PDA

View Full Version : what does terrain do in 8th besides a cover save?



rocdocta
21-07-2010, 03:37
read and reread my rule book and it say that terrain and obstacles do nothing to ranked infantry movement.

please tell me i am wrong, or is it just another stupid random element ie move in here and roll a dice to see if you get a wound?! please tell me i am wrong...:wtf:

so what is the point of a forest? wall etc?

is it really now just a case of rolling dice to move forward, rolling dice to enter terrain, rolling dice to fight, rolling dice to break (but often stubborn with reroll)...rolling dice to run away...where is the thinking and strategy part in there?

who stole the maneuver part of warhammer?! and why?!

Ultimate Life Form
21-07-2010, 03:47
who stole the maneuver part of warhammer?! and why?!

If by maneuver part you mean 'who stole the black holes that swallowed entire armies for the remainder of the game' then I must say this is one act of thievery I highly approve of.

ooglatjama
21-07-2010, 03:51
Now you avoid forests because they may kill you instead of them slowing you so much that you can never do anything?

Zaustus
21-07-2010, 03:53
Yeah, I much prefer these new terrain rules. The terrain is actually much more interesting when it's not all effectively Impassable Terrain for everyone but skirmishers.

Paraelix
21-07-2010, 04:06
As has previously been stated... Chaos Dwarves stole half the Trees in the oldworld. Hence the changes.

Billy
21-07-2010, 04:15
The new terrain rules make the game more colourful. Instead of an open field with a hill in each DZ there are forests and other pieces of terrain throughout the battlefield like in 40k.

Paraelix
21-07-2010, 04:17
The new terrain rules make the game more colourful. Instead of an open field with a hill in each DZ there are forests and other pieces of terrain throughout the battlefield like in 40k.

Yeh... So rather than play around features... people occaisionally play in them.

Jind_Singh
21-07-2010, 05:08
For the most part I love the relaxation in terrain but somethings don't sit well:

e.g. the COMPLETE loss of importance of terrain to the battlefield - take forests, sure I love that you don't have annoying 2" visibility, and it doesn't slow the armies down to a crawl, but WHY let units march in them? Why can't they move their basic move only? Ever tried marching fast in a wood - you CANT! you trip!

Why could they not have made it so units can just move normally in woods, but no marching. It still would be much faster than 7th ed rules of half basic movement, but yet add some tactical uses of woods on the game - right now it's just too bloody open!

But I do love the building rules, rivers, etc, just not the woods!

Lord Inquisitor
21-07-2010, 05:36
Terrain now does random stuff that can muck up a perfectly good game too...

druchii
21-07-2010, 05:58
The new terrain rules make the game more colourful. Instead of an open field with a hill in each DZ there are forests and other pieces of terrain throughout the battlefield like in 40k.

Bingo.

Now tables don't look like they got run over by a steam roller.

"Oh you missed that hill in that corner, that hill in that corner, and that tiny woods somewhere randomly on the table".

I'm surprised people are even talking about this, as the only terrain really seen on the table that did ANYTHING was a forest (or two if you were playing WEs) and then it was usually as small as possible.

I'm sick of playing fantasy on the "green farmland of doom!" table.

d

wizbix
21-07-2010, 06:15
It brings pleasure to my eyes.

rocdocta
21-07-2010, 06:52
yes, but what tournament is going to run "magic" terrain? maybe its just the gaming scene around where i am, but all the gamers (and not hobbyists) refuse to use another random factor.
sure forests slowed (read stopped) any movement through them, but that forced you to think tactically, using it as an anchor or a bog for frezied troops...not "if i hope really really hard...the magic forest will be a good random roll."

Its as though GW just got lazy and gave up trying to write good rules that promote thoughtful gaming. there is a difference between thinking and doing. 7th = thinking 8th = doing.

rocdocta
21-07-2010, 06:54
Bingo.

Now tables don't look like they got run over by a steam roller.

"Oh you missed that hill in that corner, that hill in that corner, and that tiny woods somewhere randomly on the table".

I'm surprised people are even talking about this, as the only terrain really seen on the table that did ANYTHING was a forest (or two if you were playing WEs) and then it was usually as small as possible.

I'm sick of playing fantasy on the "green farmland of doom!" table.

d

but you forget that is where most battles happen...on open farm land. who picks a forest to march through and expect to fight with any cohesion/control?

Urgat
21-07-2010, 06:55
e.g. the COMPLETE loss of importance of terrain to the battlefield - take forests, sure I love that you don't have annoying 2" visibility, and it doesn't slow the armies down to a crawl, but WHY let units march in them?

Because even that usually means the unit is out for the whole game, usually.

druchii
21-07-2010, 07:01
but you forget that is where most battles happen...on open farm land. who picks a forest to march through and expect to fight with any cohesion/control?

Uh you mean that's where most battles as you and I think of them happen. Honestly, can you tell me that battles containing angry Warp-Gods, really drunk, really short dudes with really big bears, and hooligan-orcs will always happen over flat, boring terrain?

Nope.

