PDA

View Full Version : Wood Ettiquette



Rubicon
16-03-2008, 22:59
I'm having a bit of a quandry about woods and their associated Asrai. It strikes me that it is quite a bit out of sorts for a person playing against Asrai to refuse to have any woods on the table (or only in deployment zones, not in the centre of the table). It strikes me that more than any other race in the game the Wood Elves are very much the most affected by table set up in particular with regards to woods. Am I right in thinking that WE players are allowed one extra wood on the table as a special rule? If so what would be generally accepted as the 'right' way of placing woods when facing Wood Elves?

Seth the Dark
16-03-2008, 23:14
Well the woods are placed after the terrain has been set up and sides have been chosen. I would think that you could place the woods anywhere within your deployment zone.

twisted_angel
16-03-2008, 23:17
wood elves are indeed allowed a free 6" wood and it states can be placed within your half of the table therefore you can place it near the centre if you so desire!

Archaon
16-03-2008, 23:19
a) WE do indeed get an additional wood piece which is placed after everything is setup

b) I don't recall a clear wording as to there it can be placed.. pretty sure you can't deploy it in the opponents deployment zone but everywhere else if fair game i'm afraid.

Famder
16-03-2008, 23:20
It strikes me that more than any other race in the game the Wood Elves are very much the most affected by table set up
Lizardmen are too, they have special rules for several units that never get used because water is such a rare terrain piece.

Your assumptions about WE are correct though, but since they get the ability to rearrange the woods anyway, don't feel too sorry for them.

theunwantedbeing
16-03-2008, 23:23
WE gets a free upto 6" diameter wood that they get to place in their half of the table after setup of the board but before deployment of either side.

You could make it as a sort of semi-circle that's a little bigger than a semi-circle and has a 4" flat edge to it so you can push it right up against the midpoint of the board.
I'de always expect my opponent to put the wood near the middle of the board and in the way where possible.

Freakiq
16-03-2008, 23:59
Yay a wood themed army playing on a table with one wood... :rolleyes:

Gunlines seem to get hills more often then I get woods. :wtf:

TheLionReturns
17-03-2008, 00:04
Well as has been stated it is really none of the asrai opponents business where the free wood goes. It is the asrai choice and as long as it is their own table half anywhere is fair game. As for banning other woods or limiting them to deployment zones I think this is a little silly. A variety of terrain setups adds flavor to the game IMO. Also having woods on the table is fluffy as the asrai are a faction with a defensive outlook so battles are likely to take place on home territory. I think part of the problem is that in the hands of a skilled general asrai are very strong and people want to take steps to weaken them. Perhaps if the army list was weaker wood placement would be less of an issue.

What I find interesting is how often asrai are criticized for their woods, but it seems a given that an army with war machines can have a hill in their deployment zone. Personally I quite like some element of randomness to terrain setup. I also like to scatter terrain after it has been set up too.

SilentTempest
17-03-2008, 00:38
I'm only playing 1k games at the moment, but so far my opponents and I quite like the terrain setup rules whereby each person places a piece of terrain, taking turns, and after you've placed one you can opt not to place any more, which allows your opponent to place one more piece. That means that if my opponent goes first we get 3 pieces + my woods. If I go first, it's 4 + my free woods. Ideally we have enough of each kind of terrain that if someone wants a hill/woods/lake/building/whatever, they can have one. (We still have yet to build any hills, but neither of us are in desperate need, so it might not happen until one of us takes up an army that uses lots of warmachines).

We find the system works quite well, and we do play it competitively. I'll place woods in highly influential positions, he'll place woods where they can't affect play much, and he'll also ALWAYS place the one building we have, since it's terrain I can't move through. (Of course, he'll regret placing those woods in the back corner when I reveal the Moonstone of Hidden Ways :D)

Oh, and to the poster that says we get to move the woods so don't feel sorry for us, don't forget we have to do that in-game, relying on dice, and the WE magic phase is pretty weak usually. But I do feel for the poor Skinks. Sucks that they never get to be Aquatic...

Mad Doc Grotsnik
17-03-2008, 00:52
Problems only occur when the Wood Elf player refuses to play on a board with less than 20% tree coverage BEFORE their free wood.

Kind of makes it a boring, labourious exercise in utter futility for the opponent. And I am speaking from bitter experience here.

