PDA

View Full Version : Anyone ever played a game with no hills?



Finnigan2004
21-10-2007, 17:14
As someone who rarely brings a huge amount of artillery or shooting, I have to ask-- is there anyone out there who has ever played a game when their opponent did not have a hill in their deployment zone? Seriously (although I'm half joking), I was just thinking about it, and I do not remember ever playing a game when my opponent did not have a hill in their deployment zone in a tournament, GW store, or other setting. I know that terrain is taken for granted, but where in the rules does it say that you automatically get a hill in your deployment zone for your artillery, archers, and handgunners?

I think that I'm going to petition GW to make master of stone the default spell for lore of life and make lore of life accessable to chaos armies (including khorne)-- wish me luck ;)!

darknar
21-10-2007, 17:31
when i choose a side i choose the side that has no hill. so i can deploy how i wish without terrane in my way.. when i think about it i think there should be a rule where no hill should be deployed in your deployment zone.

gives people the chance to move up without getting shot for a turn and more tacticly challenging for those shooty armys againts those armys more attuned to combat

EvC
21-10-2007, 17:31
Just now, my opponent was Wood Elf (Two woods + his extra one) and I was Lizardmen (Two swamps). He did put down a hill at first but when he saw how big the forest pieces were he changed his mind...

Crube
21-10-2007, 17:34
I have played a few games with no hill in my deployment zone. My dwarven opponent managed to get one in the corner of his :(

chaospantz
21-10-2007, 17:56
when you lay down terain most people will try and set up a hill in there deployment zone for 2 reasons.
1. So there shooting can happen without being blocked by there own troops
2. So that they can deny there enemy there own hill.

Dwarves and empire love them because they have so much shooting anyway, elves love them because they have so many arrows, and when you fight on them you get +1 combat resolution for having the high ground.

Hywel
21-10-2007, 18:12
I've played many games without hills. In fact I think I've probably played more games without them than with them, I'm surprised to find this is a rare situation in all honesty.

A key factor is that I have only one hill in my terrain collection and it looks a bit naff... my friends and I also considered hills to do a lot more for some armies than they do for others so we quite literally went for a level playing field.

skavenguy13
21-10-2007, 18:22
Not playing in GW and/or "super-legal" tables has this nice: you can put the terrain how you want it. I sometimes play on my brother's table, he doesn't have a hill, so we don't use one that often. And we can add walls, fences, or even small houses he made out of kleenex boxes.

My local store doesn't have enough hills for every game. So we often take few pieces around and just place them randomly on our table. I play quite regularly games with like a house and 2 forests. And often, the hill (if any) is in the middle. Some people place their big blocks there to get +1 to CR.

I quite dislike the idea of placing the terrain where you want it. Try playing war (like LARP). Can you arrange the terrain as you want before the fight? Barely. You have to adapt to it. Except in some cases, like you want to play a game simulating an empire army defending a village from orcs: I would understand the orcs choosing which side they attack from. But that's special cases as I said: both players want to simulate a particular situation.

Gorbad Ironclaw
21-10-2007, 18:25
I've played many games without hills. In fact I think I've probably played more games without them than with them, I'm surprised to find this is a rare situation in all honesty.


Maybe not completly without hills, but it's certainly not the expectation to have at least one in your deployment zone. It happens, but more often than not, hills will be further into the table where they can be real interesting to manouver around.

the1stpip
21-10-2007, 22:00
We try to play with no hills in the deployment zone (and I play Beasts or Empire) as this makes the game more interesting...

theunwantedbeing
21-10-2007, 22:10
Seeing as I have recently been playing at my house and I have no hills I have gone without for a while and done fine.
Normally when I play at the GW both sides get a hill...with this being a 4ftx4ft board certain setups are unfairly powerful.

The best games are always where the hill is slightly off the frontal edge of the deployment zone so you need to move to get there, this takes some of the pain off going second vs a gunline(as well as discouraging gunlines).

leeoaks
21-10-2007, 23:30
i think all terrain should be random...i hate it when people slide a hill onto the table edges!

Weapon-X
22-10-2007, 04:14
maybe if you opponent continually abuses this, you could try placing second and place big honkin forests directly in front of his hills. This blocks its line of sight no? Anyway, it makes for a particularily boring and stupid terrain setup, but it should teach him a lesson about being a knob. My opponent does this a lot, maybe its time to adopt this doctrine...

skavenman
22-10-2007, 05:13
In my group we do random terrain or get someone else to set it up, alot of the times we don't get a hill. Personally I don't care about hills, if my opponent has one just makes it easier to choose where my tunneling markers go :)

Alathir
22-10-2007, 06:22
In my group we do random terrain, or have a neutral third party set it up.

