PDA

View Full Version : Crazy terrain



random600
21-07-2010, 15:59
Now i know there is a lot of posts about all the different types of crazy terrain but i just want to cover one of them. The Temple of Skulls, which is a hill, is the most crazy and horribly written terrain piece I've seen. Now if you know know what the temple of skulls does I'll give you a basic run down. If you have a character on it at the beginning of any players turn you may roll a d6, on anything but a one you get a favor of the gods. By that i mean one random stat increased by d3. My over all biggest issue with this thing is the fact that it doesn't tell you how to choose a random stat. I ended up rolling 2d6 and re-rolling 10-12. It makes the game unfair for people who manage to hold the hill for the entire game. I managed to do just that and ended up with a dwarf lord with base S6 W6 I6 and my BSB ended up with Base S8 T7 A5. These are before magical items. Those characters were wiping out entire units in one turn without the help of the rest of their unit. I just wanted your opinion on this special piece of terrain.

Odin
21-07-2010, 16:09
Agree, it's not very well-written. But clearly 2D6 is not the right way to do it, as a result of 7 is far more likely than a result of 2.

Fairest way is to roll a D3, followed by another D3:

1 - M, Ws, Bs
2 - S, T, W
3 - I, A, Ld

You were pretty lucky not to have one of those characters killed though!

JonnyTHM
21-07-2010, 16:26
Maybe this is also just the people that I play with, but I think my dwarf playing friend would rather eat a bolt thrower than let one of his heroes pray to the gods of chaos.

Also, I agree with Odin, avoid uneven distributions of probability break things down into even groups. Same with choosing lores with the magic hat: flip a coin/roll a d6 to decide between first 4 lores or last 4, then roll a d6 ignoring 5,6 to determine.

Odin
21-07-2010, 16:31
Maybe this is also just the people that I play with, but I think my dwarf playing friend would rather eat a bolt thrower than let one of his heroes pray to the gods of chaos.


Absolutely. My Chaos characters definitely will pray to the Chaos gods, but there's no way one of my Empire warrior priests will.

Cherrystone
21-07-2010, 17:02
Also, I agree with Odin, avoid uneven distributions of probability break things down into even groups. Same with choosing lores with the magic hat: flip a coin/roll a d6 to decide between first 4 lores or last 4, then roll a d6 ignoring 5,6 to determine.

or just roll a d8 ;)

omnivision6
21-07-2010, 17:05
or just roll a d8 ;)

hold on their buddy, GW does not sell this "D8" you speak of :p

Alathir
21-07-2010, 17:12
Now i know there is a lot of posts about all the different types of crazy terrain but i just want to cover one of them. The Temple of Skulls, which is a hill, is the most crazy and horribly written terrain piece I've seen. Now if you know know what the temple of skulls does I'll give you a basic run down. If you have a character on it at the beginning of any players turn you may roll a d6, on anything but a one you get a favor of the gods. By that i mean one random stat increased by d3. My over all biggest issue with this thing is the fact that it doesn't tell you how to choose a random stat. I ended up rolling 2d6 and re-rolling 10-12. It makes the game unfair for people who manage to hold the hill for the entire game. I managed to do just that and ended up with a dwarf lord with base S6 W6 I6 and my BSB ended up with Base S8 T7 A5. These are before magical items. Those characters were wiping out entire units in one turn without the help of the rest of their unit. I just wanted your opinion on this special piece of terrain.

No one is forcing you to use this terrain piece, or any of the 'wacky terrain' as they are listed in the rulebook as optional. If you don't like it, don't use it. I'd much prefer GW put it in lots of little wacky additions for our battles than put in none and be worried about 'balance'.

mrtn
21-07-2010, 17:27
or just roll a d8 ;)

I agree, and a D10 for the temple of skulls (rerolling the 10).

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-07-2010, 17:29
So you found out that it can be worthwhile to hold the temple of skulls. There is no guarantee that it will show up next time. Neither that it will end up favorably to you. And perhaps next time Grungni's hammer will smite your puny dwarflord as a punishment for his undwarven groveling.

In 7th. You would have won the game too, if you had ended up with some good hills in your deployment zone, while your opponent had to cross marshes and rivers to get to your dwarven warmachines.

Instead rejoice that terrain actually played a part in your game :)

Bac5665
21-07-2010, 17:36
Instead rejoice that terrain actually played a part in your game :)

In my small experience so far, TLoS and no difficult terrain has made it so that terrain has LESS impact on games. Sure, I roll an effect for forests now, great, but then much of the time, the effect doesn't matter or effect the game much, if at all. And hills are completely superfluous now that monsters can see over them and be shot over them, same with forests. Cover is a joke, since anything that rolls to hit is terrible anyway.

So sure, if you use crazy terrain that is in no way balanced, terrain can influence the game. But at least last edition I fought over hills and had to avoid forests. Not forests don't matter, hills don't matter, and if I want to have terrain do anything but look pretty, I have to use stupidly written rules that add even more luck into the game, instead of skill.