GodHead
17-03-2008, 01:31
No player should be compelled to put down any forests when placing a Wood Elf player. They get their free forest, that's more terrain than any other army is allowed to place as a special rule.

vorac
17-03-2008, 01:37
when i play a friendly game against woodelves we usually decide who is attacking who.

if i'm attacking them then i have no problem with the woodies having multiple woods, but if they are attacking me then it depends from where my army comes from, etc.

Rioghan Murchadha
17-03-2008, 01:47
It's not so much that wood elves are 'affected' by terrain, as much as 'wood elves, should they get enough forest on the board, can utterly devastate your colon with no chance for you to fight back.'

Yes, I'm looking at you, Deepwood sphere, Treesing, and Strangleroot attack... :rolleyes:

Aurellis
17-03-2008, 01:55
I usually deploy terrain so that people take it in turns to place it, usually they'll have a choice of woods/hills/houses/hedges/streams. This used so all players can have a fair choice of what they want to put down.

Any arguments are settled with a third party placing terrain

SuperBeast
17-03-2008, 02:04
Could just avoid the arguments altogether and use the terrain generators that were in the 6th edition book - or come up with your own.

ChaosCajun
17-03-2008, 03:15
We use the terrain deployment rules in the book and never have much problem. My main opponent is Lizardman and he places at least 2 water features almost every time. I can't really figure why there are posts saying that water features are rare, since the rules don't make any reference to this. In competitions with preset terrain, I can see the problem, but this is largely one of poor terrain variation on the tables IMHO.

I think we are going to start using the 6th Ed. random generators so we can add variety to the games now that we have a dozen or so games with most of our variations of OB tried out.

One of my main objections to preset terrain or random terrain placement systems is that terrain is something that most real generals try to have at least somewhat in their favor and they try to maneuver their opponent to allow their own troops the most favorable deployment in the battlefield area. As a chaos player, I place terrain aggressively to restrict lanes of fire and funnel the enemy. I don't see why wood elves shouldn't use their favored terrain aggressively as well.

RevenantX
17-03-2008, 08:34
As a wood elf player, I think the rules are perfectly fair. In random terrain set ups, you betch'yo butt I'm looking to throw down extra woods where I can; but I'll take the one freebie I get too. 6" of woods is a lot of woods, and being able to place it in your opponents zone would be way unfair.

Still, it stands to reason that if the attacker's are the elves, they wood (get it? WOOD!? You know, since it's a homophone of 'would'?) want to attack on their home turf where their spirits are more powerful and they can set ambushes and traps. If they were getting attacked, their opponents would want to catch them out in the open.

ehlijen
17-03-2008, 11:41
Using the suggested alternating terrain setup rules, the wood elf player is guaranteed 2 woods + his freeby wood. That's plenty. He can get more if his opponent keeps putting down terrain.

SilentTempest
17-03-2008, 13:04
I can't really figure why there are posts saying that water features are rare, since the rules don't make any reference to this.

I think at least some of the people saying this are the casual gamers that don't play tourneys, and just never got around to making water-scenery. I know my group has plenty of forests and a building, and are meaning to do some hills soon, but don't really intend to make any water-features. If one of our guys ever went Lizardmen, they'd be more than welcome to bring some water scenery, but as it stands, water wouldn't add anything to our game anyway. (None of our guys are allowed to take Lore of Life either, so no difference there)

TheLionReturns
17-03-2008, 13:47
Problems only occur when the Wood Elf player refuses to play on a board with less than 20% tree coverage BEFORE their free wood.

Kind of makes it a boring, labourious exercise in utter futility for the opponent. And I am speaking from bitter experience here.

I think it goes without saying that excessive numbers of woods are as bad as an opponent denying WE any woods. Personally I think a WE player should get at least 2 woods on the board. This would seem to me the designers minimum intention given that one of the magic items allows the player to teleport between two woods. Personally I find 3 woods more than enough.

On a more general terrain note, I think that random placement really makes the game. Terrain can play a major part in WFB and if you have regular setups (say a hill in the deployment zone and a wood in the middle) you get used to playing a certain way that fits this terrain. Having new setups every time you play forces the tactics in game rather than in the planning stage. You are rewarded for the ability to think on your feet and adapt rather than plan a strategy in advance. Personally this is the type of challenge I like in a wargame.

GodHead
17-03-2008, 13:49
Hills should never be in deployment zones. It's just stupid the amount of games that devolve into valley fights because of that. Gunlines wouldn't be half the problem they are now if people would just quit putting hills in the damn deployment zones.

