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 understand the want for predictable terrain but to much predictability is a bad thing.

And as others have mentioned symmetrical tables take away the element of choosing table side.
(note that in tournaments this can be annoying if you need to switch sides in a middle of a long row of tables).

Rather then having 1 fixed setup for all games, ever (/puke) I would rather see the effort being spend on creating multiple different terrain maps that are 'roughly' balanced but NOT symmetrical.

 Ordana wrote:
I understand the want for predictable terrain but to much predictability is a bad thing.

And as others have mentioned symmetrical tables take away the element of choosing table side.
(note that in tournaments this can be annoying if you need to switch sides in a middle of a long row of tables).

Rather then having 1 fixed setup for all games, ever (/puke) I would rather see the effort being spend on creating multiple different terrain maps that are 'roughly' balanced but NOT symmetrical.

I agree with this. It would essentially be a "map pool" like you have in RTS games or TTS with a dozen or more maps which have proven to work well. Once you have accumulated enough of them, the predictability will go away.

 Ordana wrote:
I understand the want for predictable terrain but to much predictability is a bad thing.

And as others have mentioned symmetrical tables take away the element of choosing table side.
(note that in tournaments this can be annoying if you need to switch sides in a middle of a long row of tables).

Rather then having 1 fixed setup for all games, ever (/puke) I would rather see the effort being spend on creating multiple different terrain maps that are 'roughly' balanced but NOT symmetrical.

Have you checked the document linked at the OP? There are 18 maps and there..


And I agree a single map would be boring, thats why the map pack has 6 different maps for each missions, 3 with one group of terrain 3 with other.

About symmetrical tables i would have to disagree, at the moment it is a random dice roll. If you win and the table is unbalanced you will simply get an advantage with no drawback imo.
(Note: There is potentially a map design where one side is advantaged in the deployment zone and the other is advantaged when approaching midfield, however even when making the choice of deployment zones you wouldn't know who would begin. Very random in my opinion.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I understand the want for predictable terrain but to much predictability is a bad thing.

And as others have mentioned symmetrical tables take away the element of choosing table side.
(note that in tournaments this can be annoying if you need to switch sides in a middle of a long row of tables).

Rather then having 1 fixed setup for all games, ever (/puke) I would rather see the effort being spend on creating multiple different terrain maps that are 'roughly' balanced but NOT symmetrical.

I agree with this. It would essentially be a "map pool" like you have in RTS games or TTS with a dozen or more maps which have proven to work well. Once you have accumulated enough of them, the predictability will go away.

How about 6 maps for each mission?

 pizzaguardian wrote:
How about 6 maps for each mission?

You definitely need more to prevent people trying to memorize optimal deployment strategies, but you don't need separate ones for each mission. When you look at TTS maps, they usually have multiple missions which they work well for but other missions where objectives end up in a bad place (inside LoS blockers).

So, out of scope, since the conversation so far has been about Tournament Maps, but when I first saw the thread title, what I thought about was persistent maps for campaign play. I've been working on this very thing, in fact, and while it may not be terribly relevant to a discussion of tourney maps, I thought I'd share anyway.

Rather than building my tables out GW cardboard tiles measuring 22 x 30, I am making my own foamcore tiles which are 15 x 15. Most have a 4" road on one or two sides of the board, and because they are square and not rectangular, they can be rotated 90 degrees clockwise or counter clockwise in addition to the 180 degree rotation that GW's boards allow. So I get an extra inch for the constant width of tables, weighing in at 45 instead of 44.

This allows me to create many road configurations. It also allows me to play Incursion scale games on a 45 x 45 table instead of sharing the Combat Patrol sized table at 30 x 45. You can't really do either of those things with GW carboard or 1 piece gaming mats of any size.

But where it gets even more flexible, and where it ties in a little more with this thread, is looking at persistent, map based campaigns.

My campaign has 8 settlements; each settlement is a 5 x 5 grid of individual territories. Battles of any size can be fought in any one of these 200 territories. So I've created miniature card tiles that mimic the full size boards. Every time we fight, I design an onslaught sized board using these mockups, and photograph the design. Then we "Slice" the battlefield if we're playing a battle smaller than onslaught- so the territory map is ALWAYS 3 x 6 tiles, but if you're playing a Combat Patrol game, you can choose which 6 tile cluster of the 18 tile map you're fighting on.

And that allows for some interesting linked games. For example, you could run a series of line-breaker Combat Patrol games where an attacker victory moves the "Slice" of table you're playing on one column in the subsequent battle. Once either the attacker or defender manages to push the opposing force of the map completely, they have seized the territory. You could do the same with an Incursion, or even a Strike Force game, thought you wouldn't have as far to push in order to edge the defender out of the territory.

