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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 00:33:16
Subject: Re:Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?
|
It's because people want to spread their units out to the maximum coherency allowed so templates get less hits on them. And you can usually only do that if you have little or no terrain. Good terrain, terrain that blocks line of site, provides cover, etc. often requires you to bunch your models closer together in order to make full use of that terrain.
|
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 00:36:48
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
SaJeel wrote:You can use many things to represent terrain, the act of cost is a flimsy one
In warmachine yes , but 6th has this stupid true LoS , which isn't realy true LoS thing and a building has to look like a building. It is of course possible to put shoe boxs on the table and make everything impassible , but I doubt most people would like to play games in tables like that. Maybe if they play FMC heavy lists. or something that can ignore terrain.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 00:46:02
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Martel732 wrote:LoS blocking terrain is not always favorable for an assault list because it also slows and blocks movement. Shooting is better even with LoS blocking terrain .
It might be experiences I have had, but Itend to disagree. We have Ork players in my area that do really well on heavily terrained tables. Running BA, I have consistantly done better on tables with more terrain. One of those your milage may vary things, Iguess.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 00:55:39
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Using Inks and Washes
St. George, Utah
|
Don't the current rules for terrain have you roll a D3 for each of the 4 corners of the map and that's the amount of terrain you put in it?
I'm not a big fan of that particular rule. I like the 25% of the board rule from earlier editions. It feels like a solid amount of terrain. Our local club also has a lot of buildings made by the collective, so line of sight lanes are really important around here.
By the way, the more cover there is, the more it benefits Tau gunlines. It hinders every other gunline army, and HELPS them. Kind of why I loathe playing Tau.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 01:11:18
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Disguised Speculo
|
I ran an event with the following LoS homerules, and intend to use them for every other event I run in the future;
"Count all completely enclosed openings on the first floor of any typical ruin or building as solid. This includes windows and doors and not just bullet holes."
"Abstract line of sight through forests/jungles. You may see into a forest but not through it. This piece of abstracted terrain is as tall as the tallest tree on the base (in all other regards the trees are purely decorative) and as wide as the area terrain at the base"
Love these rules, and playing the occasional game without them is suffering. Instant reliable LoSB terrain without breaking the bank.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/13 01:11:52
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 01:33:00
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Sneaky Sniper Drone
|
Makumba wrote:
It is of course possible to put shoe boxs on the table and make everything impassible , but I doubt most people would like to play games in tables like that. Maybe if they play FMC heavy lists. or something that can ignore terrain.
,
Green felt cut, it out say its a forrest that completely blocks lines of sight 6 inches upward. Take some grey felt cut it into large squares and rectangles these are impassible collums that extend 10 feet[unreachable value even for flyers] into the air. Theres alot you can do to make it work.
Your second point "but I doubt most people would like to play games in tables like that. Maybe if they play FMC heavy lists. or something that can ignore terrain" makes no sense... so people will only want to play with terrain if they can ignore the terrain... that's so illogical... that is basically saying people will only want to play with it if it gives them an unfair advantage, at which point what the hell is the point of playing?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 03:13:20
Subject: Re:Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I've really noticed this too.
I feel like this maybe came around with 3rd edition? There was a lot of emphasis on speeding up the game which might have been part of it. Less terrain and seemed like they encouraged smaller boards, which is just as bad, if not worse. God forbid you need to use strategy or move all your units into positions and can't just sit in your deployment zone. Plus more emphasis on 1vs1 play.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 03:57:32
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Hellish Haemonculus
|
Dakkamite wrote:I ran an event with the following LoS homerules, and intend to use them for every other event I run in the future;
"Count all completely enclosed openings on the first floor of any typical ruin or building as solid. This includes windows and doors and not just bullet holes."
So if you're in a ruin, you can't shoot out of a window? Or am I misconstruing this?
Personally, I almost never see a game without quite a bit of terrain. If I'm not playing a Drop Pod list, I almost never see a shooting attack where the target doesn't get a cover save. That being said, we have a fairly large amount of sweet terrain, so that might help.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 08:22:38
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Dakkamite wrote:"Count all completely enclosed openings on the first floor of any typical ruin or building as solid. This includes windows and doors and not just bullet holes."