Players placing terrain (excluding Wood Elves) seems a little odd to me.

the1stpip
22-10-2007, 09:47
It makes some sense. A General will have sent out his scouts to find the lay of the land and determine the best place to meet the enemy, but self set ups can be easily abused.

Gorbad Ironclaw
22-10-2007, 10:49
And the rules for terrain set up in the rulebook doesn't help with this, I don't really think it makes for a very good or interesting battlefield.

We(my gaming group) go for scattered terrain, or a neutral person to set it up, often gets much more interesting than the flat plain in the middle with terrain clustered at the edges. And yes, people being able to place hills and stuff in there own deployment zone is just crazy.

lakissov
22-10-2007, 10:54
I've played more games with no hills in the deployment zones than games with hills in deployment zones. Usually, we set the terrain in a more randomized fashion (although it is still payer-set), with more concern for how it is going to look than how it's going to influence the tactics. Afterwards, we just adapt to the terrain we just set.

logan054
22-10-2007, 11:32
Well person i play be Chaos dwarfs, TK, skaven always has a hill in his deployment zone (my GF even commented on this and just play), i have considered throwing out my hills cos it gets annoying having to face this every game. I think the one game when i placed a huge forest on the hill he bitched and moaned about it, something about me being unsporting... you take what you will from that

Finnigan2004 - on a side note i think if the guy does it again im going to be using a empire gunline ;)

FatOlaf
22-10-2007, 11:54
Ahem! bitched about a wood on a hill, too right!
There is nothing in the rules about not being able to pick your own scenery and what general would not try to deploy on a hill if he had guns etc?
As for my battles with Logan054, he is blooming Khorne and of course would prefer it if there were no terrain at all.
And what he didn't mention is that he loves all my missile stuff being on a hill, making it easier for his furies to get all the crews.
The only army I won with was the skaven who had the majority of their stuff on the ground as there was nothing that could shoot them back...

I face a lot of gunny armies, ie dwarf and empire and there is always a hill or two but I dont really mind as it's part of the game. What are we going to moan about next, the VC general who always takes a tower for his banshee to infest, the elf general who always takes a wood or 2, the bret player who likes nothing at all?

But if it ever gets too stale, simply play the way we have when you place the terrain with no guarantee that you get to deploy on that side, the sides being decided by roll off...

logan054
22-10-2007, 12:25
Olaf, if you read the first post its the fact its every game, what annoyed me is that its fine for you strategically place terrain however when i did this you bitched about it, personally i see no difference just one dosnt benefit you.

Well talk about moaning, i think you have a long list of topics about things your have moaned about :P dont think you can moan about my stuff because your armies perfectly acceptable with little room for complaint mr!

I still think the best one is moaning about a exalted daemon cos its a flying terror causes vs undead :P on the note of being khorne, i general use infantry vs your, not the knight hordes of fun, that really is a massive difference in lists, sure they have alot of dispel dice but that hardly makes up for the other inherent weakness in the lists!

Sureshot05
22-10-2007, 12:50
I regularly try to play without hills in the deployment zone. The castle tactic becomes a little stale after a while and hence its much more interesting to play without.

FatOlaf
22-10-2007, 12:54
Logan going off the point there a bit, we're talking about terrain.
As for the first post, my post is relevant as my Dwarf and empire opponents do pick at least one hill every game. Placing a wood on top of one of them whilst fun, is not in the best interests of the game, hence the reason I moaned about it when you tried it.
As for the other stuff, not relevant fella and for pities sake stop going on about my initial reaction to your demon, I have learned to love the big dumb very easy to kill fella since.

Hills are always going to be there, battles through out time, real or fantasy have been fought in valleys etc to utilise the advantages they give. The problem might be in the armies you are facing, not so much the terrain. If you are always up against a gunline, then maybe you need to change your list and tactics and use the hills against them (all guns together, overrun city!)...

logan054
22-10-2007, 13:11
Now placing a wood infront, ontop, whatever, whos interest is it not in, mine or yours, again, how does this add to a more interesting game when you archers or artillery can target anything it wants, how does this makes for a more interesting game for me, sure its not a issue if isnt every game these types of units are used but again have i every stopped your from doing this? no, i just accept it, of course then leads to me placing some form raised terrain so i can jump furies into the warmachines. Still as the topic starter said, it about doing it every game. at no point really have i ever said this is against the rules and i wouldnt let you do it, i've simply said ista annoying agreeing with the topic starter ;)

The other stuff you mention such as skaven not using hills, is its not relevant why did you go into a tantum about it :P


I regularly try to play without hills in the deployment zone. The castle tactic becomes a little stale after a while and hence its much more interesting to play without.