Sorry. You're thinking of REAL historical battles. Not FANTASY battles.

Stop applying "real world" stuff to a game about fantasy battles with dragons and magic.

d

wizbix
21-07-2010, 07:15
but you forget that is where most battles happen...on open farm land. who picks a forest to march through and expect to fight with any cohesion/control?

Wasnt 'open farmland', well I guess I mean large fields, just a modern invention. I seem to recall from my school history lessons that agriculture was carried out in strips and there were a hell of a lot more hedges, woods, obstacles pretty much every where. Its easy when looking at a batlefield now and imagine that it was still large open fields 500 years ago when the battle took place, when in actual fact it wasnt.

Souppilgrim
21-07-2010, 07:24
read and reread my rule book and it say that terrain and obstacles do nothing to ranked infantry movement.

please tell me i am wrong, or is it just another stupid random element ie move in here and roll a dice to see if you get a wound?! please tell me i am wrong...:wtf:

so what is the point of a forest? wall etc?

is it really now just a case of rolling dice to move forward, rolling dice to enter terrain, rolling dice to fight, rolling dice to break (but often stubborn with reroll)...rolling dice to run away...where is the thinking and strategy part in there?

who stole the maneuver part of warhammer?! and why?!

I'm sorry but being able to actually move in and around terrain = more tactics than Bermuda triangles of no return forests that no one would ever even enter.

Geep
21-07-2010, 07:41
I really don't relate to people who say they only ever played on football ovals until now- I've always played games with a heap of terrain. 8th ed won't be changing that for me.
I also never had too many troubles with terrain in 7th and earlier- all armies have access to fliers/ skirmishers/ scouts/ fast cavalry- and their ability to get around and through terrain quickly made them all very useful. In 8th all of these unit types have taken a big hit, which I find a shame.
I'll probably add house rules to terrain for 8th, once I've played enough games to know what it needs.

yabbadabba
21-07-2010, 07:48
House Rule. End of.

You watch how many tournaments start of doing it.

Billy
21-07-2010, 08:21
Ambushes happen in forests and other concealing terrain. Do you expect Beastman, Woodelves, and Forest Goblins to wait for their enemy to reach a dusty patch of open farm land before launching their attack??? That would be absured!

90% of winning a battle is choosing the right place and time to attack/defend. It even fits the fluff better to have tables covered in terrain. Think of how many stories occur in a moutain pass, deep dark forest, dwarf keeps, and other such exotic locals. Now think of how many are described as occuring in a clear-cut patch of earth, not many.

Korraz
21-07-2010, 08:22
They make my Night Goblins go High on Shrooms.

xxRavenxx
21-07-2010, 08:30
Ambushes happen in forests and other concealing terrain. Do you expect Beastman, Woodelves, and Forest Goblins to wait for their enemy to reach a dusty patch of open farm land before launching their attack??? That would be absured!

90% of winning a battle is choosing the right place and time to attack/defend. It even fits the fluff better to have tables covered in terrain. Think of how many stories occur in a moutain pass, deep dark forest, dwarf keeps, and other such exotic locals. Now think of how many are described as occuring in a clear-cut patch of earth, not many.

Seconded. All of historys memorable battles involve one guy hiding in woods, standing on a hill, catching people from the cliffside, etc.

All of historys boring battles involved flat open ground :P

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-07-2010, 08:44
Terrain really takes a lot more part in the game now than in 7th.

Skirmishers still take advantage of terrain, while ranks and cavalry suffer. So that basic purpose of terrain remains the same.

Besides that it adds extra considerations to the game, its no longer just a choice of whom and when to fight, you also consider where to fight - a bunch of greatswords hanging out in the Temple of Khaine becomes quite a nuisance, while a few useless scouts sipping beer at a dwarven brewery will stubbornly reject to run.

It might seem a bit silly, when the battlefield is too crowded with all sorts of magical terrain, but it does add a lot to the game - I wasn't too keen on the stuff, but I've been positively surprised :)

yabbadabba
21-07-2010, 08:48
I think there are some things to remember. The first is the random nature of the terrain is not compulsory. The second is that if you and your opponent agree beforehand, you can set the terrain effects then roll for numbers, type and distribution. So you can include the 7th Ed terrain rules in 8th Ed with little adaptation and it won't make any difference.

SeaSwift
21-07-2010, 08:50
You don't get cover saves in fantasy...

Xynok
21-07-2010, 09:02
I played with a mysterious forest yesterday. Didn't affect the game a fantastic amount but was fun anyway. Which in essence is what the game is all about. Hills aren't uber anymore but they're still useful to both missile and melee troops.

Arbas
21-07-2010, 09:03
Why not try it in some fun games then if you don't like it apply house rules /shrug

TheMav80
21-07-2010, 09:09
Terrain does plenty still.
-dangerous terrain for many units
-charging a defended obstacle gives you a to hit penalty
-skirmishers in forests always steadfast
-ranked units in forests never steadfast


Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Dr Death
21-07-2010, 09:14
Novelty terrain is probably the 'biggest' (i won't use the word worse since there are those gamers who actually study the rules who'll happily tear me to shreds for that) blunder of 8th edition. I mean rivers of blood and all that are fine for themed tables and exotic games, but they should never replace the basic rules for terrain.

