PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of the "mysterious terrain" rules?



AlexHolker
03-07-2012, 04:12
There is a game designer on another board who wants to implement something similar to this in his game*. I think that's a bad idea, but would like to get some numbers from people who play a game designed with a similar mindset.

*A near future wargame with 8-30 models per side. As a single example, there's currently a 1-in-500 chance each turn that a building collapses, killing everything inside with no save.

papabearshane
03-07-2012, 04:36
Im not crazy about the terrain rules, they are ok if using a pre-setup battlefield where everything makes sense. I hate seeing 3-5 things on the board that kill units, Give regen, cast spells. Its just to much when everything has a special rule.

I dont hate them I just prefer to fight without them in most games/Turnys.

Lord Inquisitor
03-07-2012, 05:04
Your poll might not give you the answers you are looking for.

I voted "whenever possible" but that's largely because without the threat from the random terrain the warhammer terrain doesn't have enough of a negative effect and can be ignored by most units. Overall though I would prefer less randomness and less wackiness.

Still, there's an element of discovery in a dungeon crawl sort of fashion that isn't terrible depending on what sort of game you want. I'm not crazy about the implementation in WFB but it has potential.

Urgat
03-07-2012, 07:17
I like them, though I'd be fine if it was "mysterious" only on the roll of a 1.
Lord Inquisitor: well I might forget one or two, but besides forests, swamps and rivers, they mostly give a bonus, ignoring them is kind of weird, no? The fact that forests cancel steadfast is something people tend to overlook, even though it's quite huge, especially if you consider the "steadfast should be disruptable" whinefest.

Lance Tankmen
03-07-2012, 08:10
rivers stop stead fast too....a fact an enemy over looked was quite funny

Ultimate Life Form
03-07-2012, 09:52
Yeah Urgat has a point, terrain is far too mysterious in Warhammer.

As a result we never use it because we feel it's too random. Basically troops should die because their commander made a mistake and the enemy is ripping themn apart, or because of those War Machines going haywire, not because they happen to stand between a few trees. The whole mysteriousness of the terrain would be great in a role playing game which, for most people, Warhammer is not.

In short I don't mind the inclusion of mysterious terrain rules as long as they're optional (if they're not players simply can choose to ignore them anyway, just with a bad conscience and it will lead to heated debates before every game - not good).

T10
03-07-2012, 10:39
Finally a poll that isn't about how I spend my money!

-T10

T10
03-07-2012, 10:51
Yeah Urgat has a point, terrain is far too mysterious in Warhammer.


I agree that the mysterious terrain rules are pretty much over the top, one should not ignore the impact the terrain effect has on the game. Perhaps one should look at the implementation: Rather than rolling these randomly when the terrain piece is explored, each terrain piece can be assigned a specific special rule when it is placed.

-T10

Lorcryst
03-07-2012, 10:58
Well, I didn't vote, because in the 30ish games we've played so far in 8th ed, we deemed that part of the rules "too random and boring" and didn't play with them ... but I'd still want to try them once or thrice, just to see what they add to the game ... cannot really form an opinion on them whithout having played with them, I guess.

Oh, we've played with "normal" Forests and Rivers, disrupting Steadfast and everything, but our Hills are standard, and we do use the rules for buildings and ruins ... also used a couple of walls, without the Blessed Bulwark and Ghost Fence shenanigans ...

Dnimuloc
03-07-2012, 11:07
I think misterious terrain rules are great, if you have the time and patience for it...very interesting game effects come up, changing 8th edition into an even more chaotic experience :)

Crube
03-07-2012, 11:12
I like the idea, but feel the implementation is a little OTT.

I'd prefer normal terrain, but with maybe D3 pieces designated as mysterious, and tone down the effects a little...

theunwantedbeing
03-07-2012, 11:37
Mysterious terrain is OTT, too much and too random and implausible.
Which I guess is exactly the mentality GW takes with regards to rules these days.......

sulla
03-07-2012, 11:58
My Elves hate the forests but my other armies largely don't care one way or another about the 'mystery' of the terrain.

Oh... I tell a lie. One game my idiot Minotaurs lost a beast each player turn from one of the statues that does d6 s4 hits. They hate it too, but then minos are so overpriced and fragile that they fall over to anything from a stiff breeze upwards.

Ultimate Life Form
03-07-2012, 12:04
I think misterious terrain rules are great, if you have the time and patience for it...very interesting game effects come up, changing 8th edition into an even more chaotic experience :)



Mysterious terrain is OTT, too much and too random and implausible.
Which I guess is exactly the mentality GW takes with regards to rules these days.......