"Abstract line of sight through forests/jungles. You may see into a forest but not through it. This piece of abstracted terrain is as tall as the tallest tree on the base (in all other regards the trees are purely decorative) and as wide as the area terrain at the base"
I strongly disagree with both of these. I'm not a fan of TLOS letting you shoot a model through a tiny bullet hole in a wall and only giving it the same 4+ cover save as if half the body was visible, but windows/doors/etc are legitimate open spaces to shoot and charge through (don't forget that you need LOS to charge). Likewise for forests, there might be the occasional special terrain piece that is justified in blocking LOS through it, but most "forests" in 40k represent a few trees in an open field, and you should be able to see and shoot at a tank on the other side of them.
Skriker wrote:The table should be effectively split down the middle with serious cover, but also some clear fire lanes, but nothing that allows an army with longer range firepower to completely dominate without moving a single model.
Or, instead of trying to force 40k to be WHFB and crippling long-range shooting (yay, my 48" range lascannons can only shoot 24") you could accept that 40k is a shooting-focused game and use a more appropriate amount of terrain. There should be cover available, but if you're effectively dividing the table into a pair of smaller tables with your terrain then you've got way too much. Static shooting armies should have to make sacrifices for clear firing positions, but assault and short-range shooting armies should have to make sacrifices to get cover instead of just having a good cover save wherever they go.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 08:43:53
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Foxy Wildborne
|
Because 5th and 6th screwed up the LOS rules and made it almost impossible to actually block LOS in practice unless you put huge, really huge, solid bricks on the table.
Terrain collections that were built during older editions and used to provide good LOS blocking back when Area Terrain meant a damn are now useless, or rather, hamper assault armies by slowing down movement while not affecting gunlines at all.
|
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 08:49:44
Subject: Re:Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
40kenthus
Manchester UK
|
AegisGrimm wrote:
I think my penchant for lots of terrain in games is driven by starting 40K in the days of 2nd edition. Back then terrain was very, very important.
Which is why we got a BUTT LOAD of card ruins in the box.
I still have loads of that kicking about. And some Foam Board... I think I'm going to upgrade my scenery!
|
Member of the "Awesome Wargaming Dudes"
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 09:10:29
Subject: Re:Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Brainy Zoanthrope
|
Foam board is king! I built enough terrain to volume wise match GW's £100+ imperial ruins for about £20 of that stuff with board to spare. As a result we always have loads of blocked LOS as not every wall has windows or doors.
Tourneys always have issue of making their terrain cover loads of tables but at home there really is no excuse for playing on planet bowling ball. As someone else said there are even lower cost alternatives, green felt or even card to represent a thick LOS blocking jungle/forest also works and has the benefit of not creating places you can't stand models in it.
Ruins can also be built to a smaller scale with card too.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 11:19:44
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
West Browmich/Walsall West Midlands
|
There are also other aspects here to think about.
Even though its a fictional game, sometimes it gets dam boring playing on tables with lots of terrain, and for some there is the temptation for their version of a 'more realistic' battlefield.
Hence the open battlefields... not to mention the 'fluff' excuse of the world being fought over is like the Russian Steppes
Everybody has their own way of doing things, we tend to have big pieces of terrain at my club so the board does have a good covering without it feeling too cluttered. Still, Tau trump this of course because of Mr Markerlight & Co.
More to the point GW boards at shops and in the old white dwarf never had/have that much terrain on them anyway. It also encourages mech armies to 'bring your own cover' so to speak.
Tourneys have the numbers problem, and in that there is always the joke of picking the best side of the table cover wise to gain an advantage.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/13 11:22:07
A humble member of the Warlords Of Walsall.
Warmahordes:
Cryx- epic filth
Khador: HERE'S BUTCHER!!!
GW: IG: ABG, Dark Eldar , Tau Black Templars.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 11:54:12
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
[DCM]
Moustache-twirling Princeps
Gone-to-ground in the craters of Coventry
|
Open battlefields were the norm for older RL battles, but more modern warfare seems to happen in urban areas. Battle-tanks are less common than in WWII.
Having armies meet on a field, and marshalling units was common long ago, but died off with guns and military intelligence.
So, unless a battle has been arranged, and one side has chosen the field, it likely to be a mess of semi-rural buildings, vegetation of various sizes, and general terrain types.
In space, with the myriad of places to fight, it 'could' happen anywhere, from cramped tunnels and stations to billiard-ball smooth planets. The latter is unlikely, as there are few reasons to fight over a world like that.
From a game-play perspective, LoS blocking terrain is useful to provide choice (can't really call it tactics in 40k), and area terrain makes taking certain units worthwhile. Line up your guns, move them towards each other until you're in range, and stand and fire. This makes for a boring game.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 13:49:59
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Mighty Vampire Count
|
Why do people think it should be one or the other
IMO Battles should be fought on tables with little, some or lots of terrain - IMO Tournamnets should also include the same.
