PDA

View Full Version : 8th Edition Terrain, Love it or Hate it?



Hrolfr Varini
21-06-2010, 13:53
For me I love it.

Table top terrain is soul of the game.

In public I do not allow unpainted troops on my table nor a plain looking boring battlefield.

I wish more players would put as much effort into making eye catching terrain as they lavish upon their armies.

For decades I have always avoided exhibition games and tournaments being run with very little effort put forth into how the table top looks.

Games with little or no terrain quickly become boring and repetitive.

History has always favored telling the tales of epic battles fought over open fields, but for me it is the lesser known ambushes, skirmishes, and lightning fast raids which I find more interesting.

Terrain adds to the strategic and tactical challenge of the game.

What do you think about having to put down d6+4 pieces of terrain onto the table when you play future games ?

samael
21-06-2010, 14:12
Not wanting to be a naysayer (but I will) but NO!!

I can still remember the tournaments where we had to traverse our armies through 7+ pieces of terrain.

If, like me, you like to play with "blocks" of troops it was just painful to watch.

I can just imagine the horror of 10 pieces of terrain on the table no matter how well executed that terrain might be.

FLUEVOG
21-06-2010, 14:13
I, too, love the look of well-made terrain. However, due to the limitations of Warhammer Fantasy in general, it seems to be more of a hindrance than a boon. Especially since most people seemed to ignore the building rules outright.

Terrain-dense tables are better suited for skirmish games like Mordheim and Malifaux

Lordmonkey
21-06-2010, 14:24
If, like me, you like to play with "blocks" of troops it was just painful to watch.

This is it. For a long time I played 7th edition Pitched Battle without realising that a 24" circle in the centre of the board had to be clear of terrain, and it played merry hell with hordes.

I don't know what the terrain rules are like in 8th but with the new rules for hordes I hope people wont make terrain too dense so as to make certain armies unplayable.

Idle Scholar
21-06-2010, 14:25
I love a well done table. At home I've always played on a large terrain dense board, and I favour putting down loads of hills because they add interest and gameplay without knackering movement. So I like that 8th has officially relaxed the movement restrictions for a lot of the terrain types.

That being said the Warcraft style terrain (boiling river, temple of Doom, whatever...) while it sounds cool may a) unfairly bias the game and b) just require too much in the way of looking up rules.

So like many things in 8th it sounds good but I can't really tell until I've got the book in my hands and have played a few games.

Wednesday Friday Addams
21-06-2010, 14:25
Terrain is made in 8th to not be the drag it was in 7th which made us avoid using it alot.

Smithpod68
21-06-2010, 14:35
I like the increase in terrain. Depends on the rules though. Does it slow down movement like 7th? If is does that will be a challenge. If it does not,then an army like Wood Elves just lost an advantage with wooded terrain and the spell The Hidden Path.

Avian
21-06-2010, 15:21
I think I'll add a house rule that you can't see past / through a wood or a hill, and probably some better placement rules*, but otherwise I like them.


* I don't actually know what the terrain placement rules for 8th are, but I doubt I'll like them

harthag12
21-06-2010, 15:29
Haven't seen the terrain rules but I enjoy good looking playable terrain. Since my woods are made to be playable I'll have to adjust true LOS thru them & probably the same w/ hills, but not a big deal.

Marshal Torrick
21-06-2010, 15:32
Well, as new terrain does not afaik block LOS, it sounds like I'm going to be shelving my poor wood elves until something changes or my group house-rules in some survivability. The randomness as to what type of wood or what surprise you get for going into them also kinda' strikes me as weird and sounds like a lot of bookkeeping.

hacksaaw
21-06-2010, 15:34
Fantasy games, based upon ancient, medieval types of battles. should never have cluttered battlefields. and the new terrain rules are frankly idiotic. terrain should funnel any formed mass of troops away from them. or potentially break them when they move through it.

and real line of site, its really idiotic for fantasy ( even more so than 40k), where we have had a presumption that area terrain would block LOS to the other side. and has also meant that moving trees around inorder to fit the unit in the area didnt impact upon the actual game play. ( it is actually the worse part of 5th ed. 40k as well because all that nice area terrain that was designed to look good and facilitate model placement was now flawed because trees and ruins didnt get adjusted back perfectly.)