Exactly why i said something here but its fallen on deaf ears

FatOlaf
22-10-2007, 14:24
@Logan - lets not bother with this, we always mis-understand each other when it comes to written , so lets just ignore each other on forums and concentrate on chatting in the real world....... much more fun then!

Hvidponi
22-10-2007, 22:02
Fantasitic random deployment system... First select 6 terrain pieces... May be randomized, line up the terrain and roll an appropirate die... D10, D12, D20... D100?
Then line the terrain pieces up and roll a D6 to determine which terrain piece to place. Roll a scatter die and a D12. Find the center of the table, and place the terrain piece 12+the roll of the D12 inches away in the direction trhat the scatter die pointed...
Random FTW...

antin3
23-10-2007, 00:29
I like terrain and think it adds to the game, just randomly set it up and then dice for sides. A friend and I found a way to set up terrain by placing it in the middle of the table and then rolling the scatter dice or use two if the tables big. Then simply move the terrain in the direction indicated on the dice.

Crazy Harborc
23-10-2007, 01:06
I've been in a few games that had no hills on the battlefield. My regular opponents and I roll for terrain using the 6th Edition charts in the rulebook. We use a 4 by 8 area/table for our battles. I've got lots of terrain so we can just pick or roll for it.

Gorbad Ironclaw
23-10-2007, 09:03
Placing a wood on top of one of them whilst fun, is not in the best interests of the game, hence the reason I moaned about it when you tried it.


But always having a hill to deploy your guns on are? Sorry mate, but you are making no sense here.
It does sounds a bit like a spoiled child to me, the terrain shouldn't favour one armour massivly over the other.

Not having ideal fire positions/fire lanes, or deployment zones or lines to advance your cavalry in etc. often makes for a lot more interesting games than those where you do, as you then have to manouver the best you can around it.

logan054
23-10-2007, 09:35
Gorbad, i wouldnt go down that path, each to his own i guess, for me i down think warhammer so much is about setting up terrain and deck building but more about unit movement, slight maths and plenty of luck, for others it isnt, its fine however, you just play people at their own game however i dont think im going to be allowing a hill and watch tower the other guys deployment zone next game, that was was a tad silly.

EvC
23-10-2007, 11:09
Well I'd be against putting forests on hill for two reasons:
1) The rules say don't put terrain on top of each other (Considering most use their own version of the rules for putting down terrain this doesn't matter much).
2) It'd never balance properly anyway. I have enough problems with knocking the trees down in the new forest kits as it is!!

Scythe
23-10-2007, 12:20
We still use the random terrain generators from 6th edition most of the time, so yes, we play without hills from time to time, depending on the dice.

However, anything rolled may be put down by the rolling player on his own table half, to represent each general moving his army into an optimal position terrain wise before the battle.

logan054
23-10-2007, 13:12
Well I'd be against putting forests on hill for two reasons:
1) The rules say don't put terrain on top of each other (Considering most use their own version of the rules for putting down terrain this doesn't matter much).
2) It'd never balance properly anyway. I have enough problems with knocking the trees down in the new forest kits as it is!!

You've seen how big some of my hills are right :p but your right. i seem to play a different system every game for deploying terrain at any rate :wtf: besides i've seen hills with trees on in real life!

I think i like the random system, guess i need to dig out my 6th ed book this weekend :)

EvC
23-10-2007, 13:23
I think as long as you're consistent and set the limits beforehand (like "No stacking terrain on top of each other") anything is fair game. And to be honest, putting a forest on a hill should only help guns, because it means Furies, Exalted Daemons and other Flyers can't land in them to charge the warmachines in the first place...

Finnigan2004
23-10-2007, 15:39
I have a plan now:

1. Stop painting my high elves and lizards.
2. Shelf my other armies.
3. Paint up some wood elves.
4. Go out and find lots of giant redwood railroad trees to serve as my free wood-- like 18" tall and 24" wide.
5. Park the monstrosity in front of any hill that comes down in my opponents deployment zone and fill with scouts and waywatchers wielding magic bows-- gotta love the hail of doom arrow. Then treesing the puppy right up onto the hill (I don't think there is a rule against it), and let my waywatchers and scouts carve up the artillery crews.

