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.

Except there is a lot of stuff, just not where you want it. Not every battle is going to have walls in the middle of the battlefield.

Martel732 wrote:
Except there is a lot of stuff, just not where you want it. Not every battle is going to have walls in the middle of the battlefield.

People are forgetting about this. You can't just use the very tired "use more terrain" when most tables in most hobby shops are already put together and look nice. It's a lazy argument to try and defend IGOUGO as well.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are so many terrain setups between bowling ball and 90% blockage

Well, according to some people, this is planet bowling ball:

IMO, most of the terrain is placed around the edges of the table so will be mostly useless throughout the game. Apart from the Bastion, there is no LOS blocking across the centre so yeah, that sort of is "planet bowling ball"

I had a csm player friend throw a giant hissy fit because I set the board up more like you proposed and it ended up bottle necking his whole army because he went way to mech heavy. You put on to little some will bitch put on a lot and they bitch as well.

Drager wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You select it as you like it.

The wording changed from CA18 where it said "Determines the deployment type following the rules on page xx of BRB" which then said that you roll.

Now it just says that the defender "Determines which of the standard deployment maps is used in the battle" and that's it.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Here's a screenshot.

Spoletta wrote:
Also, all the eternal war missions now always score at the start of the turn (from second round), there are no longer missions which score at the end of the round, which gave an advantage to going second.

Again, this isn't accurate. See below.

On the second point you are right, i didn't see that mission.

On the first point though why am i mistaken? The text says exactly what i said, word per word.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are so many terrain setups between bowling ball and 90% blockage

Well, according to some people, this is planet bowling ball:

IMO, most of the terrain is placed around the edges of the table so will be mostly useless throughout the game. Apart from the Bastion, there is no LOS blocking across the centre so yeah, that sort of is "planet bowling ball"

I had a csm player friend throw a giant hissy fit because I set the board up more like you proposed and it ended up bottle necking his whole army because he went way to mech heavy. You put on to little some will bitch put on a lot and they bitch as well.

Says more about the person than an issue with the terrain though.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

Spoiler:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are so many terrain setups between bowling ball and 90% blockage

Well, according to some people, this is planet bowling ball:

IMO, most of the terrain is placed around the edges of the table so will be mostly useless throughout the game. Apart from the Bastion, there is no LOS blocking across the centre so yeah, that sort of is "planet bowling ball"

I had a csm player friend throw a giant hissy fit because I set the board up more like you proposed and it ended up bottle necking his whole army because he went way to mech heavy. You put on to little some will bitch put on a lot and they bitch as well.

Says more about the person than an issue with the terrain though.

Nothing wrong with bitching about too much terrain for your army to manouvre, especially if the terrain is largely useless, like putting down a barricade such that vehicles have no option but going up and down instead of around can hurt a lot, while units with FLY can ignore it and Infantry can move around more easily, you can definitely create some unfair terrain set-ups using too much terrain. It's even easier to make things unfair when Titanic units get involved, the Necron Seraptek Construct is pretty good IMO, most people's opinion is that it's meh at best, it's definitely pretty bad when terrain gets heavy and you have to spend half your movement moving up and down things, IMO some Titanic units should ignore terrain like that, although the Seraptek has an obscene Movement characteristic so I'd be fine with adjusting it down and giving it an ability to ignore terrain somehow.

Spoletta wrote:

Drager wrote:
The Defender doesn't select the deployment type. They determine it. Determine means roll a dice and consult the chart. They do select the zone, which is a big advantage, they do have prepared positions and in some eternal war missions going second is a distinct scoring advantage.

You select it as you like it.

The wording changed from CA18 where it said "Determines the deployment type following the rules on page xx of BRB" which then said that you roll.

Now it just says that the defender "Determines which of the standard deployment maps is used in the battle" and that's it.

Also, all the eternal war missions now always score at the start of the turn (from second round), there are no longer missions which score at the end of the round, which gave an advantage to going second.

You are completely misquothing ca18 because it suits you, the wording is exactly the same as in ca19 of determines wich of the standard deployment maps is used in the battle.

Spoletta wrote:

Drager wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You select it as you like it.

The wording changed from CA18 where it said "Determines the deployment type following the rules on page xx of BRB" which then said that you roll.