Which was actually a 180 turn for GW who had been encouraging some good terrain practices before 5th ed. design good looking area terrain that helped with game play.

GGM007
21-06-2010, 15:47
Speaking as another WE player I have no idea what you're supposed to do with no LOS blocking or movement suppression from trees?

Maybe the FAQs will give a temporary boost, hopefully something as balanced as HE ASF, perhaps +15 Combat Res if you fight in a wood?

Since the WE doesn't seem to be even on the radar this could really make me shelve fantasy for years..

EDIT: can anyone confirm that daft sounding table you roll on to see if you find magic pixies or get eaten by hamsters when you enter a forest for the first time?

sorberec
21-06-2010, 16:00
EDIT: can anyone confirm that daft sounding table you roll on to see if you find magic pixies or get eaten by hamsters when you enter a forest for the forest time?


Pretty sure that's what I heard on the Heelanhammer or Bad Dice podcasts.

As far as I can recall, woods now give no movement penalty but potential random effect and units lose rank bonuses while they're in them.

willowdark
21-06-2010, 16:20
I understand if the unit is in the woods. In that case it is at least a little reasonable that a unit could be seen. But the idea that a unit could be on one side of the woods and the enemy on the other and see each other freely is just - well - wierd.

maaksel
21-06-2010, 16:46
Considering most forests are magical... I think keeping your opponent in the fungus grove (Makes them have poisoned melee attacked, but is dangerous), losing models for simply rolling a 1, and not due to any combat is kind of lame. Lost myself a good chunk of empire swords due to deploying in there.

Also, my friend put his bolt throwers in there, and the forest made them stupid - quite funny watching him have to just move 3" forward with his BT's.

SilasOfTheLambs
21-06-2010, 17:01
See my battle report in that section for some examples of what can happen terrain-wise.

Malorian, as far as terrain PLACEMENT, once you've determined what you've got (A mysterious forest, some walls, maybe a hill, etc) then you roll off to place the first one, and alternate placing terrain as each player chooses. That is the only part that really makes sense to me.

decker_cky
21-06-2010, 17:52
By the way, even in a single game of warhammer 8th...the terrain had a much more dynamic effect than it ever had in 7th. In 7th, all terrain was a flat out road block unless you were a skirmisher. In 8th, terrain is something you might fight over.

Maybe not the most realistic, but I like the idea of the warhammer world being strewn with arcane ruins, wizard towers and haunted groves of trees.

Luisjoey
21-06-2010, 18:09
I like lots of terrain! hope the rules improve the use of them, everything is not an openfield!

Melon-neko
21-06-2010, 18:11
I absolutely love the new terrain.

So first off, forests do not slow done movement. However, they are dangerous terrain for cavarly, flyers and chariots. In addition, units inside a forest cannot be steadfast, unless they are skirmishers in which case they are automatically steadfast.

You can't march through rivers and you lose steadfast and ranks while in a river. All marshes are dangerous terrain. Buildings play a huge role, in that units can garrison a building, giving them a 360 line of sight for shooting (although limiting the number of shooters). Other units can assault the building, but only 10 models fight at a time and ranks don't matter.

There are all kinds of effects for the different terrain. Also, for wood elves, they become forest striders, which mean forests are never dangerous terrain for them, so their cavalry moves through it freely. Another note is that you take dangerous terrain checks whenever you move through the terrain for a move, march, charge AND persuing and fleeing. So wood elves can bait cavalry into chasing them into forests hoping to lame some =) dangerous terrain =40k version.

I also thought I read that you don't determine the magical nature of rivers, forests and marshes until a unit actually moves into them. I know I will simply make some cards of each effect so i can place them next to the terrain

(i play wood elves btw...also life and beast magic is freaking amazing)

Bac5665
21-06-2010, 18:14
Terrain=good

"magical" terrain=WTF?!?