That should teach the gunline using gits a lesson for only about $400 dollars. Yay.

phobia
23-10-2007, 18:49
I wasn't aware that there was a rule stating any player automatically got to place hills where they wanted. I am relatively new to the game, am I missing something?

If you use the standard rules for placing terrain, then, the shooty player would probably want to place two hills, one in each deployment zone. This way, he'd be sure to get to use one or the other when time for deployment came.

The rules say you're supposed to place terrain prior to determining which table edge you deploy from, right?

I don't think there is much of balance issue there.

Aside from that, using the scatter dice to place terrain sounds like it would be a fun idea as well. I'll probably give that method a try at some point.

leeoaks
23-10-2007, 23:46
i think the table should be laid by someone else...that way the roll for sides gives the winning general an edge on setup but not the same edge that he puts on the table each game!

Master Jeridian
24-10-2007, 00:29
Aye, phobia, that's how it is. Say it's my Empire vs anything- there will always be 2 Hills, one on each deployment zone edge, and 2/3 woods trying to obscure them.

But it gets boring, boards become very predictable. So I've started asking my opponents to do the following, deploy as per the Warhammer rulebook but randomly determine the terrain type:

1-2 Hill
3-4 Wood/Forest
5 Building
6 Player's Choice.

Certainly makes it more interesting.

Crazy Harborc
24-10-2007, 03:12
Um....as far as I know, there's nothing in 7th Edition that says opponents can't roll for high roller picks the side they want.....AFTER the terrain has all been placed on the board.;)

You/one player could set up the terrain for the entire table...The other player then picks.

Random rolling of terrain using the 6th Edition charts can stop the same terrain ALWAYS being on the table, battle after battle.;)

Scythe
24-10-2007, 08:24
4. Go out and find lots of giant redwood railroad trees to serve as my free wood-- like 18" tall and 24" wide.


Sorry to ruin your plan, but there are size limits on the WEs free wood...:p


Random rolling of terrain using the 6th Edition charts can stop the same terrain ALWAYS being on the table, battle after battle.

Yeah, that is my main gripe with the new terrain deployment rules... Just hills and forests get deployed, all the time. No variation in battlefields...

Nkari
24-10-2007, 12:27
About 50% of me games are without hills in deployment zones.. There certainly are hills on the battlefield.. just not allways where you want them to be..

Grand Warlord
24-10-2007, 14:33
I have played games with no hills and it's a deployment nightmare, I have around 100 troops (gun, war machines, tank, big blocks of infantry) so no matter what it s a pain in the A to deploy without getting in another units way, atleast for the 1st turn.

Finnigan2004
24-10-2007, 14:51
Sorry to ruin your plan, but there are size limits on the WEs free wood...


Noooo! :mad: Hmm... I'll think of something...

Darkvoid_bluff
24-10-2007, 21:41
Personally I use the system of D3 pieces of terrain per table 1/4 each player alternating rolling up each piece from the terrain tables from the old rule book.

As a wood elf player I have found this has produced interesting & different table tops every game, ranging from 10 pieces with 6 woods to 5 pieces with only my free wood.

Crazy Harborc
24-10-2007, 21:49
Noooo! :mad: Hmm... I'll think of something...

Talk it over with your opponent(s). Terrain can be a plus factor for neither , one or both players. IMHO, it should always be agreed to....NOT shoved down one players throat/forced upon them. It is one part of what is supposed to be a fun game.

Hvidponi
24-10-2007, 23:10
Noooo! :mad: Hmm... I'll think of something...

And they must be dployed on your side of the table... AFAIR...

Finnigan2004
25-10-2007, 04:59
Talk it over with your opponent(s). Terrain can be a plus factor for neither , one or both players. IMHO, it should always be agreed to....NOT shoved down one players throat/forced upon them. It is one part of what is supposed to be a fun game.

Yup, I was pretty much joking about it-- I'm not really going to build a massive redwood and start a new army. It's more about how annoying it is to always run into an enemy deployment zone with hills. In fun games you can talk it over, but it seems like in every GW store and every tournament I've been to this year involves one or more hills in the deployment zone (Maybe with the exception of one game, but we were both chaos and I might just not have noticed the hill).