Terrain is yet another place that GW really screwed up 8E.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-07-2010, 17:57
So sure, if you use crazy terrain that is in no way balanced, ...

Sorry, but since you're a proud vet displaying your win/loss record in your signature, you really should be aware that GW never cared for balance in this game - that responsibility is up to you :rolleyes:

Your description of terrain in 7th, is quite accurate. You either clung to it, or shunned it like the plague. Either way, you had to house rule it, because it was so poorly written. Like your own with large targets being able to hide - they actually couldn't :p

Also all that wacky terrain was actually a part of 7th, but noone ever used it, because it was placed somewhere in the back of the rule book and never integrated in the game. Now its a part of the game, and makes each game memorable as 'The Battle at Blood River' or 'The Melee on the Tele' :)

Bac5665
21-07-2010, 18:07
Sorry, but since you're a proud vet displaying your win/loss record in your signature, you really should be aware that GW never cared for balance in this game - that responsibility is up to you :rolleyes:

Your description of terrain in 7th, is quite accurate. You either clung to it, or shunned it like the plague. Either way, you had to house rule it, because it was so poorly written. Like your own with large targets being able to hide - they actually couldn't :p

Also all that wacky terrain was actually a part of 7th, but noone ever used it, because it was placed somewhere in the back of the rule book and never integrated in the game. Now its a part of the game, and makes each game memorable as 'The Battle at Blood River' or 'The Melee on the Tele' :)

Most you say is correct, and I'm more than happy to ignore most of the crazy terrain. My problem is that what's left is worse than the 7E terrain system, which even I'll admit was pretty bad.

My point is that in 7E, there was at least a system that could impact your game there for those who didn't want to use the terrain in the back of the book. In 8E, there's nothing else. If GW had scrapped TLoS, made hills and forest block LoS AND had the rest of the rules, then we'd both be happy. Instead, for the third strait edition, they screwed one half of the fan base.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-07-2010, 18:27
I admit, I would have preferred a more abstract 'level-based' kind of terrain too and ditched the TLoS. Yet I do find the 'wacky' terrain more interesting, in the way that it adds more opportunities to the game, you not only have to decide when and whom to engage, but also where it would be best to do so :)

Bac5665
21-07-2010, 18:30
I admit, I would have preferred a more abstract 'level-based' kind of terrain too and ditched the TLoS. Yet I do find the 'wacky' terrain more interesting, in the way that it adds more opportunities to the game, you not only have to decide when and whom to engage, but also where it would be best to do so :)

Well, it certainly adds "flavor" and can alter where you want to be, or at least some of it can. And if you like it great. But feel that most of it is too random for my tastes. And as I've said, there have been several places in 8E where GW had the chance to write rules that appeal to beer and pretzels players and hardcore players, and they've specifically chosen to screw one at the expense of another. I object to that.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-07-2010, 19:01
Well, WFB didn't work as a competitive game, so that they emphasize the narrative part can only be a good thing in my book :) I mean how can you even think of playing a tourney of near identical 7th ed. pitched battles, when you could spend your time doing the Siege of Volgagrad or something equally grand :)

IAMNOTHERE
21-07-2010, 19:06
I'm really hoping that active terrain makes it into the next version of 40k, somthing to hope for.

Bac5665
21-07-2010, 19:17
Well, WFB didn't work as a competitive game, so that they emphasize the narrative part can only be a good thing in my book :) I mean how can you even think of playing a tourney of near identical 7th ed. pitched battles, when you could spend your time doing the Siege of Volgagrad or something equally grand :)

Easily :p

I just prefer the game part to the narrative part.

And having just been to the 4th annual Buckeye Battles, I still argue that the best times I've had at my hobby have been at a Grand Tournament. One where both top tier lists and bottom tier lists were competitive going into the last round. So my personal expirence (and that of the other 80 people there) tells me that warhammer can be great as a competitive game.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-07-2010, 19:27
The sheer lack of prizes and sponsorship contracts in WFB tells me that WFB is a really bad competitive game :p

Geep
22-07-2010, 00:12
I'm really hoping that active terrain makes it into the next version of 40k, somthing to hope for.
It used to be in there- Deathworld terrain. Damn forest eating my Zoanthropes and Lictors... funny and ridiculously unlucky, but not something I'd want in any tournament.

For home games I intend to fix many of the 8th ed terrain issues be building the terrain myself. This won't be new to me, and it's not hard to make a thick forest (with removable trees) or large rock spires to fix the TLoS issue.
In tournaments I expect most will have set terrain rules that over ride the rulebook.

Bac5665
22-07-2010, 00:14
The sheer lack of prizes and sponsorship contracts in WFB tells me that WFB is a really bad competitive game :p

A good friend of mine keeps winning about $1000 worth of GW products a year at tournaments. He definitely needs a sponsorship from our LGS ;)