Anything else just panders to specific army builds and players..........
|
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page
A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 13:52:41
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Iron_Captain wrote:Because nice terrain costs a lot of money and most people are too lazy to make it themselves.
This.
|
In before thread lock. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 13:59:53
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Snord
|
I just follow the rule book. d3 pieces per quarter. d3+1 if we only have small pieces of terrain
Von Chogg
|
LunaHound wrote:Eldrad was responsible for 911 *disclaimer, because Eldrad is known to be a dick, making dick moves that takes eons to fruit.
tremere47 wrote:fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 14:23:33
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Frenzied Berserker Terminator
|
Honestly I don't like when the tables too cluttered. I really enjoy most tourney setups.
|
" $@#& YOU! There are 3 things I want in a guy: Tall, Handsome, and plays Dark Eldar!"-every woman since
November 2010 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 14:43:34
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Boosting Space Marine Biker
|
Peregrine wrote:
Or, instead of trying to force 40k to be WHFB and crippling long-range shooting (yay, my 48" range lascannons can only shoot 24") you could accept that 40k is a shooting-focused game and use a more appropriate amount of terrain. There should be cover available, but if you're effectively dividing the table into a pair of smaller tables with your terrain then you've got way too much. Static shooting armies should have to make sacrifices for clear firing positions, but assault and short-range shooting armies should have to make sacrifices to get cover instead of just having a good cover save wherever they go.
That is just what the TFG's in my FLGS say:
This is a shooting edition, long range weapons should dominate, assault armies should never get cover saves. i shouldn't have to move. the sacrifices i make are that i can't move out of the cover i set up in because this is a gunline.
The simple fact is that most people play games where there is very little LOS blocking terrain, or indeed terrain in general. to the point where everyone brings an ADL, because they need SOME cover. Armies therefore adapt to the terrain, and you find gunlines tend to dominate.
Throw those gunline armies into a battlefield where there are no clear fire lines, and there is cover everywhere. and getting into shooting range puts you in assault range. then you have a very very different battle on your hands.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 15:05:12
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Lesser Daemon of Chaos
|
I guess it depends on how you view the game. If you see it as a a game to test your strategy skills against an opponent, with both players playing optimised builds and just operating on a RAW point of view, then unpainted armies fighting on a sparsely populated board is fine.
For me personally, if that was the only appeal then I would stick to a "play from the box" game like Risk, that doesn't cost me an arm and a leg.
I am in the category of players that was attracted by the background, not the rules. I like a game that is more or less fair, but more importantly has a narrative in place. Who are my army, why are they fighting here? If there's a lot of buildings around then I can imagine it being a big push to take a city, a more open battlefield-a desperate rearguard action to by time for an allied force. Ok sometimes I might not be fighting on favourable ground, but that's just like real life to me. So my sneaky elite Alpha Legion are impossible to flush out of the tight confines of a hive city. But their reinforcements are later caught in the open by an advancing Ork force, suddenly they have to learn adapt to this new less favourable terrain, or die. Sure I might be at a disadvantage but I can still have fun with the game.
I am not knocking the tournament mentality, it is just different. I don't want an army with min max units and identical load outs. I want my army to feel unique at the cost of effectiveness. I ran Alpha legion in 4th and 5th, after losing my cultists from 3.5, and suddenly Undivided disappearing from the codex, I ran no Oblits, no cult troops, no special characters. My main opponent had Orks and used Flash Gitz and no battle wagons, neither of us were optimised, although my list was far more handicapped by lack of choices that fitted my fluff, so I lost 90% of the time. But we always had fun games because it was more about the ongoing narrative between our two armies.
As many have stated, it isn't even important to have things painted. I think the thing I dislike the most with 40k now, is how streamlined and totalitarian it has become. I love the GW kits but not everyone can afford them, but since they have come out GW seems to expect you to use their terrain to fit the rules. When I started playing all the terrain I could buy was some crappy small ruin and some plastic trees. There is nothing wrong with using coke cans as fuel tanks, shoe boxes as bunkers, pennies as a mine field, books piled under a table cloth for hills. For Throne sake, we are grown men (and women) playing with toy soldiers, if we didn't have imagination then why are we playing this game? It's certainly not for the balance. Cost is killing this hobby but terrain is one of the few things that we really don't have to let our wallets rule.