Yes, I think this was pretty much intended. When you look at 8th Edition, it becomes readily apparent that GW wanted to create ONE BIG CHAOS. But this time not in terms of ruleswriting but actually on the table. This was already hinted at by Harry many months prior to release when many people either could or did not want to believe it yet.

Now this should not be taken as an attack against 8th; I like it very much. But it is very clear that GW wanted to turn the game into a new direction. And this cannot be described in any better words than Chaos reigning supreme for once. Look at all those over the top monsters that weren't really warranted, the insane war machine rules and, most important of all, the new Magic System/Lores (I think I need not explain what I mean). In short, the game is no longer about tactics or strategy (as has been argued by many people who were unhappy with the new direction and ragequit shortly after release). It's a dice fest, plain and simple. A point and klick adventure where the question is not who will die but how will they die. This is what GW wanted. Period.

Now we as the players have to ask the question what this means for us. Why did GW choose this new direction? For example it could be argued that it is more fun and easier to pick up for their main target group, the action-scene addicted teens. This is a very valid claim and also a very valid business decision. Of course you cater to your target group. Anything else would just be sheer folly. This game simply is not targeted at 'us'.

The problem is now that the so-called veteran gamers still hold the belief that Warhammer is a game of skill and cunning; a scientific discipline very much where everything is broken down and analyzed with academic meticulousness down to the very basic elements and also some kind of gentlemen's sport of the highest sophistication, something akin to chess only with (hopefully) more colorful pieces. In 8th this claim simply is no longer true if it ever was. Warhammer despite its name is not a war simulation; it's a fantasy game, period, and they did their utmost to emphasize the fantastic elements of the game. It is thus very much understandable that many of the veteran gamers are not overly happy with this decision. As a result, we see those players who haven't ragequit adapt to the situation making the game more enjoyable for themselves by ignoring those controversial elements wherever possible.

I predict a huge majority rejecting the mysterious terrain rules simply based on WarSeer's member statistics.

stirogiperogi
03-07-2012, 13:38
Yes, I think this was pretty much intended. When you look at 8th Edition, it becomes readily apparent that GW wanted to create ONE BIG CHAOS. But this time not in terms of ruleswriting but actually on the table. This was already hinted at by Harry many months prior to release when many people either could or did not want to believe it yet.

Now this should not be taken as an attack against 8th; I like it very much. But it is very clear that GW wanted to turn the game into a new direction. And this cannot be described in any better words than Chaos reigning supreme for once. Look at all those over the top monsters that weren't really warranted, the insane war machine rules and, most important of all, the new Magic System/Lores (I think I need not explain what I mean). In short, the game is no longer about tactics or strategy (as has been argued by many people who were unhappy with the new direction and ragequit shortly after release). It's a dice fest, plain and simple. A point and klick adventure where the question is not who will die but how will they die. This is what GW wanted. Period.

Now we as the players have to ask the question what this means for us. Why did GW choose this new direction? For example it could be argued that it is more fun and easier to pick up for their main target group, the action-scene addicted teens. This is a very valid claim and also a very valid business decision. Of course you cater to your target group. Anything else would just be sheer folly. This game simply is not targeted at 'us'.

The problem is now that the so-called veteran gamers still hold the belief that Warhammer is a game of skill and cunning; a scientific discipline very much where everything is broken down and analyzed with academic meticulousness down to the very basic elements and also some kind of gentlemen's sport of the highest sophistication, something akin to chess only with (hopefully) more colorful pieces. In 8th this claim simply is no longer true if it ever was. Warhammer despite its name is not a war simulation; it's a fantasy game, period, and they did their utmost to emphasize the fantastic elements of the game. It is thus very much understandable that many of the veteran gamers are not overly happy with this decision. As a result, we see those players who haven't ragequit adapt to the situation making the game more enjoyable for themselves by ignoring those controversial elements wherever possible.

I predict a huge majority rejecting the mysterious terrain rules simply based on WarSeer's member statistics.

Great post ULF!

As a Veteran, since 1987, this game has shifted from an extension of a role-playing game to a tournament based game. For good or bad, the last few editions have been supported by and for competitive game play at the highest levels within and on the outside of GW. I am not saying what is the best way to market, play and handle your games of warhammer; but you can for certain sense a shift in policy for GW. The recent decision to sack tournament support should be the latest clue of what GW thinks of people playing "their" game in public.

