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.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/hlF8WKv4gJpXPZha.pdf

That is a LOT of recommended ruins.

I love the "OK, go ahead and stand on objectives, whatever." and the "clarification" that Core Rule Objectives are supposed to be/represent physical objects.

 Platuan4th wrote:
I love the "OK, go ahead and stand on objectives, whatever." and the "clarification" that Core Rule Objectives are supposed to be/represent physical objects.

I was disappointed with that change, but I understand why they did it.

I do still like that objectives can be *in* terrain though. I was fearing they'd remove that in the tourney pack as well as the "physical" objective thing.

I sincerely disliked the "you can't stand on objectives" so I'm glad to see that was remedied.

The terrain-scape has been so ghastly over the past few editions.

It sucks so much to see wargaming classics -- and basic features of landscapes -- like forests and hills go out of fashion because they evidently don't offer enough protection inside the braindead rulesets which now soft-require nothing but a ruination of big and little L's. Rock outcroppings, water features, most scatter terrain... all gone in service of this absolute piss. Up there with "too much rolling" and "too deadly" in the top 3 reasons that make me not want to play.

Buried in the article was a suggestion not to go nuts buying Aeldar...

Dont know how you dress your battle field, but we decide what to put on the table when we play. So we will keep using the stuf we got.

 skeleton wrote:
Dont know how you dress your battle field, but we decide what to put on the table when we play. So we will keep using the stuf we got.

The guidelines contain a tacit admission that games will be less fair if you don't use the recommended allotments.

Would it not be preferable to, y'know, just make the game work properly with all terrain? Like they did for many editions?

 Altruizine wrote:
Would it not be preferable to, y'know, just make the game work properly with all terrain? Like they did for many editions?

Did they though?

 Polonius wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:
Would it not be preferable to, y'know, just make the game work properly with all terrain? Like they did for many editions?

Did they though?

If you ask certain sub-groups, they'd say they didn't.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I sincerely disliked the "you can't stand on objectives" so I'm glad to see that was remedied.

Same. The magical bubbles of 'can't stand on this' ground are baffling,

 Altruizine wrote:

 skeleton wrote:
Dont know how you dress your battle field, but we decide what to put on the table when we play. So we will keep using the stuf we got.

The guidelines contain a tacit admission that games will be less fair if you don't use the recommended allotments.

Same as it ever was.

Too little terrain and ranged armies dominate. Too much terrain and close combat armies gain advantage. At least giving guidelines means we have some idea of what should work, or at least was used during playtesting.

Oh sweet summer child

Quasistellar wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
I love the "OK, go ahead and stand on objectives, whatever." and the "clarification" that Core Rule Objectives are supposed to be/represent physical objects.

I was disappointed with that change, but I understand why they did it.

I do still like that objectives can be *in* terrain though. I was fearing they'd remove that in the tourney pack as well as the "physical" objective thing.

I told everyone when it came out that is was 100% a Narrative change so fluffy players could make fancy bases and was 100% correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Altruizine wrote:

 skeleton wrote:
Dont know how you dress your battle field, but we decide what to put on the table when we play. So we will keep using the stuf we got.

The guidelines contain a tacit admission that games will be less fair if you don't use the recommended allotments.

Would it not be preferable to, y'know, just make the game work properly with all terrain? Like they did for many editions?

Hills didn't work for at least 4 editions.

ERJAK wrote:


Hills didn't work for at least 4 editions.

In what way?

 Altruizine wrote:

ERJAK wrote:


Hills didn't work for at least 4 editions.

In what way?

They didn't do anything. Putting a hill that didn't block True LoS was a waste of terrain space. At best they were difficult terrain and that never mattered.

Very short printed index card errata that managed to avoid nearly every glaring issue in the digital downloads. Presumably the actual corrections are incoming?

Symmetrical terrain.

Ghastly.

So the hills you were using were too small? Why didn't you make them bigger?

Even small ones provided cover.

They also shouldn't have been played as difficult terrain, unless they were actually rocky scree or the like.

So, you know, a subcategory of terrain that has a meaningful impact on the game but is distinct from the other types (like LoS-blocking and cover providing area terrain/woods & ruins, fully LoS-blocking terrain/intact buildings, and LoS-irrelevant difficult terrain/water)

 Altruizine wrote:
The terrain-scape has been so ghastly over the past few editions.

It sucks so much to see wargaming classics -- and basic features of landscapes -- like forests and hills go out of fashion because they evidently don't offer enough protection inside the braindead rulesets which now soft-require nothing but a ruination of big and little L's. Rock outcroppings, water features, most scatter terrain... all gone in service of this absolute piss. Up there with "too much rolling" and "too deadly" in the top 3 reasons that make me not want to play.

Agree on the terrain points. My collection is mainly woods & Rock out crops, with a scattering of ruins.

Not all battles have to be fought in urban environments.

Edit, I bet rhe GW ruins are so prevalent as to promote sales of those expensive plastic kits, where as Rock out crops and woods are cheap as chips to make/buy.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Symmetrical terrain.

Ghastly.

E-Sportsification of Warhammer continues to be a blight.

 Prometheum5 wrote:
E-Sportsification of Warhammer continues to be a blight.

I await the day when 'Metawatch' starts talking about tables in terms of "lanes" and "jungles".

Zachectomy wrote:
Very short printed index card errata that managed to avoid nearly every glaring issue in the digital downloads. Presumably the actual corrections are incoming?

The printed errata is there to move them to match the pdfs, because (as printed material) they're naturally older due to the lead time required for physical products.
Now, you can be justifiably frightened by the fact that pdfs already had an extra editing pass before they were put online, and still ended up with that list of errors (weapons that can't be taken, missing keywords and etc).

This was the obvious flaw in the cards from the get go. They had a shelf life of negative days, due to the terrible editing process.
A new batch a year from now when they've had months of live handling and multiple revisions will probably be fine (except for any new stuff added to each codex)

The truly sad thing is, as first in line, the marine and tyranid cards that accompany those codexes in the fall will still likely carry some of the same flaws, because the finalized version has likely already been sent off to the printer for production.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:
E-Sportsification of Warhammer continues to be a blight.

I await the day when 'Metawatch' starts talking about tables in terms of "lanes" and "jungles".

You guys can just admit you're sad you won't be able to blame losing on bad terrain anymore.

ERJAK wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:
E-Sportsification of Warhammer continues to be a blight.

I await the day when 'Metawatch' starts talking about tables in terms of "lanes" and "jungles".

You guys can just admit you're sad you won't be able to blame losing on bad terrain anymore.

What the hell are you talking about?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Symmetrical terrain.

Ghastly.

In a document meant to the competitive scene obsessed with balance, I'd rather say it's logical.

Voss wrote:
Now, you can be justifiably frightened by the fact that pdfs already had an extra editing pass before they were put online, and still ended up with that list of errors (weapons that can't be taken, missing keywords and etc).

Well put. Some of the physical card errata was for typo correction, but some were last minute balance changes, e.g. Eldar platforms were dropped to take 1 not take 1~3 very late in the process.

Zachectomy wrote:
Very short printed index card errata that managed to avoid nearly every glaring issue in the digital downloads. Presumably the actual corrections are incoming?

These were just to get physical match pdf.

Not even intended to be new changes yet.