It is annoying because the terrain feature does heavily favor certain armies. Come to think of it, hordes of scouting skinks with shamans who can give line of sight to a second generation slann with lots of spells from lore of life could punish the gunline toting gits too... I already have those models... ;).

More seriously though, I agree with many of the posters that terrain should be randomly generated, so that neither side can gain advantage from it. Either that or I'm brining a river and two lakes to my next game. ...:angel: Yup, lizardmen.

Unwise
25-10-2007, 06:57
If you can't sort out something as simple as terrain in a way that does not bring you to tears, what hope have you got of having an enjoyable game? I can only imagine how much moaning goes on about charge ranges and wheeling. That aside, you could try using some set terrain rules.

For instance, each person can pick up to 3-4 peices of terrain and have turns placing them. That way the shooty armies can get their hill and the charging armies can get very little terrain on the board as they just choose not to put any down.

I believe that the game is designed around people getting 1 or 2 terrain peices appropriate to their needs. So shooty people get a hill, armies with scouts get a woods close-ish to the enemy, fast cav have a hill to scoot around at the side of the board etc.

Finnigan2004
25-10-2007, 13:03
If you can't sort out something as simple as terrain in a way that does not bring you to tears, what hope have you got of having an enjoyable game? I can only imagine how much moaning goes on about charge ranges and wheeling. That aside, you could try using some set terrain rules.

To be honest, speaking personally, pretty much zero whining goes on for ranges, wheeling, or anything else. The problem that I'm talking about is a simple game mechanic, and I'm sort of joking (hopefully you are too, or you might have misread some posts) to point out what can be a balance problem. Having players set up terrain by choice is problematic because that is what leads to gunline armies always having hills in deployment zones, and what causes some of the imbalance with wood elf and other lists. Some of the suggestions here are pretty good with randomised terrain, and some people might want to try them to get a game that is slightly improved.

Gazak Blacktoof
25-10-2007, 14:20
We try to mix things up a bit so if we've been playing games where there are hills in the deployment zones for a few games we'll play the next few games without.

The way the warhammer rules are written in the BRB hills are one of the best terrain pieces because they block LOS but don't hamper movement. Playing a game on a board littered with barrows is a perfect way to redress what is often seen as the imbalance between cavalry and infantry. An army with mixed composition does much better than any other army on a board littered with hills.

FatOlaf
25-10-2007, 21:41
But always having a hill to deploy your guns on are? Sorry mate, but you are making no sense here.
It does sounds a bit like a spoiled child to me, the terrain shouldn't favour one armour massivly over the other.


Wow, easy fella!
The thing you have to remember is that it is my opponents that are placing the hills, I mainly play VC and dont like hills at all, I face empire and dwarf gunlines a lot!


Gorbad, i wouldnt go down that path, each to his own i guess, for me i down think warhammer so much is about setting up terrain and deck building but more about unit movement, slight maths and plenty of luck, for others it isnt, its fine however, you just play people at their own game however i dont think im going to be allowing a hill and watch tower the other guys deployment zone next game, that was was a tad silly.

Worked quite well for us! But yeah, a tower in our DZ was quite a boost


Well I'd be against putting forests on hill for two reasons:
2) It'd never balance properly anyway. I have enough problems with knocking the trees down in the new forest kits as it is!!

Fully agree, a nightmare!


I think as long as you're consistent and set the limits beforehand (like "No stacking terrain on top of each other") anything is fair game. And to be honest, putting a forest on a hill should only help guns, because it means Furies, Exalted Daemons and other Flyers can't land in them to charge the warmachines in the first place...


Never actually thought of that, bloody good idea!


If you can't sort out something as simple as terrain in a way that does not bring you to tears, what hope have you got of having an enjoyable game? I can only imagine how much moaning goes on about charge ranges and wheeling. That aside, you could try using some set terrain rules.

For instance, each person can pick up to 3-4 peices of terrain and have turns placing them. That way the shooty armies can get their hill and the charging armies can get very little terrain on the board as they just choose not to put any down.

I believe that the game is designed around people getting 1 or 2 terrain peices appropriate to their needs. So shooty people get a hill, armies with scouts get a woods close-ish to the enemy, fast cav have a hill to scoot around at the side of the board etc.

The thing you have got to know is that we play with random amount of scenery, usually for 2K, it's 1d6+1 for scenery, then we roll off to see who deploys scenery first, so some times it's only 2 things, empire plays a hill and i with VC, will usually put down a wood. The if a hill is played and the other player then puts a wood on it, it's like what is the point?
But after EvC'c point, it now looks like quite a good idea....