However terrain was prohibitive under the previous rules, however i think it's a wider issue than just the modifiers it applied to movement. I think the real issue comes from game length and the distribution of terrain through the battlefield.

With the 6 turn game you really do not have time to waste with much maneuvering. Your average unit of footsloggers can march 46" in that time, which isn't even the depth of the standard table size. Now granted most battles take place somewhere in the middle of the table but even so, it's not a huge amount to play with and even then it can be cut down by preventing marching and killing your enemy (which is ultimately what you want your regiments to be doing). Moving through terrain is not worth the price in terms of movement to make it desirable and this is where the matter of distribution comes in.

Most pieces of area terrain are simply not big enough to make going through them faster than going around them, or even impossible to go around. The plastic forest's base is around 8"x11" or, in movement penalty terms 16"x22" With the minimum of wheeling you can happily skirt the copse without loosing so much as a few inches and get on with your game. Of course this depends on them being individual woods (as seen in the opening battle report of 8th edition in White Dwarf). When area terrain becomes interesting is when it's bunched up into either a mass or a belt covering a significant portion of the table. That way both players *have* to interact with it, either to enter it and hope the tactical advantage outweighs the penalties, or else to ignore it and risk leaving a weakness in their line.

Concentrating terrain also helps the narrative. A couple of woods scattered across the table don't evoke any story, but having your whole flank dominated by a brooding forest or stinking fen automatically gives the conflict character, even if you haven't written a 500 word narrative about the cause of this engagement.

Dr Death

H33D
21-07-2010, 09:21
My last game had slayers doing the normal 3" move around a river of blood 'moat' with a tower in the center, finally charging into ghouls, reforming from won combat, and then charging into grave guard the next turn, dying off but buying time for my hammerers to rear charge the grave guard unit (and i caused fear as i was soaked in blood) while i had a lone slayer remaining. My hammerers finished off the grave guard having already bested the night goblin spearmen and archers to their flank and helped my thunderers defend the tower.

The river? slowed my slayers a bit. Definitely didn't keep them out of game (and come on, they were dwarves). They made the game very interesting indeed and i have no complaints. The extra terrain just added a little more depth and planning to the game. two thumbs up from me.

carok101
21-07-2010, 10:53
ranked units inside a forest do not count anyranks, so can't claim steadfast, while skirmishers inside a forest always count as steadfast. as already mentioned the forests can attack you, the bloodwood being quite funny, after attacking your unit, it runs away :)
quite funny when actually playing.

Desert Rain
21-07-2010, 11:03
I prefer the terrain rules of 8th over the ones in 7th. We haven't tried the random charts yet since we are trying to learn the new rules first without having to worry about the terrain eating your units.

willowdark
21-07-2010, 11:11
If your 7th ed games consisted of nothing but "a hill here, a hill over there and a couple of woods," well, that was your fault. Your complete lack of imagination led to that boring landscape and the boring games you claim resulted.

I regularly used buildings, rivers, lakes, rocky ground, fences, high grass, canope jungle, a Ziggurat, whatever...

That's not an indictment of 8th ed, just a reality check for how you perceive 7th in retrospect.

I'm on record that I don't believe the rules for forests reflect the reality of forests in realistic battlefield conditions. I also don't see any practicle benefit of denying Steadfast to infantry or giving it to Skirmishers since both situations require the unit to sit in the woods and get charged, which ranked infantry wouldn't do and skirmishers won't be so lucky to enjoy.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-07-2010, 11:56
...which ranked infantry wouldn't do and skirmishers won't be so lucky to enjoy.

Exactly because of the rules, so I wouldn't say they're without effect ;)

Also there is nothing wrong about blocking an infantry block marching forward with an angled eagle og equivalent that would make the infantry block pursue into the woods - so never say never :)

druchii
21-07-2010, 17:29
If your 7th ed games consisted of nothing but "a hill here, a hill over there and a couple of woods," well, that was your fault. Your complete lack of imagination led to that boring landscape and the boring games you claim resulted.

I regularly used buildings, rivers, lakes, rocky ground, fences, high grass, canope jungle, a Ziggurat, whatever...

That's not an indictment of 8th ed, just a reality check for how you perceive 7th in retrospect.

I'm on record that I don't believe the rules for forests reflect the reality of forests in realistic battlefield conditions. I also don't see any practicle benefit of denying Steadfast to infantry or giving it to Skirmishers since both situations require the unit to sit in the woods and get charged, which ranked infantry wouldn't do and skirmishers won't be so lucky to enjoy.

This is simply incorrect. If I controlled all of my games of Warhammer they would all be close games, that end in the 6th turn of the game, but I ultimately win.

Unfortunately for me there's another player involved.