Gazak Blacktoof
17-03-2008, 14:06
Aye. Terrain is always going to favour one army over another, there's no reason it should always favour one army over another though.

If you build an army around a particular type of terrain expect to get screwed over when you don't get any hills/ forests/ buildings/ water features.

advinius
17-03-2008, 14:53
This topic makes me think of the long running series of games featuring my slightly shooting heavy Empire vs. a friend's skink heavy lizardmen. We agreed early on to feature a theme of "attempted Imperial colony on the shores of Lustria" and so many games featured a setup where one section of the board was Imperial towns and fields, with the remainder ponds and jungles, with enough space between to manuver units. we even went so far as to insitute a "no targeting a unit til at least one of your own units can see it or an effect it causes" policy.

Did it make thing more difficult for my brave lads of the Empire, and easier for his neo-Aztec lizards? Sure.

Were they some of the most entertaining games I've ever played? Definately.

Not to mention that I learned a hell of a lot about how to use and manuver different troop types, and broke out of my gunline shell over the 2 or 3 years these games were going on and became a much more well rounded general.

I'd suggest that when playing an army that has a real terrain bias, that you should spend at least a few minutes talking to your opponent before you start setup, and work out what to do in advance. It really does improve the game!

ChaosCajun
17-03-2008, 20:28
Hills should never be in deployment zones. It's just stupid the amount of games that devolve into valley fights because of that. Gunlines wouldn't be half the problem they are now if people would just quit putting hills in the damn deployment zones.

That's why I like to place my own terrain. I put my own hill or wood right in front of their hill in the deployment zone, which effectively narrows or totally blocks their field of fire. I make my hill open going so I can roll over it and charge the gunline. They get 1 shot at me.


I think it goes without saying that excessive numbers of woods are as bad as an opponent denying WE any woods. Personally I think a WE player should get at least 2 woods on the board. This would seem to me the designers minimum intention given that one of the magic items allows the player to teleport between two woods. Personally I find 3 woods more than enough.

Yep, that's why the alternating terrain guarantees them 3 woods (2+bonus). I don't have a wood elf opponent at the moment, so don't want to comment too much on how much of an advantage a wood gives. My centigors love woods.


On a more general terrain note, I think that random placement really makes the game. Terrain can play a major part in WFB and if you have regular setups (say a hill in the deployment zone and a wood in the middle) you get used to playing a certain way that fits this terrain. Having new setups every time you play forces the tactics in game rather than in the planning stage. You are rewarded for the ability to think on your feet and adapt rather than plan a strategy in advance. Personally this is the type of challenge I like in a wargame.

As I said earlier, this is something I like to do as well to vary the games more. You could also allow the player to choose the terrain piece and roll randomly for placement OR roll randomly for terrain and allow the player to place it where he wants using the rulebook limitations (ie. 12" from centerpoint). These tactics also provide a new element to play.

Every good general plans a strategy in advance. The terrain may require modification, but the overall strategy remains.

W0lf
17-03-2008, 20:37
we usually alternate terrian placement.

As a typical rule a 6 foot board usually has 2 hills, 2 woods and another terrain type.

We agree on the terrain to be used ebfore placement begins.

The_Dragon_Rising
17-03-2008, 22:31
Set up terrain a piece, then opponent, then you, etc This way you have what you want where you want, as does he makes it more balanced.

Rubicon
17-03-2008, 22:55
Last game I played I got completely owned by as Asrai army on a wood heavy board (4 woods, all in the centre of the board, no lines of sight to anything all game) I just really wanted to find out if 4 woods was acceptable or overkill, and if it was acceptable...how on earth do you beat the blighters!?!

mistformsquirrel
17-03-2008, 23:03
This topic makes me think of the long running series of games featuring my slightly shooting heavy Empire vs. a friend's skink heavy lizardmen. We agreed early on to feature a theme of "attempted Imperial colony on the shores of Lustria" and so many games featured a setup where one section of the board was Imperial towns and fields, with the remainder ponds and jungles, with enough space between to manuver units. we even went so far as to insitute a "no targeting a unit til at least one of your own units can see it or an effect it causes" policy.

Did it make thing more difficult for my brave lads of the Empire, and easier for his neo-Aztec lizards? Sure.

Were they some of the most entertaining games I've ever played? Definately.