I don't need trees attacking my skinks or causing fear of whatever other gibberish GW put there. If I can get away with it, I will never play a single game of 8E with "magical" woods. My woods will be perfectly normal, thank you very much.

*SQUEE*
21-06-2010, 18:19
From what I remember its D6+4 pieces of terrain that you pick what they are. Alternatively you can roll your terrain on a chart and it's the same D6+4 pieces.

Some of the terrain is really wacky if you roll it random.

In the game I played with random terrain (we had 8 pieces) we hard weird stuff all over the place including an entire small village of 4 buildings plus walls and a magic well. Also a statue that shot laser beams out of its eyes at units close to it on a 4+ (no lie). Also a chaos temple that could buff a characters stat by D3 but if you rolled a 1 the character died with no saves.

Storak
21-06-2010, 18:43
Terrain=good

"magical" terrain=WTF?!?

I don't need trees attacking my skinks or causing fear of whatever other gibberish GW put there. If I can get away with it, I will never play a single game of 8E with "magical" woods. My woods will be perfectly normal, thank you very much.


quoted for truth.



From what I remember its D6+4 pieces of terrain that you pick what they are. Alternatively you can roll your terrain on a chart and it's the same D6+4 pieces.

Some of the terrain is really wacky if you roll it random.

In the game I played with random terrain (we had 8 pieces) we hard weird stuff all over the place including an entire small village of 4 buildings plus walls and a magic well. Also a statue that shot laser beams out of its eyes at units close to it on a 4+ (no lie). Also a chaos temple that could buff a characters stat by D3 but if you rolled a 1 the character died with no saves.

na laser statues in my games, please. i think it is not a good idea, to get completely drunk while finishing an important rulebook table!!!

Spinocus
21-06-2010, 20:15
I have too many questions regarding 8th terrain to form a well educated opinion but I must say I'm none too happy about what I've heard. I've read 8th ed batreps where folks are saying rivers are no longer impassable and you can move across them (cannot march) and even fight in them.... huh? Are we talking about rivers or splishy splashy streams? Ok sure, many rivers are fordable... fine. Let units move across rivers but there should be severe movement and combat penalties for doing so (notch down movement by third or a half at least). So how has this affected cliffs, buildings or chasms?

To discourage folks from completely dismissing terrain in their tactics GW has implemented the random 'dangerous terrain' concept. When certain units are in dangerous terrain you roll a D6 for every model in a unit and for each '1' a single model is removed without any kind of save. So this means if you happen to not roll any dangerous magical terrain your plain vanilla difficult/very difficult terrain is now nothing more than boring speed bumps dressed up to look like trees, boulders, etc. ... stupid.

One thing I do know that I really hate the idea of TLOS... at least as applied to terrain. I fail to see why anyone, except perhaps Wood Elves, should be able to see through huge swaths of forest and be allowed to take pot shots at a unit on the other side! -2 to shooting/hard cover or whatever modifiers be damned, that's just ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is that now (I assume) artillery can have a field day with units positioned behind that same forest. Someone please explain how the hell a cannon or catapult has a chance of nailing anything standing on the other side of that same forest except by luck or divine intervention?!? So if a cannon ball fails to wound a trooper in the first rank it stops cold... but a thick oak tree that is standing along a cannon ball's path does nothing or worse... miraculously steps aside so said cannon ball can enjoy its rustic excursion?!?

So if TLOS applies to terrain how does this affect charges? If a unit can shoot an enemy unit on the other side of that same thick forest is it also allowed to charge it? The image of knights mounted on barded cavalry charging through a forest in tight formation is... well... laughable.

War machines & chariots, how are they affected by the new terrain rules? Units like the Plague Furnace, Screaming Bell and Doomwheel are all supposed to take hits when in contact with difficult/very difficult terrain. I must assume the Skaven 8th FAQ/errata will convert that to mean 'dangerous', no?

Anyway I can live with the silly magical forests, rivers and whatnot provided terrain still felt right. The idea that you can no longer set up effective chokepoints using terrain that was previously classified as difficult or impassable terrain ruins the wargame feel of WFHB for me. The new terrain rules just scream out for specific house rules to supersede them.