Personally, the move to a more chaotic battlefield is going to save the game. Those players who get upset that a forest just swallowed up their elves, are going to fight this shift in game-play. The new system of 8th edition will break the static nature of all of the previous editions and offer a game that has a greater replay value, ig... random events will make every turn different from another. The players who see themselves as the next Von Clausewitz will loathe that man eating forests eat stuff, especially their stuff; and those players whose disposition is not hung upon tactics, strategies and conquest will enjoy the game as a fantasy adventure (Which I feel has a wider market appeal and will more than likely sell more models than the stuffy tournament scene which only purchases a few select models based upon game effectiveness.).

So some of the players will refuse to play in this new edition, some will amend what ever rules they dislike- after all the game belongs to the players; but those who are fighting against this shift in game design are not going to win.

Urgat
03-07-2012, 14:03
Yeah Urgat has a point, terrain is far too mysterious in Warhammer.
Hey, don't make me say what I didn't. I said it could be more normal, but I also said I didn't mind it as it is now. If I say it could be more normal, it's from a fluff point of view, not a gameplay one. We roll a D6 to determinate what will be mysterious during the terrain deployment, so usually it's one or two mysterious terrain, just so it doesn't feel like we're fighting in the Realms of Chaos every battle.


As a result we never use it because we feel it's too random. Basically troops should die because their commander made a mistake and the enemy is ripping themn apart, or because of those War Machines going haywire, not because they happen to stand between a few trees.
They ain't dying just because you stand between a couple trees, they're dying because you're making a gamble with whether the risks are worth the reward. It's no different than firing a cannon, casting a spell (well in this case, that's how it should have been), pushing your steamtank too far with the previous rules, etc etc. It's really exactly in the spirit of Warhammer, if you ask me.


In short, the game is no longer about tactics or strategy (as has been argued by many people who were unhappy with the new direction and ragequit shortly after release). It's a dice fest, plain and simple. A point and klick adventure where the question is not who will die but how will they die. This is what GW wanted. Period.

Now we as the players have to ask the question what this means for us. Why did GW choose this new direction?

But... this is what GW has always wanted, for as far as I remember; it's not a new direction. Every edition they say that Warhammer is not meant for competitive play, every single edition. It's not because people ignore it that it changes anything. I don't agree that it ignores tactics and strategy completely (I think that at the very least it challenges your risk-accessing abilities... well, see terrain rules...), but it's never been about just serious tactics as a goal. How could it be? Everything is based on dice that allow for outlandish results. 10 regular goblin warriors can beat 10 chaos warriors in the game. In the fluff, no way, never. Warhammer is too random for that, it has always been, and whatever people say, dices decide the outcome of the game, every time. You're just here to help them.

edit: oh yeah, the OP: a 1 in 500 chance that it happens? It's a bit pointless at that level, but no, I wouldn't mind that at all and I don't think it's a mistake. The game that building does collapse, there should be laughter.

Metacarpi
03-07-2012, 14:05
Whilst I quite enjoy the Mysterious Terrain, me and my gaming group aren't too keen on boards full of it, so limit it to 2 pieces/game - the rest is just normal terrain.

ColShaw
03-07-2012, 14:06
I've hated these rules ever since their inception.

Guess that makes me a "crusty vet". ;)

Snake1311
03-07-2012, 15:48
The problem is now that the so-called veteran gamers still hold the belief that Warhammer is a game of skill and cunning; a scientific discipline very much where everything is broken down and analyzed with academic meticulousness down to the very basic elements and also some kind of gentlemen's sport of the highest sophistication, something akin to chess only with (hopefully) more colorful pieces. In 8th this claim simply is no longer true if it ever was. Warhammer despite its name is not a war simulation; it's a fantasy game, period, and they did their utmost to emphasize the fantastic elements of the game. It is thus very much understandable that many of the veteran gamers are not overly happy with this decision. As a result, we see those players who haven't ragequit adapt to the situation making the game more enjoyable for themselves by ignoring those controversial elements wherever possible.

I predict a huge majority rejecting the mysterious terrain rules simply based on WarSeer's member statistics.

This argument kind of works in a vacuum, but previous editions weren't much richer in 'skill and cunning' - not at all richer, if you are like me and refuse to accept guess distance accuracy as a skill that has anything to do with wargaming. 8th edition rewards a strong grasp of probability, as well as having plan B and plan C to deal with less likely consequences.

There are a few things that are rough around the edges (some uberspells, infinitely big units) but a few lines of comp generally fix those up.
I'm not convinced mysterious terrain qualifies as one of those. I've mostly played with mysterious woods, and the impact from the roll is generally prettty negligable.