Now it just says that the defender "Determines which of the standard deployment maps is used in the battle" and that's it.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Here's a screenshot.

Spoletta wrote:
Also, all the eternal war missions now always score at the start of the turn (from second round), there are no longer missions which score at the end of the round, which gave an advantage to going second.

Again, this isn't accurate. See below.

On the second point you are right, i didn't see that mission.

On the first point though why am i mistaken? The text says exactly what i said, word per word.

Here's the 2018 version. It's the same wording. They both reference the rulebook.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are so many terrain setups between bowling ball and 90% blockage

Well, according to some people, this is planet bowling ball:

IMO, most of the terrain is placed around the edges of the table so will be mostly useless throughout the game. Apart from the Bastion, there is no LOS blocking across the centre so yeah, that sort of is "planet bowling ball"

Both the bastion and the generator are LOS blocking, as are all the containers - the devastators on tall flight stands could not be seen when behind a container unless you were in an elevated position. The trees are LOS blocking despite not seeming like that from the picture, the doomsday ark could not see the chapel building on my side at all.

You're basically saying that unless there is a 24" wide and 12" tall LOS blocker in the middle of the board, it's planet bowling ball. Which means exactly one thing, and that is that shooting is broken OP unless you go to extreme measures to invalidate long range weapons.

 vict0988 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

Spoiler:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are so many terrain setups between bowling ball and 90% blockage

Well, according to some people, this is planet bowling ball:

IMO, most of the terrain is placed around the edges of the table so will be mostly useless throughout the game. Apart from the Bastion, there is no LOS blocking across the centre so yeah, that sort of is "planet bowling ball"

I had a csm player friend throw a giant hissy fit because I set the board up more like you proposed and it ended up bottle necking his whole army because he went way to mech heavy. You put on to little some will bitch put on a lot and they bitch as well.

Says more about the person than an issue with the terrain though.

Nothing wrong with bitching about too much terrain for your army to manouvre, especially if the terrain is largely useless, like putting down a barricade such that vehicles have no option but going up and down instead of around can hurt a lot, while units with FLY can ignore it and Infantry can move around more easily, you can definitely create some unfair terrain set-ups using too much terrain. It's even easier to make things unfair when Titanic units get involved, the Necron Seraptek Construct is pretty good IMO, most people's opinion is that it's meh at best, it's definitely pretty bad when terrain gets heavy and you have to spend half your movement moving up and down things, IMO some Titanic units should ignore terrain like that, although the Seraptek has an obscene Movement characteristic so I'd be fine with adjusting it down and giving it an ability to ignore terrain somehow.

Having to maneuver around terrain is one of the drawbacks of fielding super heavy units. Personally if I have to maneuver my fellblade around terrain in order to reach my opponent's units and said terrain prevents them from unloading their entire army into it turn one I find it makes for a better more tactical game.

That said the players should agree on terrain and the terrain/cover rules being used beforehand if possible.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Having to maneuver around terrain is one of the drawbacks of fielding super heavy units. Personally if I have to maneuver my fellblade around terrain in order to reach my opponent's units and said terrain prevents them from unloading their entire army into it turn one I find it makes for a better more tactical game.

Ork buggies use the same base as knights.
Having to maneuver around terrain is a major drawback for all melee and short-ranged units that can't fly. So in the end, everyone needs to move around the terrain, but the super-heavy is more powerful because those points are not blocking each other.

That said the players should agree on terrain and the terrain/cover rules being used beforehand if possible.

Or, in other words: "Terrain rules are terrible and must be house-ruled".

 Jidmah wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Having to maneuver around terrain is one of the drawbacks of fielding super heavy units. Personally if I have to maneuver my fellblade around terrain in order to reach my opponent's units and said terrain prevents them from unloading their entire army into it turn one I find it makes for a better more tactical game.

Ork buggies use the same base as knights.
Having to maneuver around terrain is a major drawback for all melee and short-ranged units that can't fly. So in the end, everyone needs to move around the terrain, but the super-heavy is more powerful because those points are not blocking each other.

That said the players should agree on terrain and the terrain/cover rules being used beforehand if possible.

Or, in other words: "Terrain rules are terrible and must be house-ruled".

Didn't realize that about the buggies as few players in my area currently field them.

I wouldn't say "house rule " as gw does have some good terrain rules that few people use. (Hello cod)?