Not to mention that I learned a hell of a lot about how to use and manuver different troop types, and broke out of my gunline shell over the 2 or 3 years these games were going on and became a much more well rounded general.

I'd suggest that when playing an army that has a real terrain bias, that you should spend at least a few minutes talking to your opponent before you start setup, and work out what to do in advance. It really does improve the game!

While random; I just want to say this sounds like HUGE fun to me. Bravo for doing something cool! (Vaguely reminds me of the movie Zulu in a way)

Freakiq
17-03-2008, 23:37
As a wood elf player I'd rather forfeit my forest and play on a bord without woods than allow a gunline to have a hill in their deployment zone.

Actually I dont use woods that much in my battleplan, any cover will suffice.

Lorcryst
18-03-2008, 00:23
Once upon a time, I was hit by a bout of madness ... I agreed to play my BoC army (with numerous herds) against a WE army, on a table with ONLY woods, 7 in total (1 "free WE wood", 1 very large, 2 large, 1 medium, 2 small woods).

I was utterly trounced, and totally unable to do anything ... curse those tree-singing Treemen !

Well, I also had abysmal luck that night, and my opponent was a really good player that used each mistake I made to his advantage, but still, getting shot at by Asrai and the woods while chasing them across the board is not really fun ...

GodHead
18-03-2008, 00:39
Set up terrain a piece, then opponent, then you, etc This way you have what you want where you want, as does he makes it more balanced.

I hate that idea, as it leads to just what I described, which is a bad thing. When both players have what they want, gunlines have hills, Wood Elves have forests, Lizardmen have lakes, etc.

It's stupid that they should get their massive terrain advantages every game. I prefer more random systems, as it doesn't intentionally favour anyone.

Every time I see the Dwarfs and their Hills, the Wood Elves and their Forests, and so on, I just want to flip the table. People should try something that makes them think a little more than "I can shoot in 2 ranks now!" or "I can move through that and he can't!!"

ChaosCajun
18-03-2008, 00:53
While I see the merits of a random terrain placement system, and often use it in gaming, when do dwarves leave their mountains and wood elves leave their woods? I know bringing fluff into it is not 'the rules', but I think the rules allowing you to have some control over terrain and where it is on the table speaks to this. What dwarf general would not stop at a hill or rise to set up his defense or a wood elf general not wait patiently in the nearest wood for the advancing enemy? Yes it's frustrating, but only because your enemy is using the terrain to best advantage his army and not yours.

GodHead
18-03-2008, 00:56
I don't care who leaves where, no one should be entitled to terrain. It's small-minded and stupid, and precludes people from actually thinking outside the box. It's much more interesting when Dwarfs don't have that hill so they have to think about fire arcs and protecting flanks and war machines. It's much more interesting when Wood Elves can't just march through 80% of the terrain items on the table (they still get their free forest, so they can use that to their advantage). It's much more interesting when it's unexpected.

Gazak Blacktoof
18-03-2008, 01:33
Once again I have to agree with God Head.

The problem is that there's no perfect terrain solution except mutual agreement between the players concerned. Random placement can generate awkward setups and letting people alternate between terrain placements can lead to sterile games where every board looks the same and players never leave their comfort zones.

I find that when setting up terrain, as with all things abpout table top wargaming, having sensible people that share your perspective leads to a better game.

WillFightForFood
18-03-2008, 02:50
I have to agree with Godhead here. My friends and I have begun discussing moving to random terrain generation and semi-random placement to counter what it best described as "Forrested Valley syndome".

Coragus
18-03-2008, 05:11
This is somewhat of a Devil's Advocate position, so take it for what it's worth, but as a player who has the WE as a second army, I took particular note that for the US 2008 GT rules, the Wood Elves are NOT allowed their special wood.

I would not be surprised to see local tournaments start to follow suit, nor would I be surprised to find an official ruling from GW saying that it can't be used anymore at all.

Famder
18-03-2008, 11:16
I took particular note that for the US 2008 GT rules, the Wood Elves are NOT allowed their special wood
That is just stupid. Considering that the GT organizers are in control of what terrain is used on boards they should not take away an army special rule because they are too lazy to balance the boards.

warlord hack'a
18-03-2008, 11:33
we usually set up terrain together, until we think it is enough. Sometimes hills in deployment zones, sometimes not, soetimes two forests, sometimes only one at the edge of the board. So we just slap down some terrain and then shuffleit a bit. But maybe we should go more towards really random..