Lord Inquisitor
03-07-2012, 16:10
The mere possibility of some of those rolls being nasty is enough to give you pause. Particularly rivers. Anyone whose had half their army die from a boiling flood will remember it. A river of light can have a huge effect. Terrain usually has more of an effect on little units - my sabretusks are pretty wary of forests in case I get the "take D6 S4 hits" one. A unit suddenly gaining poisoned attacks can make a huge difference too!

Which is the problem, without the random rolls, terrain just has too little effect. Yes, forests negate steadfast and rivers negate ranks which are nice, but there's just too little disincentive to stop you going in them and, other than rivers, they just don't slow you down. If all terrain was dangerous to all models that might make things better if you're going to say "all terrain is normal".

T10
03-07-2012, 16:19
..., if you are like me and refuse to accept guess distance accuracy as a skill that has anything to do with wargaming.

Well, I'm not going to attempt to convince you that the ability to accurately estimate ranges, a primary aspect of the last seven editions of the foremost wargame ever, is in any way a more impressive skill than using a pocket calculator.

Though I will say I have reason to disagree with your opinion.

Urgat
03-07-2012, 16:41
Yes, forests negate steadfast and rivers negate ranks which are nice, but there's just too little disincentive to stop you going in them
Ram a unit of those "useless in 8th ed" cavalry in a steadfast unit while it has its feet wet or it's under trees, then state that again. I can't believe someone can say that negating steadfast or crippling its Ld value is no problem when one of the most commonly complained things about 8th ed is that steadfast is too hard to remove. Losing steadfast is huge for large units, catching them when they're at their weakest is what tactics is about, my blocks of gobs avoid forests and rivers like a plague, they're not just mere annoying decorations.


T Particularly rivers. Anyone whose had half their army die from a boiling flood will remember it.

That can be a problem; our rivers have a couple safe crossing points so you can at least get one or two units through them w/o risk, if you're willing to spend a turn or two getting there, that is.

BigbyWolf
03-07-2012, 17:03
Yes, I think this was pretty much intended. When you look at 8th Edition, it becomes readily apparent that GW wanted to create ONE BIG CHAOS. But this time not in terms of ruleswriting but actually on the table. This was already hinted at by Harry many months prior to release when many people either could or did not want to believe it yet.

Now this should not be taken as an attack against 8th; I like it very much. But it is very clear that GW wanted to turn the game into a new direction. And this cannot be described in any better words than Chaos reigning supreme for once. Look at all those over the top monsters that weren't really warranted, the insane war machine rules and, most important of all, the new Magic System/Lores (I think I need not explain what I mean). In short, the game is no longer about tactics or strategy (as has been argued by many people who were unhappy with the new direction and ragequit shortly after release). It's a dice fest, plain and simple. A point and klick adventure where the question is not who will die but how will they die. This is what GW wanted. Period.

Now we as the players have to ask the question what this means for us. Why did GW choose this new direction? For example it could be argued that it is more fun and easier to pick up for their main target group, the action-scene addicted teens. This is a very valid claim and also a very valid business decision. Of course you cater to your target group. Anything else would just be sheer folly. This game simply is not targeted at 'us'.

The problem is now that the so-called veteran gamers still hold the belief that Warhammer is a game of skill and cunning; a scientific discipline very much where everything is broken down and analyzed with academic meticulousness down to the very basic elements and also some kind of gentlemen's sport of the highest sophistication, something akin to chess only with (hopefully) more colorful pieces. In 8th this claim simply is no longer true if it ever was. Warhammer despite its name is not a war simulation; it's a fantasy game, period, and they did their utmost to emphasize the fantastic elements of the game. It is thus very much understandable that many of the veteran gamers are not overly happy with this decision. As a result, we see those players who haven't ragequit adapt to the situation making the game more enjoyable for themselves by ignoring those controversial elements wherever possible.

I predict a huge majority rejecting the mysterious terrain rules simply based on WarSeer's member statistics.

I find 8th to be a little more tactical then it was when I first started playing (4th), and certainly more so than previous editions. Simply avoiding active randomness is a skill in itself. I'd also consider it to be more of a "realistic war simulator" than previous editions, given the bonuses to having larger units without having to worry about your 150 foot-troops being routed in a single turn by three knights. In short, I don't agree. Warhammer is as much a game of skill and cunning as it always was.

As for the terrain. Doesn't bother me, I'll play with or without it, and just adapt.

Jind_Singh
03-07-2012, 17:56
I don't mind the rules for the most part but they can be fairly annoying! We had to play at a tournament once were all buildings were classed as haunted - I lost more wounds to that than I did from being attacked by the enemy!!!

Lord Inquisitor
03-07-2012, 18:48
Ram a unit of those "useless in 8th ed" cavalry in a steadfast unit while it has its feet wet or it's under trees, then state that again. I can't believe someone can say that negating steadfast or crippling its Ld value is no problem when one of the most commonly complained things about 8th ed is that steadfast is too hard to remove. Losing steadfast is huge for large units, catching them when they're at their weakest is what tactics is about, my blocks of gobs avoid forests and rivers like a plague, they're not just mere annoying decorations.
This is true, I just don't find it enough, particularly when any proper combat unit is likely to be Stubborn, if all else fails because of the ubiquitous Crown of Command. Likewise Skirmishers gaining Stubborn can be important too, but rarely enough.

I was playing some games getting geared up for a tournament that uses "all hills and forests normal, all buildings impassable" and my opponent was playing undead and I was playing ogres (all units either stubborn or few ranks), frankly we could have taken all the terrain off the board. It just didn't make any difference. My artillery didn't care about terrain, his BS shooting didn't either. At no point was a steadfast unit particularly bothered by a forest and single model units like ironblasters just trundled through. We really could have played the game with no terrain on the board for all it mattered.


I don't mind the rules for the most part but they can be fairly annoying! We had to play at a tournament once were all buildings were classed as haunted - I lost more wounds to that than I did from being attacked by the enemy!!!

Heh, I was playing a new player in the first round of an Ard Boyz a year or two ago. The terrain seemed to go haywire. I lost over 50% of my model count to terrain effects, from a vicious blood forest to an unfortunate event involving a boiling flood.

Urgat
03-07-2012, 19:00
This is true, I just don't find it enough, particularly when any proper combat unit is likely to be Stubborn, if all else fails because of the ubiquitous Crown of Command. Likewise Skirmishers gaining Stubborn can be important too, but rarely enough.
Well, with mysterious terrain, it's much more brutal. It'd been me, the results would have been more... dunno, natural, though. Like for forests, you'd get thorn bushes (-1M), irregular footing (no marching) etc, and keep a couple of the more extreme ideas for rolls of 1 and 2.
That being said, negating steadfast is plenty annoying for my own army already. Can't have the crown in every unit xD


I was playing some games getting geared up for a tournament that uses "all hills and forests normal, all buildings impassable" and my opponent was playing undead and I was playing ogres (all units either stubborn or few ranks), frankly we could have taken all the terrain off the board. It just didn't make any difference. My artillery didn't care about terrain, his BS shooting didn't either. At no point was a steadfast unit particularly bothered by a forest and single model units like ironblasters just trundled through. We really could have played the game with no terrain on the board for all it mattered.

Well... was there really any unit in either army that relied on steadfast? OK never outnumber, and undead are, well, undead. That's not a very fair example :p Shooting is rarely bothered with terrain, that's true, but that's because it's always so small. With TloS, you always manage to see something from behind that halfling cottage :/

Ultimate Life Form
03-07-2012, 20:54
But... this is what GW has always wanted, for as far as I remember; it's not a new direction. Every edition they say that Warhammer is not meant for competitive play, every single edition. It's not because people ignore it that it changes anything.
Yeah, apparently. However, both groups could have fun. The 'new direction' I was referring to was more GW letting down the shutters and putting a big NO VETS sign in the window. That's quite a radical step if you ask me. The notion that Warhammer is some kind of top-class sport may have been an urban legend to begin with but it certainly didn't hurt the game (and sales), either.


In short, I don't agree. Warhammer is as much a game of skill and cunning as it always was.

With me? Or with the unhappy souls whose opinion I cited? :p

It's the eternal fate of the Warseerite - there's always one who disagrees. A prophet has no honor in is own country. :cries: Despite being right (look at the poll...)

DaemonReign
03-07-2012, 22:00
I Think the terrain rules are fine. Their impact is usually not that big. Nice spice to the game. Some could have been written with more depth and dynamic, I suppose, but then there'd be even more to keep track of.
Tried games without any mysterious stuff as well, these games were not worse in any way from what I remember. Kinda like the games featuring no top-spells have been just as good as those with p-suns flying around.

Tupinamba
03-07-2012, 22:13
Your poll might not give you the answers you are looking for.