CoD isn't just terrain rules, so applying parts of another game mode to regular games could definitely be considered a house rule.

3rd ed terrain was the best. True los is cancer.

Martel732 wrote:
3rd ed terrain was the best. True los is cancer.

Yeah, pretty much. True LOS itself isn't THAT bad but the fact there are no exceptions that you need to see X% of the model to shoot at it is. That's what causes most terrain (GW terrain in particular) to be mostly useless; almost all of them have small gaps/holes/etc. which let you shoot as though they weren't even there. They provide pretty decoration, and that's about it.

This is something I don't get. Buildings and terrain work in a true line of sight setting. But models do, when shoting do not. Tanks without turrets do back flips shoting behind them or do a 280 to shot with every gun they have at something in front of them. If line of sight is drawn in a non true line of sight manner from the shoter, why can't the target also be not true line of sight. Would remove all the punishing for having a taller model, or having a banner not dragged in the mud. Just make infantry, monsters, terrain and vehicles have a size. models same size obscure other models same size, and if they are bigger they block the line of sight.

So an infantry guy could be size 1, a rhino size 3, while a DP could be size 3 too. A rhino could have infantry hide behind it, but a DP would only get cover. A knight on the other hand would be size 5, and would get nothing for standing behind a rhino.

Karol wrote:
This is something I don't get. Buildings and terrain work in a true line of sight setting. But models do, when shoting do not. Tanks without turrets do back flips shoting behind them or do a 280 to shot with every gun they have at something in front of them. If line of sight is drawn in a non true line of sight manner from the shoter, why can't the target also be not true line of sight. Would remove all the punishing for having a taller model, or having a banner not dragged in the mud. Just make infantry, monsters, terrain and vehicles have a size. models same size obscure other models same size, and if they are bigger they block the line of sight.

So an infantry guy could be size 1, a rhino size 3, while a DP could be size 3 too. A rhino could have infantry hide behind it, but a DP would only get cover. A knight on the other hand would be size 5, and would get nothing for standing behind a rhino.

I disagree on a model giving another one cover unless failed hits could hit that one but i wouldn’t be against the rest of the system, i feel the need to ask though you defined it vertically, what about horizontally? Would we use the base? And if so what about models with no base?

I think all models, including tanks should come with bases. If a line of sight can't be drawn to a model without cuting through another model or terrain, something should happen. And not the way it is right now where you can stand behind a 4" of forest and it does not even give +1 cover.

Am not sure about the rules specifics, am not smart enough to invent those, but what I am sure is that, stuff should be effecting line of sight without everything being required to be a slap of plastic the hights of a knight with no doors or windows. Banner shoting should not be a thing, neither should be the fact that someone has a model, that GW decided to give a dynamic pose, a gretching shouldn't be giving cover to a stompa, but a warwagon probably should etc. Now how this should look in actual rules, would be for more expirianced and smarter people to implement.

Every model and terrain having a pre set size that blocks LoS seem to me to be a quickes, but I won't claim the best, way to play. This way everyone knows what blocks LoS to what without those hours spend on model adjustments. Would speed up playing too. No 30 min turns of set up, just to be sure no LoS can be drawn from any position. your behind a thick forest, so you are safe.

Glad to see GW continues to improve their missions. As much as I support what ITC does for the game, I do think we're hitting the point where there really needs to be some major tournaments running these missions to give GW a real field test to allow them to really leverage the ability to drive the game from more than a points standing. Having them retake the reigns on errata has been a huge improvement; they need to do the same for mission structure.

Drager wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Drager wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You select it as you like it.

The wording changed from CA18 where it said "Determines the deployment type following the rules on page xx of BRB" which then said that you roll.

Now it just says that the defender "Determines which of the standard deployment maps is used in the battle" and that's it.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Here's a screenshot.

Spoletta wrote:
Also, all the eternal war missions now always score at the start of the turn (from second round), there are no longer missions which score at the end of the round, which gave an advantage to going second.

Again, this isn't accurate. See below.

On the second point you are right, i didn't see that mission.

On the first point though why am i mistaken? The text says exactly what i said, word per word.

Here's the 2018 version. It's the same wording. They both reference the rulebook.

Oh...then I was wrong...

Too bad, in the excitement I read too much in it.