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.

I really like Chain of Command’s Patrol Phase, which adds some interesting deployment options to the game. I was curious if a similar mini-game was out there for terrain set up and, finding none, I wrote one. It’s inspired by Lookout Games’ Patchwork Express.

The Scouting Phase – 2022-04-19

Like I said on the LAF- I love the name of this.

I think you are onto something here......

You may want to have a gander at Sam Mustafa's Scharnhorst (a rules module within his game Blücher). Its a bit different in that you aren't creating the terrain per se, rather you are creating a larger campaign area on a grid map with terrain laid out on it, and then you and your opponent maneuver forces across it until you "lock". Once locked, the area that you locked on (and the squares surrounding it) inform the table setup for the battlefield you play your game on, including terrain, mission, scenario, and deployment, the size of the forces available, reserves, etc.

Choosing the right battlefield is supposed to be part of excellent generalship.

Blücher is a great example. The whole 'pre game game' (for want of a better term) is great. Though it can skew things for one player over the other so wouldn't fit with the current 40k mindset, but it is an example of taking armies that aren't necessarily balance with that in mind and doing it.

The one time I can think GW have done this is have neutral tables set up, then the player with the highest Strategy rating chooses side or corner and then deploys the first unit. They also have D6+Strat to see who wins initiative each turn. I would love to see armies in 40k get such a treatment but the games designers simply aren't good and numerous enough for those sorts of rules and the impact on balance.

I love the idea of having to "scout" or have terrain revealed as players play the game. I've been toying around with mechanics that have terrain be placed on the battlefield as the game progresses. Basically the board is completely empty at the start of the game and each play places a piece of terrain at the start of their turn. This is an oversimplification and there are caveats to the placement, but it's designed to have the entire board filled by the beginning of turn 3 (most games go 6 turns). It also incentivizes players to play forward a bit with their units so they can essentially "scout" out the map as they play. This was inspired by old RTS games like Starcraft and Command and Conquer, with players revealing the map as they remove the Fog of War.

Leaving the "modern 40k mindset" behind, as it no longer has anything to do with proper wargaming, I was thinking about something along similar lines recently. Not for the purposes of establishing the terrain layout, but for staggered deployment, flanking, infiltration etc, and a way to implement elements of friction and diversion in ways a bit more interesting than random dice rolls.

Roughly speaking, my idea basically boils down to having a small hex map, with the battlefield represented by the central hex, which sides represent two edges and two half edges of the board. Then start with the forces a few hexes away, with units having different hex move values depending on type, infiltration units being capable of some behind the lines sabotage actions to delay units, long range artillery having opportunity to fire some preliminary scattered shots etc. I'm still working on details, but the general direction is hiding as much information here as possible without an umpire, and expand the part of the battle that 40k tried to squeeze into deployment by battlefield roles and reserve rolls.

 kain20k wrote:
I love the idea of having to "scout" or have terrain revealed as players play the game. I've been toying around with mechanics that have terrain be placed on the battlefield as the game progresses. Basically the board is completely empty at the start of the game and each play places a piece of terrain at the start of their turn. This is an oversimplification and there are caveats to the placement, but it's designed to have the entire board filled by the beginning of turn 3 (most games go 6 turns). It also incentivizes players to play forward a bit with their units so they can essentially "scout" out the map as they play. This was inspired by old RTS games like Starcraft and Command and Conquer, with players revealing the map as they remove the Fog of War.

This can't work in 28+mm scale, as you basically fight across the street and the only terrain you may reasonably be not aware of is an odd pile of rubble, an open manhole or a small crater. Especialy with 40k lethality and pretty much unlimited weapon ranges. But I can see this work in 15mm or better yet in 6mm scales. But 3rd and 4th ed tried to implement similar elements in a way of player placed barbed wire, anti-tank obstacles and minefields.

Hi Nou,

My description of the terrain placement was a broad simplification of the system itself, but it actually works well and is 28mm. We're still in playtesting to work out the small kinks, but there aren't any glaring issues with it (yet).
It's hard to compare to 40k due to the vast difference in the weapon lethality as you mentioned, and external balancing mechanics that we've created. We have a blanket Fog of War mechanic in our setting. This explains the reason that many of the battles are fought inside a cosmic maelstrom.

nous point is less to do with mechanics and more to do with real world rationalization. A 6x4 battlefield in 28mm, as nou said, realistically represents a fairly small area not more than the size of 2-3 city blocks. To be precise, scaled to your 28mm minis a 4x6 battlefield represents an area of approximately 260ft x 400ft - basically the size of a football or soccer field including the out of bounds areas surrounding the actual play area for those sports.

