View Full Version : IDEA: Limiting cover based on points of game.

Dwane Diblie
15-11-2011, 00:00
I have an idea and I am not in a position to test it so I thought I would just post it and get oppinions.

When setting up terrain for a game you set up a number of pieces equal to a points limit. This limit would be agreed size of game divided by 100. Each piece of terrain would have a points value based on the type of cover save it provides. 1pt for each point of save. eg 4+ cover would be worth 3 points.

Players take it in turns placing pieces of terrain on the table untill thay have placesd more points worth than the other player up until you have reached the limit. If one player discides to stop then the other player can place one more piece provided it also dose not breach the points limit.

Using this method if you wanted more cover you would have to go for less save.

eg: 1500 points game. Place 15 points of cover.
Player A places a Ruin 4+ (3pts)
Player B places a Hedge Line 5+ (2pts)
Player B places a Light Forest 5+ (2pts)
Player A places a Building (4pts) (Agreed apon points value)
Player B places a set of Tank Traps 5+ (2pts)
Player B call it quits. (2pts left)
Player A places a set of Barbed Wire Fencing 6+ (1pt)
Total points deployed=14

Do you think this kind of system would work?

15-11-2011, 01:38
I like the intent, but the perennial problem with wargame terrain is that it is all so variable. What about terrain like a swamp that doesn't block line of sight at all but counts as difficult and/or dangerous terrain? It offers no cover save so I can cover the entire table with it? What about large hills that completely block LoS? Craters, Lakes, Rivers?

I love the idea of the rules paying more attention to terrain and terrain setup, but the actual logistics of it just boggle my mind.

15-11-2011, 02:08
I like that idea. Maybe it it could be like your army list, you bring 1500pts of X, and 25 points of your own terrain. Both players bring some and get to deploy it to make a balanced board.

15-11-2011, 08:28
I'm not sure it would work. All it would do is encourage people to squeeze in as much heavy armour as they could into smaller games, which seems rather backwards to me.

Like I said before, setting up the terrain shouldn't be part of the game. Rather than plonking down walls and ruins to give you somewhere to hide your Devastators, think about the scenario you're playing and the armies involved and set up a good, interesting battlefield that looks like it's something worth fighting over.

If you're local group is having issues with too much terrain, why don't you simply agree to not use so much in future, rather than trying ever more arcane and convoluted ways of arranging things?

15-11-2011, 12:08
Sounds over complicated, and not foolproof. You've made terrain into a game,a nd an easy to break one at that.

Stuff that doesn't block LOS at all- swamps, minefields etc. I'll deploy a 13" wide canal in the middle of the board, and sit my guard behind it.... Only chimeras or skimmers can cross that. 0 cover points, as it provides no save.

I'll deploy a 72" long hill across the board, and deploy behind it, hiding a huge amount of barrage stuff out of LOS, and loads of men along the ridge line. No more than 3 cover points.

My blood angel jump pack force.. now they get a big long LOS blocking wall down the middle they can jump over and assault from.

Etc, etc.

I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve. Just talk to you opponents if you want more or less terrain, to alter the balance between area and LOS blockers, to change the layout, etc, etc.

15-11-2011, 12:25
Funny, I just thought about something like that yesterday. But I would include it to the points cost of the army. The reason I thought about this is the trench table I'm planing to build. Of course it's not fair when one side has pill boxes and trenches and the other side is out in the open. In that case, the fortifications would have to be paid for with points.

Let's say you play 1500 points. One side might want to choose to field 1500 points worth of army. But the other player might decide to field 1000 points worth of miniatures and 500 points worth of pill boxes and trenches.
If he wants to play 1500 points, the trenches mark the end of the table on his side.

15-11-2011, 13:21
This will work for armies that don't need cover as much, but what about foot slogging armies? Dark Eldar? I think the 25% minimum is sufficient, and it takes the insta-win away from some armies (IG).

15-11-2011, 13:43
Limiting terrain for a game that gets better the more terrain there is seems like a really bad idea...
The rulebook states that there should be at least 25% of the table covered, the terrain you give above doesn´t seem to come even close to the 6 square feet this takes. Even big COD ruins and buildings tend to be about 8"x8" at the top, forrests tend to be of similar size and anything else is well below 5"x5", So by these numbers you have 3*64"˛+3*25"˛=273"˛<2'˛, less than a 3rd of reccomended terrain.

15-11-2011, 14:56
It's a remarkable attempt at providing general rules for terrain, but I feel all you need to build a proper table, one that does not suffer for the syndrome of 4+ cover to all, is just some good sense in choosing the terrain: just limit the area terrain, make use of cover save leveles you and your fellow player (AKA your opponent) feel right for making your game an enjoyable one. That should be enough for fun and varied games. Guys please remember it's your game, if you feel the board has too much cover or too much 4+, just change it, don't wait for someone to tell you you can do it.

As for turneys, the matter is somehow more complicated and requires lot of work from the organisers.