As for the terrain that sits on the board tiles, my layout provides me with standardized "Footprints" between roads where terrain can sit. So I can create 3-4 different pieces for each sized "footprint," labelling them A,B,C,D; I can then create lettered tokens which I can place on any footprint to indicate which piece must be placed there in the mini-tile photograph which serves as a record of the territory.

I may even take it a step further and create battle-damage and repair rules for each terrain piece. Not sure I'm going to go that far- there is a level of minutiae to minute even for me.

 Jidmah wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:
How about 6 maps for each mission?

You definitely need more to prevent people trying to memorize optimal deployment strategies, but you don't need separate ones for each mission. When you look at TTS maps, they usually have multiple missions which they work well for but other missions where objectives end up in a bad place (inside LoS blockers).

Yes i know, i am part of the team who designed some of those maps. Most of those have been derived from the WTC maps (Tactical Tortoise) or directly use a beta version we are testing out (Greekhammer).

The maps are packed together in three distinct groups.
* Dawn of War Maps (long table edges) : Missions 12-21-31
* Hammer and Anvil Maps (short table edges) : Missions 11-22-23
* Corner Deployments : Missions 13-32-33

At this point i dont think you checked the document at all and just giving out random ideas. I suggest checking the document first before commenting about it https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0033/5196/9865/files/WY_Terrain_Maps_1.0_Low-Res_0085f29c-3063-4cdf-bbd5-a96344fba607.pdf

I did check it, and you didn't understand what I'm saying.
Terrain must not be set up within 3" of objective markers, which means that objective placement makes the difference, not deployment zones. Some missions have roughly similar patterns of objectives so they can be played with the same terrain setup.
It also means that most of your maps are illegal set-ups. I think I also already criticized the total lack of obstacles like barricades.

 Jidmah wrote:
I did check it, and you didn't understand what I'm saying.
Terrain must not be set up within 3" of objective markers.

You are incorrect, thats not a thing.

PenitentJake wrote:

Spoiler:

So, out of scope, since the conversation so far has been about Tournament Maps, but when I first saw the thread title, what I thought about was persistent maps for campaign play. I've been working on this very thing, in fact, and while it may not be terribly relevant to a discussion of tourney maps, I thought I'd share anyway.

Rather than building my tables out GW cardboard tiles measuring 22 x 30, I am making my own foamcore tiles which are 15 x 15. Most have a 4" road on one or two sides of the board, and because they are square and not rectangular, they can be rotated 90 degrees clockwise or counter clockwise in addition to the 180 degree rotation that GW's boards allow. So I get an extra inch for the constant width of tables, weighing in at 45 instead of 44.

This allows me to create many road configurations. It also allows me to play Incursion scale games on a 45 x 45 table instead of sharing the Combat Patrol sized table at 30 x 45. You can't really do either of those things with GW carboard or 1 piece gaming mats of any size.

But where it gets even more flexible, and where it ties in a little more with this thread, is looking at persistent, map based campaigns.

My campaign has 8 settlements; each settlement is a 5 x 5 grid of individual territories. Battles of any size can be fought in any one of these 200 territories. So I've created miniature card tiles that mimic the full size boards. Every time we fight, I design an onslaught sized board using these mockups, and photograph the design. Then we "Slice" the battlefield if we're playing a battle smaller than onslaught- so the territory map is ALWAYS 3 x 6 tiles, but if you're playing a Combat Patrol game, you can choose which 6 tile cluster of the 18 tile map you're fighting on.

And that allows for some interesting linked games. For example, you could run a series of line-breaker Combat Patrol games where an attacker victory moves the "Slice" of table you're playing on one column in the subsequent battle. Once either the attacker or defender manages to push the opposing force of the map completely, they have seized the territory. You could do the same with an Incursion, or even a Strike Force game, thought you wouldn't have as far to push in order to edge the defender out of the territory.

As for the terrain that sits on the board tiles, my layout provides me with standardized "Footprints" between roads where terrain can sit. So I can create 3-4 different pieces for each sized "footprint," labelling them A,B,C,D; I can then create lettered tokens which I can place on any footprint to indicate which piece must be placed there in the mini-tile photograph which serves as a record of the territory.

I may even take it a step further and create battle-damage and repair rules for each terrain piece. Not sure I'm going to go that far- there is a level of minutiae to minute even for me.

^ I want to join your campaign. This sounds awesome.

"Terrain features cannot be set up on top of objective markers." 2020 mission pack.

So the maps are legal but can you move a 6" fat Monolith through all the maps or are they effectively banned?

 vict0988 wrote:
"Terrain features cannot be set up on top of objective markers." 2020 mission pack.

Which might be one of the most limiting things GW has ever written as far as mission rules are concerned.

Objectives should be placed after terrain has been set up. Not only does it mean that you don't have these weird voids where objectives are, but it means that the objectives can become part of the narrative ("Take the ruins in Sector H7, Commander!" vs "Take that odd patch of open ground between the ruins in Sector H7, Commander!").

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
"Terrain features cannot be set up on top of objective markers." 2020 mission pack.

Which might be one of the most limiting things GW has ever written as far as mission rules are concerned.

Objectives should be placed after terrain has been set up. Not only does it mean that you don't have these weird voids where objectives are, but it means that the objectives can become part of the narrative ("Take the ruins in Sector H7, Commander!" vs "Take that odd patch of open ground between the ruins in Sector H7, Commander!").

I think that's fine for casual play, but for competition putting objectives into terrain means you can sit on the other side of it and be invisible while holding it.

Like Jidmah said - I'd like to see more barricades and forests - there's lots of terrain variety that just goes to the wayside.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think that's fine for casual play, but for competition putting objectives into terrain means you can sit on the other side of it and be invisible while holding it.

I doubt that's as big an issue as you're making it out to be. Moreover, that seems to be a terrain rule problem rather than an objective rule problem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Like Jidmah said - I'd like to see more barricades and forests - there's lots of terrain variety that just goes to the wayside.

Because everything is boring ruins. As that's most of what GW seems to produce, that's what many are stuck with.

That's why I went elsewhere to find my terrain. I still highly, highly advocate GF9's Battlefield in a Box stuff. I have tons of it. It's fantastic.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's why I went elsewhere to find my terrain. I still highly, highly advocate GF9's Battlefield in a Box stuff. I have tons of it. It's fantastic.

Yea I went the TTCombat route, but I need to source some good forests.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's why I went elsewhere to find my terrain. I still highly, highly advocate GF9's Battlefield in a Box stuff. I have tons of it. It's fantastic.

Yea I went the TTCombat route, but I need to source some good forests.

My forests are mostly pines from raiding christmas decoration sales. Otherwise Green Stuff World has decent looking trees for about a dollar a piece.

While we are on the topic of map setups, this is what I consider a decent map setup:

https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Over_The_Top_Layout.png

This is a bad map setup:
https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ObSec_Perth_GT_Terrain.png

This is an horrible map setup:

https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/WTC_Teams_Layout.png

Agree on the first and second, but what's wrong with the third?

So packed that some bigger models cannot literally fit anywhere.

Try moving a monolith, Land Raider, knight and similar models inside that table.

Ah I see, didn't think about that. In that case, I agree as well. The map would be salvageable though by maybe taking out two ruins and moving the rest further apart. Using forests which allow smaller vehicles like dreads or buggies to pass through also has worked well for us.

I would not be interested in set maps. Warhammer is already a game with huge inbuilt imbalances from the list building. I'd be far more likely to want to play a tournament with set lists, which is actually a test of skill at playing the game, if that was what I was after. But tournaments are not really about that. They're mostly an excuse to play a lot of games in one day, see some cool armies, meet cool people, and play on tables you wouldn't normally.

If you find the idea of set army lists restrictive and think list building is part of the game, well, set tables would also be restrictive and dealing with the terrain in front of you is also part of the game.

If you want a chess like game that tests skill, by all means, go for set tables and set army lists. Doing one without the other seems a bit pointless to me, and doing tables before you do lists seems like blowing out a candle in a house that is on fire.

 Da Boss wrote:
I would not be interested in set maps. Warhammer is already a game with huge inbuilt imbalances from the list building. I'd be far more likely to want to play a tournament with set lists, which is actually a test of skill at playing the game, if that was what I was after. But tournaments are not really about that. They're mostly an excuse to play a lot of games in one day, see some cool armies, meet cool people, and play on tables you wouldn't normally.

If you find the idea of set army lists restrictive and think list building is part of the game, well, set tables would also be restrictive and dealing with the terrain in front of you is also part of the game.

If you want a chess like game that tests skill, by all means, go for set tables and set army lists. Doing one without the other seems a bit pointless to me, and doing tables before you do lists seems like blowing out a candle in a house that is on fire.

You can engineer your list, you can't engineer terrain at a tournament you go to, they are very different. There is no option other than let the TO decide terrain, the question is just what set of standards is used to place terrain. Deciding players' lists is taking away agency in a way that changing a TO's more loose standards for terrain placement to tighter standards isn't.

It's merely a question of whether the purpose of a tournament is to afford players agency or to determine who is the best player.

I would argue that a narrative or campaign game is more about player agency. I think tournaments as they exist are also mostly about that.

But there is a group of people who (for valid reasons, I'm not dumping on them) want to make tournaments more about determining who is the most skilled player. Well, in my view, if you want to determine who is the most skilled player you have to limit player agency to ensure a level playing field. And the most important variable in ensuring that level playing field is list building, as it produces the greatest imbalance.

Like I said, personally when I go to tournaments it's not for that reason. I don't think tournaments are really about determining the most skilled player, they're mostly about having a laugh and meeting new people, playing lots of games in a short time. But if I wanted to determine the best player, I'd start with set lists before I started with set terrain.

 Da Boss wrote:
to determine who is the most skilled player you have to limit player agency

What.

List building is part of player skill, especially when players tweak their lists to match their play style. There is a good reason why no two top placing ork lists in the last years have been identical.

40k isn't chess. People need to take whatever lists they want.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's merely a question of whether the purpose of a tournament is to afford players agency or to determine who is the best player.

I would argue that a narrative or campaign game is more about player agency. I think tournaments as they exist are also mostly about that.

But there is a group of people who (for valid reasons, I'm not dumping on them) want to make tournaments more about determining who is the most skilled player. Well, in my view, if you want to determine who is the most skilled player you have to limit player agency to ensure a level playing field. And the most important variable in ensuring that level playing field is list building, as it produces the greatest imbalance.

Like I said, personally when I go to tournaments it's not for that reason. I don't think tournaments are really about determining the most skilled player, they're mostly about having a laugh and meeting new people, playing lots of games in a short time. But if I wanted to determine the best player, I'd start with set lists before I started with set terrain.

I think there is an argument to be made that giving TOs too much freedom can make it harder to have fun and meet people at a tournament. Terrain-less tables or one big forest where it is impossible to move your Monolith around, those tables are antithetical to a fun game as much as they are antithetical to a balanced game. I have been more or less forced to play on set tables on TTS and it's really not a big deal, but I do personally prefer playing on maps that are different every game, but I'll take a balanced map over a new map any day. The feeling of playing on a balanced symmetrical map is also something that appeals to me even if I agree it looks bad, on TTS it's also a lot harder to make something that uses 15 assets vs 5 assets that have been copied over and over.

 vict0988 wrote:
I think there is an argument to be made that giving TOs too much freedom can make it harder to have fun and meet people at a tournament. Terrain-less tables or one big forest where it is impossible to move your Monolith around, those tables are antithetical to a fun game as much as they are antithetical to a balanced game. I have been more or less forced to play on set tables on TTS and it's really not a big deal, but I do personally prefer playing on maps that are different every game, but I'll take a balanced map over a new map any day. The feeling of playing on a balanced symmetrical map is also something that appeals to me even if I agree it looks bad, on TTS it's also a lot harder to make something that uses 15 assets vs 5 assets that have been copied over and over.

In TTS it really feels like pick one:
1) Map is tactical and awesome to play on, but looks garbage
2) Map is a beautiful piece of art, but skews or adds nothing to the game and it's impossible to place models properly.

 Ordana wrote:
I understand the want for predictable terrain but to much predictability is a bad thing.

I don't think predictability would be the main feature personally. You'd want the same thing you want out of established scenarios: refined and tested gameplay that makes the game more interesting. Good map design is about interesting choices and interactions between players, and while that happens sometimes, it's not something you expect from a game. Imagine having a favorite map because of the way the lanes move or hard positioning choices made by specific distances. Taking a step further, imagine them being designed with interactive features in mind. Like I've said before, I think there's a lot that could be done to make maps more interesting. My interest in set maps comes from a desire to see the kind of expansion and refinement that could bring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

This is GW we’re talking about. If set terrain becomes commonplace, they will seize on that, given they already have an extensive range of terrain. They’d leverage that, because they’d be daft not to.

That seems to be the primary element Warcry is exploring, fwiw.

 LunarSol wrote:
Taking a step further, imagine them being designed with interactive features in mind.

You mean like maps with bridges that can be lowered or shields that can be shut down or do you mean making some buildings destructible or what? What kind of things did you have in mind?

Spoletta wrote:
While we are on the topic of map setups, this is what I consider a decent map setup:

https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Over_The_Top_Layout.png

This is a bad map setup:
https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ObSec_Perth_GT_Terrain.png

This is an horrible map setup:

https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/WTC_Teams_Layout.png

That landing pad top right serves almost no purpose to the game. It looks nice - plays terrible.

 vict0988 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Taking a step further, imagine them being designed with interactive features in mind.

You mean like maps with bridges that can be lowered or shields that can be shut down or do you mean making some buildings destructible or what? What kind of things did you have in mind?

I really like this, maybe you need to commit an action to raising/lowering the shield/bridge/whatever. Anything other than the same board/deployment every game would be welcomed.