So this mystical "your fault" is hogwash. I guess you forget that with larger gaming groups (at its peak, our fantasy group had a revolving membership of about 20?). The "easiest" and "most fair" way to play was with the terrain rules provided inside the book. Hence the "grab a pile of terrain, take turns placing it..yadda yadda". Also hence why the new book has us roll 6d+4. So it forces people to put more terrain on the table.

That's like you saying "Wait, what? You think Demons are broken but you still let them use Lord choices? That's your own fault!"

Just because you abnormally went out of your way to include MORE terrain (which was TERRIBLE last edition) in your games does NOT mean that it is at all representative of ANYTHING but your own games.

Don't even get me started on the nationwide tournaments.

d

Petey
21-07-2010, 17:56
Really forests should cause a dangerous terrain check for marching through them to all but skirmishers, and be dangerous on 1-3 for chariots.

In any event, a friend just came up with a thought that I'm going to talk to my group about having as a house rule. The rules suggest d6 plus 4 terrain pieces, so the idea is that we each get one terrain piece of our choice, one random terrain pieces RAW, and the d6 rest of the terrain pieces will all be normal pieces of that type (for example, instead of haunted mansion, it's a building, instead of blood forest, it's a normal woods). This would be for our normal pick up games.

Maedhros
21-07-2010, 18:08
I liked the 7th terrain rules, it was fun to bait units into bad terrain with skirmishers.

However, I think the main reason for the new rules is just to give us more interesting tables to look at. In my local gaming group we have a pretty good mix of fantasy and 40k folks and the fantasy guys were always envious of the cluttered cityscapes that 40k went to war in.

We tried this once in fantasy (big lizardman ziggurats and jungles) and it was simply too cluttered and we couldn't move through it. Now on that same terrain units can charge up and down the temples, infantry can move through the dense jungle but are vulnerable to being caught by big rampaging monsters, and artillery can set up on the far side of the river to bombard the board only easily attacked by fliers. My big worry is balancing the movement trays on all the uneven ground

In the end I think the new terrain rules will make for more colorful games, even if they change some of the tactics.

8th seems to be about getting into the scrum on turn 2, or perhaps 3 at the latest and in order to accomplish this they've sped everything up movement wise (march blocking being trivial, infantry easily moving through most terrain, and the 2d6 charge).

Honestly I'm scared of the new gunlines so I'm glad there is very little they can do to stop me from marching right up to them.

GodlessM
21-07-2010, 18:25
This is simply incorrect. If I controlled all of my games of Warhammer they would all be close games, that end in the 6th turn of the game, but I ultimately win.

Unfortunately for me there's another player involved.

So this mystical "your fault" is hogwash. I guess you forget that with larger gaming groups (at its peak, our fantasy group had a revolving membership of about 20?). The "easiest" and "most fair" way to play was with the terrain rules provided inside the book. Hence the "grab a pile of terrain, take turns placing it..yadda yadda". Also hence why the new book has us roll 6d+4. So it forces people to put more terrain on the table.

That's like you saying "Wait, what? You think Demons are broken but you still let them use Lord choices? That's your own fault!"

Just because you abnormally went out of your way to include MORE terrain (which was TERRIBLE last edition) in your games does NOT mean that it is at all representative of ANYTHING but your own games.

Don't even get me started on the nationwide tournaments.

d

Well said. It is amazing how often people forget that it takes two to play Warhammer.

Bac5665
21-07-2010, 18:41
Well said. It is amazing how often people forget that it takes two to play Warhammer.

True that.

But on topic, Both the 7E and 8E terrain rules are garbage. But at least in 7E hills had a point. In 8E, everything is bad. Terrain has not mattered once in my 8E games, and I am using the chart. You just move through it, or occasionally around it, and unless you're the cav units that are terrible now anyway, none of it matters.

GW could easily have found a middle ground where non-random terrain had an impact on the game, but instead they went full bore into the second worst idea in 8E (though thankfully it's one of the easiest to ignore.)

yabbadabba
21-07-2010, 18:45
True that.
But on topic, Both the 7E and 8E terrain rules are garbage. But at least in 7E hills had a point. In 8E, everything is bad. Terrain has not mattered once in my 8E games, and I am using the chart. You just move through it, or occasionally around it, and unless you're the cav units that are terrible now anyway, none of it matters.
GW could easily have found a middle ground where non-random terrain had an impact on the game, but instead they went full bore into the second worst idea in 8E (though thankfully it's one of the easiest to ignore.) Terrain isn't random in 8e, only if you and your opponent to choose it to be.

Bac5665
21-07-2010, 18:58
Terrain isn't random in 8e, only if you and your opponent to choose it to be.

Fine, but then the rules for terrain are: move through it like open ground, with cav taking difficult terrain tests. Oh and cover penalties, as if anything that used BS except for BTs scared anyone.

You're correct that you don't have to use the written terrain rules. But then you're left with just enough rules to make terrain almost entirely irrelevant. I'd rather have the crap we had in 7E.

decker_cky
21-07-2010, 19:10
But at least in 7E hills had a point.

They still have a point. Before, they let you shoot better. They still do that only to a lesser extent. Now hills have a point to armies that don't have shooting. The new higher ground rule is one of the best changes IMO.

