens lots in every game (e.g. mobs of 30 shoota boys vs Chimeras) the time difference is notable. Resolving a gazillion small arms against a tank so that you can put 2 wounds on it, and then doing so again, and again, and again, takes HUGE amounts of time.

The things that increase time (just for fairness):
1) If you have an opponent who quibbles over template placement in the shooting phase, this can take an age. Fair enough; quibblers gonna quibble.
2) Vehicle damage chart can take a long time if you don't have it memorized.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/10/18 13:30:07


 
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
*looks at the tournament tables*

Disgusting...


It might sound a bit snobbish but as a narrative player I'll have to say, a tournament usually doesn't follow a story, it might feature Custodes fighting Guilliman, it has the most boring kind of repetitive missions... I expect it to have an ugly, economic table because it's about crunching numbers and not really about the hobby.
That being said I've seen beautiful tables in lotr tournaments but these were also sparse while the majority were some grass mats and who can blame the hobby Clubs, as anything else is a logistic nightmare.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 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.


Visually? It isn't fantastic, but more creative minds can fix that. The system is general enough that you just need to attach keywords to whatever terrain.


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.

"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







 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 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.


Visually? It isn't fantastic, but more creative minds can fix that. The system is general enough that you just need to attach keywords to whatever terrain.


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.


Just make your arena a Ruined City instead, duh (/s)
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 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.


Visually? It isn't fantastic, but more creative minds can fix that. The system is general enough that you just need to attach keywords to whatever terrain.


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.


Just say that your terrain pieces that are "too short" still obscure stuff. Thats how we play it at my store.

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in gb
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought




 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 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.


Visually? It isn't fantastic, but more creative minds can fix that. The system is general enough that you just need to attach keywords to whatever terrain.


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.


Just say that your terrain pieces that are "too short" still obscure stuff. Thats how we play it at my store.


Or add a tall lamp post/rebar/tree/stick/statue of Matt Ward/whatever to make the height up on a technicality if people are hard-core RAW.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 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.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 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.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/18 17:03:03


"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 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: