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.
Not impressed either... Seems pretty empty while at the same time not really engaging.
I prefer asymmetrical layout distributed around a diagonal, with a blocking center element in the table and more elements near the table edge, but some fire line in between.
Especially since the game is being in the middle, being able to charge from a objective to the other without line of sight or retaliation seems... Wrong?
I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it.
I like slightly asymmetrical tables, but I guess I'm in the minority.
By the way, what I'm noticing is that they use a total of 10 terrain elements in total for the map and calling it a day. Which considering how big they are, it is actually possible.
This reminds me that there is an obscure book that has never been used, that told us how to play by bringing 6(?) terrain elements per player and placing them before the battle.
At the time we laughed at it because 12 terrain elements in total were too few, but if those are the intended sizes, then it starts making quite a bit more sense.
Could it be time to give a try to Tactical Deployment? Even only to finally have a way to play faction fortifications without getting to the table and discovering that you can't possibly deploy them.
I think people would have to get faction foritification first, for that to work. Even if someone could plop the sm bunker inside a building people still wouldn't do it, without it having LoS ingoring shoting.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
I enjoy these layouts on a tournament level. It means you get to pit your skills against your opponent while minimizing the danger of ridiculous terrain layout.
However, if I am playing Narrative(Crusade) I will set up the table to reflect the conflict me and my partner are playing out.
Jidmah wrote: These layouts are super bland and boring. If you design 9 standard terrain pieces and only use two of them for your game, you did something very, very wrong.
Absolutely agree. Where's the Dense terrain? Where's the impassable LoS blockers? Where are the barricades, hills etc? This seems really bland and quite empty. One of the issues is that while a lot of the table is covered with terrain, a large amount of the surface area is taken up by relatively few pieces of terrain.
LOLGW, keep trying to turn your game into some kind of Fortnite-esq arena game that it is clearly not. Keep pushing those tiny boards and having people refer to games as “matches”….
Dafuq has become of this hobby?
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Spoletta wrote: There are dense terrains in those layouts.
I agree on the lack of barricades and heavy cover in general. It is sorely needed.
You're right, there is Dense- my bad. It's all pushed right to the outside of the board, though, which makes it functionally useless for anything other than shooting armies.
Another important question is how many windows and openings the Obscuring terrain will have. If it's essentially completely open LoS then you're either Obscured or completely visible depending whether you're in the terrain or not. If it's got more closed-off sections on it that allows units to be in the terrain but still out of LoS from certain angles, which is often better IMO.
I don't know how terrain affects gaming nowadays because I haven't played 40k after 4th edition. But I can still say that the example boards look stupid. Terrain is supposed to represent battlefield even in competitive gaming and I can't think of an battlefield that has diagonal buildings in the middle of the crossroads. Or perfect symmetry for that matter.
I don't mind pre-set maps per se. On the contrary, I think they are an excellent idea, especially four tournaments. I just think that this effort is super lame and they could have a lot better.
That place is the harsh dark future far left with only war left.
Grimtuff wrote: LOLGW, keep trying to turn your game into some kind of Fortnite-esq arena game that it is clearly not. Keep pushing those tiny boards and having people refer to games as “matches”….
Dafuq has become of this hobby?
It turned into what the customer asked for.
We wanted GW to separate narrative play from matched play.
8th comes and those 2 kind of games have different rules.
We wanted better terrain rules and the tournament play and regular matched play separated.
9th comes and matched play and tournament play have different rules, also terrain is much more influential on the result of the game.
Since terrain is now so important, we don't accept that there are no strict guidelines for the amount of type of that.
GW provides strict guidelines on terrain placement.
...
GW is literally chasing after the customer's demands. Even on this board, I could provide you multiple threads where those things have been requested.
Luckily the rules are now split between the game types, and those terrain guidelines are intended ONLY FOR INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENT LEVEL EVENTS. Ok? They are not guidelines for the garage game between me and my pal. They are not "The hobby". It is a specific guidelines for a specific way to play the game, which we players have requested.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/07/02 11:03:22
Grimtuff wrote: LOLGW, keep trying to turn your game into some kind of Fortnite-esq arena game that it is clearly not. Keep pushing those tiny boards and having people refer to games as “matches”….
Dafuq has become of this hobby?
It turned into what the customer asked for.
We wanted GW to separate narrative play from matched play.
8th comes and those 2 kind of games have different rules.
We wanted better terrain rules and the tournament play and regular matched play separated.
9th comes and matched play and tournament play have different rules, also terrain is much more influential on the result of the game.
Since terrain is now so important, we don't accept that there are no strict guidelines for the amount of type of that.
GW provides strict guidelines on terrain placement.
...
GW is literally chasing after the customer's demands. Even on this board, I could provide you multiple threads where those things have been requested.
Luckily the rules are now split between the game types, and those terrain guidelines are intended ONLY FOR INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENT LEVEL EVENTS. Ok? They are not guidelines for the garage game between me and my pal. They are not "The hobby". It is a specific guidelines for a specific way to play the game, which we players have requested.
You mean it turned into what the vocal minority demanded
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/02 11:27:15
Diagrams look full. Photos look sparse. No terrain in DZ is a problem. I get why they’re doing it for ease/speed/“fairness” in a tourney setting but it’s nothing I’ll adopt.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Grimtuff wrote: LOLGW, keep trying to turn your game into some kind of Fortnite-esq arena game that it is clearly not. Keep pushing those tiny boards and having people refer to games as “matches”….
Dafuq has become of this hobby?
It turned into what the customer asked for.
We wanted GW to separate narrative play from matched play.
8th comes and those 2 kind of games have different rules.
We wanted better terrain rules and the tournament play and regular matched play separated.
9th comes and matched play and tournament play have different rules, also terrain is much more influential on the result of the game.
Since terrain is now so important, we don't accept that there are no strict guidelines for the amount of type of that.
GW provides strict guidelines on terrain placement.
...
GW is literally chasing after the customer's demands. Even on this board, I could provide you multiple threads where those things have been requested.
Luckily the rules are now split between the game types, and those terrain guidelines are intended ONLY FOR INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENT LEVEL EVENTS. Ok? They are not guidelines for the garage game between me and my pal. They are not "The hobby". It is a specific guidelines for a specific way to play the game, which we players have requested.
You mean it turned into what the vocal minority demanded
Considering that it is made for a minority and it is openly stated so, then.... yes?
It's funny that people think this is considered too much terrain. In 9th most competitive players would consider this less terrain than usual. In most ITC events there's massive LOS blocking in the middle which might've been the cause of shooting armies like Tau and AM to struggle.
I've tested the terrain layout recently and overall I think it's pretty well balanced, it give enough LOS blocking so you won't get shot off the board before you get the chance to move but also gives big fire lanes after both players get a chance at their first turn. The only thing I would change is the "forest" or dense terrain and the smaller terrains on the sides, often they make little impact to the game and will put you in more danger by sitting in it then just sitting behind the ruins.
Wow they are really sparse. They have less than the example tables GW showed with the launch of 9th (is there one in the rulebook?). Also I deploy int he open? Where is the cover in the deployment zones?
And note they aren't 40k standard terrain but independent tournament terrain layout.
Got to say I prefer asymmetrical tables so there is a choice to make around table edge to use.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/02 12:42:35
I don't really think that it's "too much" or "not enough" when we're talking about rawquantity of terrain features.
I DO think it's "not enough" when referring to variety of terrain. Barricades, craters, dense (in the middle and not just on the far corners) could have all been used more, or at all.
For tournament play it's 100% fine and even probably ideal to have symmetrical terrain, and after seeing the actual physical terrain it doesn't look terrible for actually moving vehicles. But, it pretty much renders any shooting tank without ignire-LoS or FLY or some other trick more useless than they already were (they were already bottom tier units).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/02 13:21:30
Its so balanced...as in it has equal terrain features on both sides.
It is not balanced in any other sense. It is mandatory 6 ruins in the middle of the table. Within range for flying models to jump to. Humm...wonder what kind of army that favors.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Those example boards in the article do look a bit sparse. I was basing my opinion on Tabletop Tactic's board in their battle report, which was WAY denser. I could make a SHT work on the gw boards, especially with a handy-dandy Sorcerer. They definitely need some barricades marked as Difficult Ground to slow down infantry. They'll just be waltzing in and out of all of those Breachable ruins.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Those example boards in the article do look a bit sparse. I was basing my opinion on Tabletop Tactic's board in their battle report, which was WAY denser. I could make a SHT work on the gw boards, especially with a handy-dandy Sorcerer. They definitely need some barricades marked as Difficult Ground to slow down infantry. They'll just be waltzing in and out of all of those Breachable ruins.
Welcome to 40k. Where the only thing terrain does is stop shooting and give you bonus against shooting attacks. The only thing people think terrain should do.
How about this crater? Nah don't put that there - that'll slow things down and don't block shooting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/02 14:31:34
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
GW: "Hi everybody, we at GW want to give you a little preview of how we're setting up up our tournament tables for our upcoming tournament. The layouts are intended to work with the Grand Tournament 2021 missions so that tournament players can know what to expect and practice their tournament lists in games that emulate what it will be like playing in an official GW tournament."
Dakka: "Aaargh this is bsGW are forcing all the narrative players to play tournament style games. This layout will never suit the way i like to play my narrative games with my friends. I refuse to use this table layout."
Okay.
So yeh, if, as WarCom state the entire base of the terrain is obscuring then there's a pretty large amount of line of sight blocking terrain. And if the actual ruin walls are solid, true LOS blocking then I think you can hide a fair amount in your deployment zone for both layouts, especially set up 2 which is presumably meant for hammer and anvil?
DarkHound wrote: It's a funny thing to hear "vehicles need less terrain so they can maneuver".
Oh I didn't mean less terrain, I meant less density of terrain. When the terrain is too tightly packed together you can't maneuver wide vehicles. I'm all for lots of terrain blocking firing angles from vehicles but I don't like it when they have trouble moving through the map.
It didn't look like too much of an issue from the pictures in the Warhammer Community article. I just don't care for boards that only allow for alleyways, unless you and your opponent wanted a cities of death game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/02 15:33:19
I had a little play around with what could be shot at from your opponents deployments zone and actually a surpisingly large amount of your deployment zone is either obscured or getting -1 to hit. I think I've done this right anyway...
Yellow is obscured and green is -1 to hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: wait the central terrain pieces are obscuring not dense so the entire green space in the middle is obscured too!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/02 16:09:19
Abaddon303 wrote: GW: "Hi everybody, we at GW want to give you a little preview of how we're setting up up our tournament tables for our upcoming tournament. The layouts are intended to work with the Grand Tournament 2021 missions so that tournament players can know what to expect and practice their tournament lists in games that emulate what it will be like playing in an official GW tournament."
Dakka: "Aaargh this is bsGW are forcing all the narrative players to play tournament style games. This layout will never suit the way i like to play my narrative games with my friends. I refuse to use this table layout."
Okay.
Yeah... that's a intentional and wilful misrepresentation of what's being said. In other words, you're being dishonest.
I mean, somebody literally said they are forcing the game to be some kind of fortnite game and another said they were changing the game to please a vocal minority?
Abaddon303 wrote: I mean, somebody literally said they are forcing the game to be some kind of fortnite game and another said they were changing the game to please a vocal minority?
what is wrong with fortnite? fairly balanced, everybody has the same tools and mechanics, a little RNG on what weapons you can find but also have upgrades available and using the mechanics of the game (building) better than opponents can be a huge advantage. its basically a modern unreal tournament with a build mechanic. is it my fav game? nope but i still jump on sometimes for my twitch shooter needs.
Abaddon303 wrote: I mean, somebody literally said they are forcing the game to be some kind of fortnite game and another said they were changing the game to please a vocal minority?
what is wrong with fortnite? fairly balanced, everybody has the same tools and mechanics, a little RNG on what weapons you can find but also have upgrades available and using the mechanics of the game (building) better than opponents can be a huge advantage. its basically a modern unreal tournament with a build mechanic. is it my fav game? nope but i still jump on sometimes for my twitch shooter needs.
He was referring to someone earlier in the thread saying GW is making 40k into fortnite. I'm assuming he's implying that 40k is becoming more "gamey" which I don't see anything wrong with.
It's weird that narrative and casual players have so much vitriol against competitive minded players in 40k when it's clear that GW wants to support all parts of the hobby.
People seem to forget how badly 40k was suffering when the rules were getting worse and worse when competitive play and crisp rules were in the backburner and "we're a model company" was in full effect.
Anyone saying this is a typical table...You have a very weird way of playing the game. The terrain is way to close...and that is because the pieces are all large...
No desire to play this game. You wonder why DE and quins have such high winrates...this is why.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
7000 