Gaargod
21-06-2010, 20:20
They're actually quite fun, if entirely mad. the only real problem i have with them is they're too random.

More accurately, i wouldn't have the problem if i knew what would happen before i went into the trees/river/whatever. For example, one of the river effects is River of Light (or something similar), which immediately casts a random spell from the lore of spell on the unit!

The arcane buildings (lazah statue + chaosy temple included) ARE known before you get in there - the actual model you have for the terrain determines its effect. One of the my friends pointed out that he reckons people will make their own terrain up to look specifically like one result and therefore never need to roll on the table.

Gorak
21-06-2010, 20:37
I love it, the new terrian rules are nice no more I'm lazy so you place one piece and I'm done! Now the terrian doesn't hinmder it adds to the game! Althou I will be putting my we on hold for awhile.

Areku
21-06-2010, 20:46
I haven't had a chance to take a look at the new rule book yet, and I can't find a list of the terrain choices either. What exactly are the different terrain types, or better yet, has anyone been able to find a list of the terrain and different outcomes yet?

chilledenuff
21-06-2010, 20:54
I shall be making forests that are 8.5" high with tree trunks around the edge with approx 1mm gaps between them. Trees inside will be removable so units can go in. My forests WILL block los. Might have to make some very tall hills too:D

hacksaaw
21-06-2010, 21:45
By the way, even in a single game of warhammer 8th...the terrain had a much more dynamic effect than it ever had in 7th. In 7th, all terrain was a flat out road block unless you were a skirmisher. In 8th, terrain is something you might fight over.

Maybe not the most realistic, but I like the idea of the warhammer world being strewn with arcane ruins, wizard towers and haunted groves of trees.


For these sorts of armies, terrain being mostly a flat out road block is the CORRECT way to play it. you need rules for units breaking and running becoming useless if they are not skirmishers and are caught in terrain or even just moving through terrain.

thats what just so bloody wrong about the 40king of fantasy terrain. its cute, and oh so fun in a 9 year olds kind of way, but its yet another thing that seems to be dumbing down fantasy in major ways.

the addition of magical terrain items on the battle field is fine. but it needs to match up with FANTASY battles instead of 40k.

big squig
21-06-2010, 22:16
I have too many questions regarding 8th terrain to form a well educated opinion but I must say I'm none too happy about what I've heard. I've read 8th ed batreps where folks are saying rivers are no longer impassable and you can move across them (cannot march) and even fight in them.... huh? Are we talking about rivers or splishy splashy streams? Ok sure, many rivers are fordable... fine. Let units move across rivers but there should be severe movement and combat penalties for doing so (notch down movement by third or a half at least). So how has this affected cliffs, buildings or chasms?

To discourage folks from completely dismissing terrain in their tactics GW has implemented the random 'dangerous terrain' concept. When certain units are in dangerous terrain you roll a D6 for every model in a unit and for each '1' a single model is removed without any kind of save. So this means if you happen to not roll any dangerous magical terrain your plain vanilla difficult/very difficult terrain is now nothing more than boring speed bumps dressed up to look like trees, boulders, etc. ... stupid.

One thing I do know that I really hate the idea of TLOS... at least as applied to terrain. I fail to see why anyone, except perhaps Wood Elves, should be able to see through huge swaths of forest and be allowed to take pot shots at a unit on the other side! -2 to shooting/hard cover or whatever modifiers be damned, that's just ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is that now (I assume) artillery can have a field day with units positioned behind that same forest. Someone please explain how the hell a cannon or catapult has a chance of nailing anything standing on the other side of that same forest except by luck or divine intervention?!? So if a cannon ball fails to wound a trooper in the first rank it stops cold... but a thick oak tree that is standing along a cannon ball's path does nothing or worse... miraculously steps aside so said cannon ball can enjoy its rustic excursion?!?

So if TLOS applies to terrain how does this affect charges? If a unit can shoot an enemy unit on the other side of that same thick forest is it also allowed to charge it? The image of knights mounted on barded cavalry charging through a forest in tight formation is... well... laughable.