And the steadfast rules with forests are brilliant. You can sometimes just march through risk free, but it creates strategic chokepoints and opens new tactics.

yabbadabba
21-07-2010, 19:29
Fine, but then the rules for terrain are: move through it like open ground, with cav taking difficult terrain tests. Oh and cover penalties, as if anything that used BS except for BTs scared anyone.
You're correct that you don't have to use the written terrain rules. But then you're left with just enough rules to make terrain almost entirely irrelevant. I'd rather have the crap we had in 7E. The rule book states that you and your opponent can choose which scenery rules you wish to use from the relevant pages. From there it becomes nothing more than another exercise in understanding what is in front of you and dealing with it.

Oh, and occasionally 6's come up. If I have nothing else better to shoot at I will always give it a go. In the previous edition on wounding shot was often enough to negate a rank bonus and I am sure similar opportunities lie in this version.

sliganian
21-07-2010, 19:52
Really want to have fun?

Everyone places their terrain bits.

Then roll a Scatter die and 2D6. The terrain moves in that direction in 2D6 inches. If it goes off table or would land on another piece of terrain, move the piece to table centre and roll scatter + 4D6".

Lord Inquisitor
21-07-2010, 20:30
Now I have time to make a slightly less snide post... I'm not a huge fan of the new terrain rules.

I wasn't a huge fan of 7th ed rules either, mind. In 7th, units either found DT so damn difficult to get through that it was entirely impassable ... or they ignored it entirely. Certainly terrain was an important part of the game, but some degree of movement permitted would be nice. The binary nature of terrain (impassable or open) for units wasn't satisfying.

8th has gone the total opposite direction, making all terrain open (if dangerous to varying degrees). Even if you discount the random wackyhammer terrain - things like the Sorcerous Portal can (and in my experience have) entirely dominate a game - and simply place chosen "boring" terrain features, the net effect is that all units can move everywhere on the board, buildings excepted. So discounting buildings, there's really nothing that slows down troops, so it's kind of like playing on a flat board as far as movement is concerned except that some patches do funky stuff. Now against shooting enemies obviously terrain plays far more of a role, but I've played a number of games between two non-shooting armies and terrain is MUCH less of an impact on how armies tactically manoeuver. Terrain effects tend to be more on the line of buffs or damage to units, which isn't really my cup of tea.

I hate to say it but 40K's mechanics are far superior. Terrain is potentially dangerous or may slow you down or both, but you still have a reasonable chance of breaking through. Although there is an analogy. Vehicles in 4th ed 40K couldn't really move fast through terrain - the risks of moving over 6" were horrific. In 5th not only have the risks reduced but dozer blades work when moving over 6" ... so vehicles have gone from avoiding terrain or moving slowly through to essentially ignoring all terrain that isn't impassable. The previous rules weren't great but ignoring terrain is not a great solution. Same is true of Fantasy.

Middle ground please GW! It's gone from "safe but insanely difficult to move through" to "no obstacle to movement but homicidal magical living terrain". Was "some modest reduction in movement and a small degree of mystical effect" not on the cards? :shifty:

Shiodome
21-07-2010, 20:50
you know people ignore what you say because reading it hurt their eyes right? ;)

personally i'm not a fan of the new rules for terrain, the 'special' terrain pieces just end up either making the game silly or get forgotten because there's just too much random crap added for anyone to remember. but my issue is more that, with no affect on movement things very much seem like "line up, march across in a straight line", there's no jostling to take advantage of the line of sight properties of terrain (notably woods)

before, you could have a unit facing at an angle along the line behind a wood, ready to flank charge anything that charged your fleeing bait. now, well... try that and you get flank charged yourslef, you just end up with everything facing each other and moving forwards. you did used to get small light units dashing for cover to gain a turns respite before heading for the flanks rear... now they're in plain view all game if they ever want to reach flanks, or hidden behind friendly units but useless.

it's not the terrain itself, but what it's caused. a lack of manouvering, a lack of 'variety' of approaches, just fewer options. for all the silly **** added to terrain, functionally for most the games i've played you could just remove anything that isn't a building from the table and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the game or the strategies available. for me that's a shame.

Lord Inquisitor
21-07-2010, 21:11
I feel it catches the eye... :p

I agree with everything you've just said (even if you're ignoring me), nicely put. This is exactly what's been bothering me.

Bac5665
21-07-2010, 21:37
you know people ignore what you say because reading it hurt their eyes right? ;)

personally i'm not a fan of the new rules for terrain, the 'special' terrain pieces just end up either making the game silly or get forgotten because there's just too much random crap added for anyone to remember. but my issue is more that, with no affect on movement things very much seem like "line up, march across in a straight line", there's no jostling to take advantage of the line of sight properties of terrain (notably woods)

before, you could have a unit facing at an angle along the line behind a wood, ready to flank charge anything that charged your fleeing bait. now, well... try that and you get flank charged yourslef, you just end up with everything facing each other and moving forwards. you did used to get small light units dashing for cover to gain a turns respite before heading for the flanks rear... now they're in plain view all game if they ever want to reach flanks, or hidden behind friendly units but useless.

it's not the terrain itself, but what it's caused. a lack of manouvering, a lack of 'variety' of approaches, just fewer options. for all the silly **** added to terrain, functionally for most the games i've played you could just remove anything that isn't a building from the table and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the game or the strategies available. for me that's a shame.