Kadrium
25-10-2007, 22:30
For the most part I just assume it's coming and deal with it. I personally prefer little to no terrain in deployment zones at all, but i know that isn't likely.

On a 4x6 playing surface, we usually play with d3+3 pieces of terrain. We alternate placement and then scatter them with the artilery dice. If you scatter a piece of terrain off the table, your opponent gets to place it wherever he wants or throw it out if he likes, and then he gets to make his normal placement.

We roll even/odd when we place woods. Even, the hill can see over that particular hunk of woods. Odd, the trees are too tall, and it cannot.

The only time I felt terrain was really out of hand was when I played a game against TK. We rolled 6 pieces of terrain that game. The TK player grabbed 3 hills before anything had been placed and said "Well, i guess I'll be putting all these in the deployment zones so your whole army will definately be able to see my casket."

If he had just shut up and done it, I wouldn't have noticed/realized until it was all over. To come out and say something like that makes it blatant you're about to abuse the hell out of the hills and really annoyed me. I stuck woods in front of all of them and they all ended up being totally worthless to him. Normally I wouldn't go that far, but I felt that was a bit over the top.

stevebrown
25-10-2007, 22:45
try setting up the terrain before you deploy and determine the deployment by die roll, 1 left short side,2 short right side,3+4 long side one, 5+6 long side 2. this way a random fun factor is introduced into a rather boring situation. steveb

logan054
25-10-2007, 22:58
Olaf i cant i found the tower with archers and wizard in combined with the hill the most enjoyable thing to witness or even play against, i think this shows more than anything that we should look at how we place terrain in our games so the rules for these are not abused (which i think other people may actually see as well).

Its ok however as i will be heading over to my parents this weekend so i will see what i can dig up, perhaps i can find the 6th ed rule book, i would suggest just looking at that quote aimed at me and seeing how it may look.

EvC
26-10-2007, 00:03
Are you sure you want me playing on the side with the table with all your other figures on though logan? ;)

logan054
26-10-2007, 00:19
we are moving them to a safe location ;)

Crazy Harborc
26-10-2007, 00:58
You could make up lists of the terrain that is available. 6-8 pieces on a list (Use as many lists as can be made with 6-8 terrain pieces on them). After set up is done, roll off for picking a side of the table first.

Lorcryst
28-10-2007, 10:54
In my gaming group we use 6 pieces of terrain on a 4'x6' table for a 2K game ... depends on who I'm facing, but if it's Empire or Dwarf, there will be a hill in each deployment zone ...

Doesn't really bother me, when facing gunlines I know I'll be pounded for at least two turns anyway, and I can use some woods to block lines of sight ...

The most wierd game I played recently was with my Beasts of Chaos vs Wood Elves ... we each took 3 forests, plus the "free" forest of the WE ... flat and heavily wooded table, but with the amount of skirmishers and "move through woods" units present on the table, it was quite fast.

The boyz
28-10-2007, 11:32
I've played several games in the past without any hills. Mainly, because, I didn't own any at the time. Nowadays though, there is usually the odd hill here and there in both mine and my opponents deployment zone.

Crazy Harborc
29-10-2007, 00:55
I do not recall the last time that I was part of a battle where terrain was rolled for....where there were no hills rolled. Hills DO help to win a battle. IMHO, a hill or hills will not win a battle either.;)

Scythe
30-10-2007, 10:00
Depends on battle, right? I can imagine hills won't be so desired in a chaos versus chaos game. ;)

FurryMiguell
31-10-2007, 12:05
When i play we deploy terrain first, and then we roll doce to choose table edge. Those i play against ALWAYS wants a hill in their deployment zone, so I'ts always fun to just take their hill from then. Love seeing those weepy faces;)

Comrade Wraith
31-10-2007, 12:21
you know what i never have played a game wihout a hill......strange, i wish i had due to the lack of missle weapons in my chaos horde

Crazy Harborc
01-11-2007, 03:27
Checked out your other thread's photos.......BUGS with weapons oh yeah. If only they had had them in Space Hulk....My first GW game.;)

Tomorrow night I am pushing O & Gs my old fart opponent will be doing Dwarves. HILLS, hills and more hills....are likely to occur.;)

I prefer opponents and I deciding what we want for terrain with dice rolls and a chart. Then we "high roller first" pick and place on OUR sides of the table. It goes in cycles. A couple of months of picking and placing with one method. Then........we do it another way.