War machines & chariots, how are they affected by the new terrain rules? Units like the Plague Furnace, Screaming Bell and Doomwheel are all supposed to take hits when in contact with difficult/very difficult terrain. I must assume the Skaven 8th FAQ/errata will convert that to mean 'dangerous', no?

Anyway I can live with the silly magical forests, rivers and whatnot provided terrain still felt right. The idea that you can no longer set up effective chokepoints using terrain that was previously classified as difficult or impassable terrain ruins the wargame feel of WFHB for me. The new terrain rules just scream out for specific house rules to supersede them.

This is all under the assumption that terrain in fantasy is still an abstraction. TLOS may mean the end of that. It may be like 40k now where one tree equals one tree.

Three trees on a flat 4" piece of cardboard does not equal a massive dense forest, but is just three little trees. A small hill isn't a mountain, but is just a little pump of land. A 3" wide river isn't the mighty amazon, but just a little ankle-deep stream. It's WYSIWYG.

Miredorf
21-06-2010, 23:02
na laser statues in my games, please. i think it is not a good idea, to get completely drunk while finishing an important rulebook table!!!

Its Matt Tard we are talking about...:eyebrows:

Idle Scholar
21-06-2010, 23:05
This is all under the assumption that terrain in fantasy is still an abstraction. TLOS may mean the end of that. It may be like 40k now where one tree equals one tree.

Three trees on a flat 4" piece of cardboard does not equal a massive dense forest, but is just three little trees. A small hill isn't a mountain, but is just a little pump of land. A 3" wide river isn't the mighty amazon, but just a little ankle-deep stream. It's WYSIWYG.

Yeah, bugger that :p

TBH where I can get away from it I'll be house ruling woods, ruins and hills back to 7th. I mean I like a lot of the new terrain rules but not TLoS'ing everything.

Alternatively, I figure if I was tournament inclined my 'woods' would be an 8" high painted circle of card, with a lid and lichen and flock stuck too it.

enygma7
21-06-2010, 23:10
The terrain restrictions needed to be eased up a bit. An empire village surrounded by hedged fields might look lovely and oh so fluffy but it was completely impossible to fight in. Likewise, you can now fight in heavily forested terrain to represent wood elf or beastmen home terf rather than a suspiciously open field with 2-3 small copses of trees.

I've mixed feelings on the magical terrain. I actually like the idea of the warhammer world being a place of mystery and enchantment where such places exist and are even fairly common, but not every wood having a magical fairy ring or some such. I mean, how would anyone collect wood? :) I think this is an easy one to agree with your opponent - it isn't core to the game like random charges, you can ignore it if you don't like it.

As I play in mostly narrative campaigns I think it will be nice to alter the chance of something being magical based on the location - an empire village with surrounding woodland would be fairly mundane but a chaos corrupted beastmen haunted forest would have every piece of terrain randomly magical.

TLoS isn't such a big deal. I was highly sceptical when they brought it in for 40k but it wasn't a big deal in the end. I see it being even less of an issue in warhammer where the need to hide things is much lower. Put some more trees in your woods and come up with some conventions if needed (these 25mm tall hills actually block LoS to 28mm models for example).

Shipmonkey
21-06-2010, 23:10
Considering most forests are magical... I think keeping your opponent in the fungus grove (Makes them have poisoned melee attacked, but is dangerous), losing models for simply rolling a 1, and not due to any combat is kind of lame. Lost myself a good chunk of empire swords due to deploying in there.

Also, my friend put his bolt throwers in there, and the forest made them stupid - quite funny watching him have to just move 3" forward with his BT's.

Check the rules again. In 8th, warmachines deployed in woods are immobile for the game. So, he couldn't have moved i=his bolt throwers out once the were deployed there. It was fun watching a demo a the local store when a DE player dropped hid reapers into a woods that turned out to hit every unit in it with D6 hits ever turn, and he couldn't move the units out.

indytims
21-06-2010, 23:15
I really like what I've seen of the new terrain rules. Now, terrain will often be more than just eye-candy. There will be a reason to put terrain out instead of just using it to funnel troop movement.

The best part is, if you and your buddy you're going to play don't like it - then don't use it. Like any edition of the rules.