Yes, this exactly.

No one (I think) is saying that 7E had good terrain.

But at least it affected your maneuvering. In 8E, I've yet to see terrain even do anything in a game, let alone play a part.

Yes, boards may look better (though I couldn't care less, really) but the actual game play rules for terrain is, IMO, worse than before.

Shiodome
21-07-2010, 22:03
i should add though, that i DO like the slightly increased emphasis on obstacles. it is nice to see more walls and hedgerows about, and the narrative they naturally bring to a battle if one player takes advantage of them. (still think all the different types of walls is unneccissary, but i can always just not use them.)

willowdark
22-07-2010, 16:45
This is simply incorrect. If I controlled all of my games of Warhammer they would all be close games, that end in the 6th turn of the game, but I ultimately win.

Unfortunately for me there's another player involved.

So this mystical "your fault" is hogwash. I guess you forget that with larger gaming groups (at its peak, our fantasy group had a revolving membership of about 20?). The "easiest" and "most fair" way to play was with the terrain rules provided inside the book. Hence the "grab a pile of terrain, take turns placing it..yadda yadda". Also hence why the new book has us roll 6d+4. So it forces people to put more terrain on the table.

That's like you saying "Wait, what? You think Demons are broken but you still let them use Lord choices? That's your own fault!"

Just because you abnormally went out of your way to include MORE terrain (which was TERRIBLE last edition) in your games does NOT mean that it is at all representative of ANYTHING but your own games.

Don't even get me started on the nationwide tournaments.

d

This is ridiculous. Regardless of how big your gaming group is, if you are your opponent are too impatient to spend time placing terrain that both looks good but provides character to your board, that is most certainly your fault.

It is also worth noting that generating random terrain will always take longer than the 7th ed policy of "grab and place." We generated random terrain in 6th and 7th was a welcome break from that. Arguing that D6+4 random terrain is better because you didn't have time in 7th to place more than 3 pieces of your own choosing is - well - a little backwards.

And yes, you is a collective 'you.' As in, all of you. If you and your opponent placed boring terrain, in a game where you had complete freedom over how terrain was placed, it was your fault that your game was boring.

It's as if you think I played all my games by myself. My gaming group and I made it a point to use a healthy mix of terrain including woods, hill, water features, buildings and defensible obstacles. Maybe that's not reflective of the global gaming experience, but neither is your group experience. The difference is you seem to require a convoluted set of rules to make your board interesting where as we were able to do it all by our selves.

druchii
26-07-2010, 02:40
This is ridiculous. Regardless of how big your gaming group is, if you are your opponent are too impatient to spend time placing terrain that both looks good but provides character to your board, that is most certainly your fault.

It is also worth noting that generating random terrain will always take longer than the 7th ed policy of "grab and place." We generated random terrain in 6th and 7th was a welcome break from that. Arguing that D6+4 random terrain is better because you didn't have time in 7th to place more than 3 pieces of your own choosing is - well - a little backwards.

And yes, you is a collective 'you.' As in, all of you. If you and your opponent placed boring terrain, in a game where you had complete freedom over how terrain was placed, it was your fault that your game was boring.

It's as if you think I played all my games by myself. My gaming group and I made it a point to use a healthy mix of terrain including woods, hill, water features, buildings and defensible obstacles. Maybe that's not reflective of the global gaming experience, but neither is your group experience. The difference is you seem to require a convoluted set of rules to make your board interesting where as we were able to do it all by our selves.

Lets get a few things straight:
You saying that people going BY THE RULEBOOK DEFINED RULES of terrain placement isn't MORE indicative than your "convoluted set of rules" then you're incredibly mistaken.

Also, you fail to understand that people don't always like "a lot of terrain" on the table (as is evinced by multiple posts in this very thread). Your complete lack of understanding of the issue drives these points home further. Next thing you'll try to sell me is that just because we allowed people to play with Demons and DE last edition that we're not representative of the wider community.

Enjoy having rules for your previously "special" deployment methods.

d

chamelion 6
26-07-2010, 03:22
yes, but what tournament is going to run "magic" terrain? maybe its just the gaming scene around where i am, but all the gamers (and not hobbyists) refuse to use another random factor.
sure forests slowed (read stopped) any movement through them, but that forced you to think tactically, using it as an anchor or a bog for frezied troops...not "if i hope really really hard...the magic forest will be a good random roll."

Its as though GW just got lazy and gave up trying to write good rules that promote thoughtful gaming. there is a difference between thinking and doing. 7th = thinking 8th = doing.

