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.

A certain fraction of battles should take place with little terrain. That represents Kursk-like battles. The whole "7th ed was balanced around having huge amounts of terrain" was a complete fantasy. Terrain should not be required for a balanced game. If something is super duper shooty, it needs to be expensive, not be turned off by free terrain.

Martel732 wrote:
A certain fraction of battles should take place with little terrain. That represents Kursk-like battles. The whole "7th ed was balanced around having huge amounts of terrain" was a complete fantasy. Terrain should not be required for a balanced game. If something is super duper shooty, it needs to be expensive, not be turned off by free terrain.

Fair enough, but then a certain fraction of battles should take place in the Hive cities of Hive worlds, with nothing more than tunnels and pathways running through the board, no uninterrupted line of sight more than 12" long. Terrain shouldn't hinder a game from being balanced. If something is super good at close quarters combat, it needs to be expensive, not turned off by open playfields.

Sounds fine to me.