And to top it off, if there's a magical grove on the table - so what? Avoid it. There's no rule FORCING you to go into it (that I've seen, anyway).

Like everything else, it will be fun to try out the new stuff and see how it plays, then make an informed experienced opinion once my buddies and I have thrown some dice through a few games.

-Tim S.

Icarus
21-06-2010, 23:22
I absolutely love the new terrain.

So first off, forests do not slow done movement. However, they are dangerous terrain for cavarly, flyers and chariots. In addition, units inside a forest cannot be steadfast, unless they are skirmishers in which case they are automatically steadfast.


I love this. I have gotten so sick of having my block of infantry clip a wood and end up being reduced to crawl for the next 3 turns as they desperately try to manoeuvre out of this terrifying obstacle. Woods and other such features *should* be difficult and dangerous for units to move through, but they should not completely incapacitate anyone who enters the area.

Mixed feelings on the magic terrain as well. Is this an optional extra or a main part of the terrain rules? It makes sense to me as a funky optional feature, but not as standard. Also it would make a lot more sense to me if a roll of 1-3 was a normal wood and then 4-6 did something funky. Is the majority of terrain in the Warhammer world really so infused with magic?

Grimstonefire
21-06-2010, 23:23
I like the very basic way terrain is handled now in terms of movement and line of sight. More terrain... Ok, I think that would mix things up a bit.

What I really, really don't like though is all the freaky rolls for everything..

Ladies and Gentlemen, on the left we have a cursed forest, on the right a blood forest. Further ahead past the mass grave are some magical ruins, and if you go around that magical well you will find a river of blood... :wtf:

No, no, no. My gaming group have already agreed to ignore all the crazy stuff.

NecroNurgle
22-06-2010, 00:03
Meanwhile in the Chaos Wastelands...


Ladies and Gentlemen, on the left we have a cursed forest, on the right a blood forest. Further ahead past the mass grave are some magical ruins, and if you go around that magical well you will find a river of blood...

Sounds about right actually :p

WarmbloodedLizard
22-06-2010, 00:04
I like that you can move normally through terrain and are only march-blocked. What I really don't like, though, is the TLoS system and the stupid random magical terrain rules.
As for the amount of terrain placed, I think 2-3 big terrain pieces (8-12"; e.g.hill, wood), 2-3 medium terrain pieces (4-8"; Watchtower, small pond), and 2-3 small terrain pieces (2-4"; fence, wall, rock) would be great.

I only really care about the functional aspect of terrain, though. Having a nice terrain helps but I could do with pieces of paper that have "wood" or "hill" written on it if there is no or not enough terrain available.

edit:

about magical terrain: In my opinion, it should only be used for specific scenarios, in which the magical terrain pieces play a significant role.


I shall be making forests that are 8.5" high with tree trunks around the edge with approx 1mm gaps between them. Trees inside will be removable so units can go in. My forests WILL block los. Might have to make some very tall hills too:D

haha, I love that. :D


It's WYSIWYG.

I don't like WYSIWYG and think it should not be a rule. I also prefer abstraction.

Voss
22-06-2010, 00:21
Meanwhile in the Chaos Wastelands...

Sounds about right actually :p

Sure, for a themed campaign in the chaos wastes, its fine. Its a bit over the top in a standard game, however. It reminds me a little of all the herdstones that litter the Empire in the new beastmen book. According to it, there isn't a human settlement within 100 leagues of a herdstone, but a quick check of the map a bit later quickly reveals this isn't possible- either the herstones shouldn't exist at all, or the human settlements shouldn't. The assorted killer forests, which outnumber normal forests 5 to 1 strike me as a similar, rather goofy, thing.