That may be true, but if that's the case I guess folks got tired of just sitting around thinking about and and decided to get up and do it. :p

Seriously though. Somebody got it right. Why complane about how GW changed the terrain rules? Nobody ever really used the old rules cause terrain just got in the way... Or so the general wisdom went. Now people are nostalgic for all the terrain that never was....

Petey
26-07-2010, 04:47
Now I have time to make a slightly less snide post... I'm not a huge fan of the new terrain rules.

I wasn't a huge fan of 7th ed rules either, mind. In 7th, units either found DT so damn difficult to get through that it was entirely impassable ... or they ignored it entirely. Certainly terrain was an important part of the game, but some degree of movement permitted would be nice. The binary nature of terrain (impassable or open) for units wasn't satisfying.

8th has gone the total opposite direction, making all terrain open (if dangerous to varying degrees). Even if you discount the random wackyhammer terrain - things like the Sorcerous Portal can (and in my experience have) entirely dominate a game - and simply place chosen "boring" terrain features, the net effect is that all units can move everywhere on the board, buildings excepted. So discounting buildings, there's really nothing that slows down troops, so it's kind of like playing on a flat board as far as movement is concerned except that some patches do funky stuff. Now against shooting enemies obviously terrain plays far more of a role, but I've played a number of games between two non-shooting armies and terrain is MUCH less of an impact on how armies tactically manoeuver. Terrain effects tend to be more on the line of buffs or damage to units, which isn't really my cup of tea.

I hate to say it but 40K's mechanics are far superior. Terrain is potentially dangerous or may slow you down or both, but you still have a reasonable chance of breaking through. Although there is an analogy. Vehicles in 4th ed 40K couldn't really move fast through terrain - the risks of moving over 6" were horrific. In 5th not only have the risks reduced but dozer blades work when moving over 6" ... so vehicles have gone from avoiding terrain or moving slowly through to essentially ignoring all terrain that isn't impassable. The previous rules weren't great but ignoring terrain is not a great solution. Same is true of Fantasy.

Middle ground please GW! It's gone from "safe but insanely difficult to move through" to "no obstacle to movement but homicidal magical living terrain". Was "some modest reduction in movement and a small degree of mystical effect" not on the cards? :shifty:

I quote this because I agree with everything you said, and want it said again for people to read.

VoodooJanus
26-07-2010, 05:28
you know people ignore what you say because reading it hurt their eyes right? ;)

personally i'm not a fan of the new rules for terrain, the 'special' terrain pieces just end up either making the game silly or get forgotten because there's just too much random crap added for anyone to remember. but my issue is more that, with no affect on movement things very much seem like "line up, march across in a straight line", there's no jostling to take advantage of the line of sight properties of terrain (notably woods)

before, you could have a unit facing at an angle along the line behind a wood, ready to flank charge anything that charged your fleeing bait. now, well... try that and you get flank charged yourslef, you just end up with everything facing each other and moving forwards. you did used to get small light units dashing for cover to gain a turns respite before heading for the flanks rear... now they're in plain view all game if they ever want to reach flanks, or hidden behind friendly units but useless.

it's not the terrain itself, but what it's caused. a lack of manouvering, a lack of 'variety' of approaches, just fewer options. for all the silly **** added to terrain, functionally for most the games i've played you could just remove anything that isn't a building from the table and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the game or the strategies available. for me that's a shame.

Bravo sir. You've captured most of my complaints with the edition, all at once. Almost brings tears to my eyes.

The part that frustrates me the most is that GW was so darn close to getting absolutely PERFECT terrain rules! If the 'dangerous terrain' rule was applied to infantry, and had looked like, say: roll a D6 for each model you want to move or march through the given terrain feature. On a 2+, nothing happens. On a 1, subtract 1" from the unit's movement total. This represents the unit slowing to help pick up a comrade who tripped, or trying to maintain cohesion in the underbrush/river etc. I'd heard word that this was one of the movement rule ideas being thrown around casually. THOSE RULES WOULD HAVE BEEN PERFECT DARN IT! A 20 model unit would lose ~3" off its movement if it went straight through terrain, and humongous hordes (albeit ranked and organized ones) would want to stay away from terrain, but would manage fine if they only had to clip it (just like real life!) It would give small units a purpose (rather than just tossing them aside) and units with the woodsmen-type rules would actually have a purpose for those rules (although personally I would just have them re-roll the test rather than ignore it entirely, because ignoring terrain rules is never a good mechanic.) Heck, even the 'horde' formation gets benefits because it's easier than marching a bus through the trees! Implement this, and bam! You have:

Useful fast cav
Useful Skirmishers (even IF they kept that awful formation)
A reason to take both smaller and larger units.
Interactive terrain that not just looks pretty (a la 8th) but has an impact on the battle.
Would in general make Warhammer a fun place to be for everyone!!

Okay, I'm going to wallow in my nerd-sorrow now. Why oh why did you pick the current incarnation, instead of the brilliant one :cries:.

VoodooJanus
26-07-2010, 17:16
.bump. Also- I wanted to say that there is ONE good thing about the new rules. I really like the way they designed buildings to work this edition. Being able to fight with 10 models, ignoring ranks is pretty neat. It's the only piece of terrain that really does much anymore, but still.