In short, I think that a table should have enough terrain to represent an actual battlefield that armies would fight over, spread out as fairly as possible to both players. This actually also makes smaller points value games more fun too. Laziness and cost should never be an excuse in a game where your shoe can be a wrecked titan if you want it to be.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 16:29:48
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Stormin' Stompa
|
SRSFACE wrote:Don't the current rules for terrain have you roll a D3 for each of the 4 corners of the map and that's the amount of terrain you put in it?
Von Chogg wrote:I just follow the rule book. d3 pieces per quarter. d3+1 if we only have small pieces of terrain
Von Chogg
Guys, the rule is "d3 pieces per 2'x2' section". Not per quarter.
|
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 16:43:09
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
Steelmage99 wrote:SRSFACE wrote:Don't the current rules for terrain have you roll a D3 for each of the 4 corners of the map and that's the amount of terrain you put in it?
Von Chogg wrote:I just follow the rule book. d3 pieces per quarter. d3+1 if we only have small pieces of terrain
Von Chogg
Guys, the rule is "d3 pieces per 2'x2' section". Not per quarter.
Unless your table is 4'x4'. (defacto standard is 6'x4')
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 16:54:59
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Stormin' Stompa
|
Purifier wrote:Steelmage99 wrote:SRSFACE wrote:Don't the current rules for terrain have you roll a D3 for each of the 4 corners of the map and that's the amount of terrain you put in it? Von Chogg wrote:I just follow the rule book. d3 pieces per quarter. d3+1 if we only have small pieces of terrain Von Chogg Guys, the rule is "d3 pieces per 2'x2' section". Not per quarter. Unless your table is 4'x4'. (defacto standard is 6'x4') Doesn't matter how big your table is. The rule is still "per 2'x2' section", not "per quarter". Small addendum; Regarding only having small pieces of terrain - when GW talks about terrain they mean substantial pieces. If you only have small pieces, you place three (3) of those, and that counts as one (1) of the d3 pieces. ...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/13 17:00:11
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 16:58:08
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Grim Rune Priest in the Eye of the Storm
|
Defiantly Laziness:
I currently have more terrain available than I want because we used to have a member who loves to make terrain. Most of it was oversized and to tall especially his mountains.
I have makes two really nice pieces of terrain, one “Hill A42” resembles a Vietnam era Fire Base and an oil refinery. Both are on 2’ x 4’ pieces of wood. My problem is getting people to help me pull them out to use them.
The other one is one I want to build “The Factory”. It is a 4’ x 4’ piece of terrain I want to build in four 2’ x 2’ pieces. It is designed to be the centerpiece for a Cities of Death Game. no one though wants to put out the couple of hours it will take to get the major assembly started.
Now we do the can see in and out of, but not though Forest/Jungle Terrain and we are happy with that.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 17:18:01
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Mighty Vampire Count
|
Dalymiddleboro wrote:Honestly I don't like when the tables too cluttered. I really enjoy most tourney setups.
But should there not be both low density and high density terrain set up in a tourney setting or simply it favours even more the one type of army which 6th ed already favours- the gunline?
|
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page
A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 17:23:34
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
Because people spent so much time trying to cheeze and min max their list they dont want such silly intangibles to get in the way of proving to their opponent that their army list is superior after all that is what WH40k is all about according to the neck beards.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 17:29:05
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
The Marine Standing Behind Marneus Calgar
|
If you are using the rulebook to set up terrain, it is part of the tactical nature of the game. If you are playing a gunline, when it’s your turn to place a piece on the table, you are going to set a single bush off in a corner. So unless you are just setting up the table in a cinematic manner, it behoves some armies to play on planet bowling ball.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 17:33:52
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Grim Rune Priest in the Eye of the Storm
|
Our routine when we use the d3 is to roll one for each 2’ x 2’ section.
Start to place the Terrain we want in each section, we just place it there.
Then move the Terrain around in each section till it looks cohesive.
Sometimes we may even move, add or remove items to make it look better.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 17:37:20
Subject: Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Mighty Vampire Count
|
Nevelon wrote:If you are using the rulebook to set up terrain, it is part of the tactical nature of the game. If you are playing a gunline, when it’s your turn to place a piece on the table, you are going to set a single bush off in a corner. So unless you are just setting up the table in a cinematic manner, it behoves some armies to play on planet bowling ball.
And that thats cheesing it up and manipulating the rules in WAAC way IMO
|
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page
A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/13 18:03:16
Subject: Re:Why are battlefields so Open?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Just flipping through pictures of the LVO and terrain looks pretty minimal... how did they place terrain there, or at most tournaments?
|
|
 |
 |
|