The idea that you would arrive in such a small space and not have visibility to something within it until halfway through the battle is pretty unrealistic as nou indicated - something like that would be fully mapped by the most basic of battlefield reconnaissance before either force ever committed to battle. Unless the fog of war for your setting is "everyone is completely blind and unable to see anything at all until they literally walk into it face first" its hard to justify how or why things like buildings, forests, etc. would not be known to the battling parties in such a small footprint from the outset of an engagement.

Absolutely. That's actually kind of the idea. Essentially everyone is "flying blind" other than they know that there is a resource signature and they're headed down to the planets surface to collect it. They are almost completely blind due to the nature of the haze that surrounds these planets and have to rely on units to scout and reveal the terrain as they go. Both players forces have the same goal, and that's where conflicts break out. This is apparent in the game play, simulating that the factions don't know each other are even there until they run into each other.

I agree that this would be unrealistic in most settings due to the scale. Our game is based more on small scale conflicts where the factions only really fight each other when it comes to gathering this resource.

 kain20k wrote:
Hi Nou,

My description of the terrain placement was a broad simplification of the system itself, but it actually works well and is 28mm. We're still in playtesting to work out the small kinks, but there aren't any glaring issues with it (yet).
It's hard to compare to 40k due to the vast difference in the weapon lethality as you mentioned, and external balancing mechanics that we've created. We have a blanket Fog of War mechanic in our setting. This explains the reason that many of the battles are fought inside a cosmic maelstrom.

Well... I don't know anything about your game/setting, so I assumed that we were talking about a mass battle system. I can see it justified in a skirmish level game like Necromunda or Turnip 28. However, I still have a hard time grasping how this works mechanically. Even in those games, you generally move 4"-6", run 8-12" and weapons have 12-24" range. Even smallest of those numbers mean that your first turn threat range is around half of the table. By turn 3 models are usually knocking on the opposing deployment zone. So, I imagine that first player moves up the empty table, but before any shooting takes place, the opponent places X pieces of terrain, creating LoS blocking and cover where he needs it the most? Then the second player moves and the first player adds another Y pieces of terrain, then rinse and repeat until a Z pieces of terrain are placed? Something like that?

No worries Nou. The idea is that it's an escalation style game. Players start with just a few models on the board that have faction wide sight profiles, with the rest of the battlefield being "undiscovered" due to the unnatural haze. At the beginning of each players turn they may place a piece of terrain on the battlefield within sight range of any friendly model. This is done before any activations are made by the player, so it's crucial that players think ahead on their model placement when they end their turn, that they can place terrain where they want it their following turn. Terrain cannot be placed within 6" of another piece of placed terrain. There are different amounts of terrain that can be placed based on the scenario and size play area you're playing on.

The sight characteristic also hinders models from just shooting at each other right at the start of the game, forcing them to discover enemy models, so they can be targeted. Units can shoot at any enemy as long as it's in range AND it's "revealed". So your units have to work together to scout out enemies and then target them with longer ranged weapons/vehicles. Certain placed terrain can offer vantage points, granting units a sight bonus.

 kain20k wrote:
No worries Nou. The idea is that it's an escalation style game. Players start with just a few models on the board that have faction wide sight profiles, with the rest of the battlefield being "undiscovered" due to the unnatural haze. At the beginning of each players turn they may place a piece of terrain on the battlefield within sight range of any friendly model. This is done before any activations are made by the player, so it's crucial that players think ahead on their model placement when they end their turn, that they can place terrain where they want it their following turn. Terrain cannot be placed within 6" of another piece of placed terrain. There are different amounts of terrain that can be placed based on the scenario and size play area you're playing on.

The sight characteristic also hinders models from just shooting at each other right at the start of the game, forcing them to discover enemy models, so they can be targeted. Units can shoot at any enemy as long as it's in range AND it's "revealed". So your units have to work together to scout out enemies and then target them with longer ranged weapons/vehicles. Certain placed terrain can offer vantage points, granting units a sight bonus.

So a "something like that"

[Btw, it's nou, not Nou ]

Exactly! lol