Haravikk
26-07-2010, 19:02
The randomness certainly isn't for everyone, and doesn't suit some scenarios, but as a way to liven up your usual pitched battle it can be good fun. I think in general though you're probably better deciding what terrain is, or randomising at the start of the game before deploying, as you can then make decisions about what terrain to hold or deploy.

That said, it's not necessary, as you can still speculatively avoid or capture mysterious terrain in the hopes that it is what you think it will be, but again it's better for more friendly games, or ones without an obvious objective as it's no fun to come up with a careful plan and have it thwarted because a forest ate your wizard or some other nonsense.

Hooha
27-07-2010, 07:48
Seems like a lot of people worrying over the reduced viability of outmaneuvering your opponent around obstacles could fix their problem with a few simple pieces of (gasp!) impassible terrain.

I know 'impassable' is a dirty word in the GW games, Warhammer especially.... but as most people are contending, that's basically how most of us treated area terrain in 7th ed anyway. Time to make some nice desert spires or dwarven columns or bottomless pits, etc. Then you can have the best of both worlds, and all you're missing is pieces of terrain it takes 5 of your 6 turns to navigate.

yabbadabba
27-07-2010, 07:51
Seems like a lot of people worrying over the reduced viability of outmaneuvering your opponent around obstacles could fix their problem with a few simple pieces of (gasp!) impassible terrain.

I know 'impassable' is a dirty word in the GW games, Warhammer especially.... but as most people are contending, that's basically how most of us treated area terrain in 7th ed anyway. Time to make some nice desert spires or dwarven columns or bottomless pits, etc. Then you can have the best of both worlds, and all you're missing is pieces of terrain it takes 5 of your 6 turns to navigate. Sssssshhhhh!! Your revealing all the secrets lol ;)

Balerion
27-07-2010, 08:02
Seems like a lot of people worrying over the reduced viability of outmaneuvering your opponent around obstacles could fix their problem with a few simple pieces of (gasp!) impassible terrain.

I know 'impassable' is a dirty word in the GW games, Warhammer especially.... but as most people are contending, that's basically how most of us treated area terrain in 7th ed anyway. Time to make some nice desert spires or dwarven columns or bottomless pits, etc. Then you can have the best of both worlds, and all you're missing is pieces of terrain it takes 5 of your 6 turns to navigate.
This post gets the highest rating possible. :D

Haravikk
27-07-2010, 10:34
Heh, hit on the head with that one. And there are such things as impassible forests you know, that an army simply can't move through effectively and that even skirmishers would go around; just model a nice dense bit of forest and declare it impassible. We haven't really lost terrain you need to manoeuvre around, we've gained terrain that you don't have to manoeuvre around if you don't want to.

SamVimes
27-07-2010, 12:47
Seems like a lot of people worrying over the reduced viability of outmaneuvering your opponent around obstacles could fix their problem with a few simple pieces of (gasp!) impassible terrain.

I know 'impassable' is a dirty word in the GW games, Warhammer especially.... but as most people are contending, that's basically how most of us treated area terrain in 7th ed anyway. Time to make some nice desert spires or dwarven columns or bottomless pits, etc. Then you can have the best of both worlds, and all you're missing is pieces of terrain it takes 5 of your 6 turns to navigate.

Dang it, you beat me to the punch!

I think the real issue is that people equate forests (one of the two most common types of terrain) with providing that movement blocking mechanic, instead of something "exotic" like a big pile of rocks :p

Lord Inquisitor
27-07-2010, 16:29
More impassable terrain does seem to be the way to force units to consider terrain as more than cover from shooting.

That said, it isn't a very good solution. 7th's terrain rules were pretty bad. But making all terrain either effectively open or entirely impassable is making it even worse than 7th, where on occasion units would enter terrain. Sure we can make a replication of 7th's terrain rules with judicious application of impassable terrain - but we wanted terrain rules that were better than this!

I played a tournament game Sunday on a board with a lot of hedges and walls. Neither side had a lot of shooting, so the entirety of the terrain on the board had the net effect of (a) being dangerous for cavalry - we both had only 1 unit each, and they ended up in combat start of turn 1 so that didn't come into play and (b) potentially had the possibility of removing the charge bonus - neither side found it advantageous enough to actually take up position behind a wall instead of charging. The net effect of the terrain on the board? It made placing units rather a chore when they ended up on top of walls. That's it, it was purely a nuisance to gameplay.

If walls and hedges - so-called "obstacles" - present no obstacle whatsoever to troops then a board like this which would normally concentrate forces or make troops hole up behind walls could pretty much have been an open battlefield for all it mattered.

Now against a gunline those walls really make a difference but here the opposite problem - why wouldn't you move your heavy infantry up behind a wall? There's no reason not to! Shouldn't there be a downside to moving through cover to balance out the added protection?

theorox
27-07-2010, 16:41
Well i'll be out collecting big rocks! :D

May the terrainbuilding commence!

Theo