@Icarus: main part, unfortunately, The woods section has a header saying, 'all woods use the following rules', part of which is 'the first time a unit enters a wood, roll on the following chart of magical sillyness'

NecroNurgle
22-06-2010, 00:29
The assorted killer forests, which outnumber normal forests 5 to 1 strike me as a similar, rather goofy, thing.
QFT. I would have liked to see a 6x6 chart more like the Mordhiem charts, with mostly normal terrain, and all of those wacked out results in the extremes.
I just read the book for the first time yesterday and it has fallen short in a lot of ways for me already.
I'm not talking about the rules, though. I'm talking about the massive wasted potential. Six pitched battles? In 528 pages, 300 of which are art and fluff, you couldn't find room for a couple more? No siege rules, no campaign rules, no mighty empire support a total of 4 pages of terrain rules. Farking weak sauce.
I love the fluff of warhammer, but jesus, I'm buying a game here, and for $75, I think I should be getting THAT MUCH game.

TL;DR GW wasted potential again.

Miredorf
22-06-2010, 01:30
I just read the book for the first time yesterday and it has fallen short in a lot of ways for me already.
I'm not talking about the rules, though. I'm talking about the massive wasted potential. Six pitched battles? In 528 pages, 300 of which are art and fluff, you couldn't find room for a couple more? No siege rules, no campaign rules, no mighty empire support a total of 4 pages of terrain rules. Farking weak sauce.
I love the fluff of warhammer, but jesus, I'm buying a game here, and for $75, I think I should be getting THAT MUCH game.

TL;DR GW wasted potential again.

aahhhh, i preordered the book today from Malestrom... 38 pounds when in Spain they ask me to pay 60? whats up with GW currency converters? Thats a 33% less.

Anyway that quoted parragraph talks about bad news with the BRB.. I think im going to make a facebook group called: I ALSO HATE MATT WARD :p

bluemage
22-06-2010, 01:47
I'd prefer that the magical terrain effects weren't in the book. Not every forest should attack you, just the wood elf one, and not every river in the world is burning blood. I mean wtf? Are we fighting all of our battles in the chaos realms? The people working at GW need to go outside more. I'm not sure some of them have ever seen a forest or a park, or a tree.

gdsora
22-06-2010, 02:35
Wow, i guess i am the only one who likes the new magical terrain rules. I find them really interesting and different. But im also tired of the plain ordinary forests, that were in every game that i ever played of warhammer

HeroFox
22-06-2010, 02:39
In public I do not allow unpainted troops on my table nor a plain looking boring battlefield.

Terrain shouldn't be mandatory nor should painted armies.

If both players agree they want to play something, they should have the right to play it.

SamVimes
22-06-2010, 02:47
Terrain shouldn't be mandatory nor should painted armies.

If both players agree they want to play something, they should have the right to play it.

And in this case one player is declining to agree to a game with unpainted armies and crap terrain. Does it limit his game choices? Yes. Is it the way he wants to play? Yes. Does that mean people with unpainted armies can't play? No. Just not against him. So the problem is....what exactly?

Ramius4
22-06-2010, 03:24
I've played 2 games so far with 8th rules and both times we used the LOS rules from 7th for the forests. I can say with absolute certainty that woods will always block LOS when our group plays.

Terrain generation tables? Meh. Never once has anyone in our group ever used one. We've never ever taken turns placing terrain. One of us usually sets up the table (or both) in a reasonable manner. If one person does it, then we give the choice of deployment zone to the other guy. That ensures fair and balanced terrain, believe me. Well, that and the fact that the youngest of us is 34, so we're all well past the shananigans stage of our lives.

I haven't read the full rulebook yet, so I'm reserving judgment on other terrain types.

I will say this though. Terrain rules for 7th didn't have to be all that bad. All that was really needed is to allow march moves through difficult terrain. 8th sounds like it's going too far the other way.

Ever try to walk across a muddy field in real life? Things like that should slow you down a bit.

As for all the whacky effects and such, I'm glad to see those kinds of things included. It doesn't mean you have to use them you know. But hey, once in a while, when we're in the mood to mix it up and try something fun you're damn right I want to see something unexpected. I don't think it will be a regular feature of our games though.

Urgat
22-06-2010, 08:41
Wow, i guess i am the only one who likes the new magical terrain rules. I find them really interesting and different. But im also tired of the plain ordinary forests, that were in every game that i ever played of warhammer

Nah, I like them too. I'd rather we rolled on the magical terrain table on a 1 for them though.