I voted "whenever possible" but that's largely because without the threat from the random terrain the warhammer terrain doesn't have enough of a negative effect and can be ignored by most units. Overall though I would prefer less randomness and less wackiness.

Still, there's an element of discovery in a dungeon crawl sort of fashion that isn't terrible depending on what sort of game you want. I'm not crazy about the implementation in WFB but it has potential.

2x

Terrain is necessary, but I think 8. got a little OTT.

bonertron
03-07-2012, 22:24
Just a complete waste of time really.... even if my unit of 40 guys gets hit with a WHOPPING D6 hits, it doesnt matter.... 34 more guys to go. It takes more time to set up, and more time to reference. Plus, tell me this - why would someone walk into a river before realizing "Its not a river at all!!". Its a shame they changed so much of 8th into a "cartoon" game.

pointyteeth
03-07-2012, 22:30
We use the regular terrain rules for all scenery pieces (forests break steadfast for non-skirmishers, etc.) The mysterious terrain we hardly ever use, except for forests. This is because its a pain in the buttocks to remember most of the time, and all the mysterious terrain besides forests can be ridiculously good.

Asensur
03-07-2012, 22:39
Well, considering that the only mysterious terrains are forest and rivers I'm fine with it. :)

The rest of terrain is not mysterious and you know what it does prior to deployment. So, I'm fine with it too. :) :)

Also, having 5-10 pieces of terrain on the table is ok too. It hurts horde deathstars and gunlines a lot :) :) :)


But yeah, people is boring and use to have only 2 mirrored "normal" forests/hills because it is not fair if there is a single building (normal) on the table. The ban of the Watchtower Magic Item and WE forest in many tournaments is an example of how scared gets people if the don't fight on an empty board.

I don't care, if I don't agree with my opponent the rulebook has precedence as it is not an optional rule ;)

Urgat
04-07-2012, 00:06
Ah, you're wrong Asensur, and that's why it annoys me when people say they don't like 8th ed and take the mysterious terrain as an example (I know you don't, but you're still mistaken :p): the very first (iirc) sentence of the terrain section states that it IS optionnal. You can go for default terrain if you prefer.
As for remembering them being a pain, pah, I'm slowly going through the list and making them all. Someday I'll just have to make a reference sheet to write down all their rules in an easily accessible manner, and the job'll be a good one :)

Sh4d0w
04-07-2012, 06:29
Where is the "these things make little to no difference to the average game", seriously if they went back to the old rules (half movement at the very least) then i'd be happy. As of right now though they have no impact, people should atleast be a little concerned by going in one.

Scythe
04-07-2012, 08:42
Well, I'm not going to attempt to convince you that the ability to accurately estimate ranges, a primary aspect of the last seven editions of the foremost wargame ever, is in any way a more impressive skill than using a pocket calculator.

Though I will say I have reason to disagree with your opinion.

So you present a smirk remark about another person's post, thrown in a completely irrelevant and incorrect comparison which basically states statistics = pocket calculator, ignore the extreme simplicity of estimating ranges based on what is on the table and its irrelevance to simulating wargames, and present no arguments at all supporting your opinion (and proudly claiming so)?

Well played sir. :eyebrows:


Where is the "these things make little to no difference to the average game", seriously if they went back to the old rules (half movement at the very least) then i'd be happy. As of right now though they have no impact, people should atleast be a little concerned by going in one.

The old rules practically meant terrain was close to impassable to any unit other than skirmishers. Drastically reducing movement of anything entering terrain makes sure units will never use it whatsoever. The current rules are vastly superior to that imo.

Asensur
04-07-2012, 10:07
Ah, you're wrong Asensur, and that's why it annoys me when people say they don't like 8th ed and take the mysterious terrain as an example (I know you don't, but you're still mistaken :p): the very first (iirc) sentence of the terrain section states that it IS optionnal. You can go for default terrain if you prefer.
As for remembering them being a pain, pah, I'm slowly going through the list and making them all. Someday I'll just have to make a reference sheet to write down all their rules in an easily accessible manner, and the job'll be a good one :)

Could you please quote that part of the rulebook? Iv'e been reading the terrain rules and the only optional thing I find is to decide between taking yourself the terrain you want (using the terrain rules from pages 116-131) or roll at the random terrain table.

Yowzo
04-07-2012, 10:47
Heh, I was playing a new player in the first round of an Ard Boyz a year or two ago. The terrain seemed to go haywire. I lost over 50% of my model count to terrain effects, from a vicious blood forest to an unfortunate event involving a boiling flood.


I lost my lv4 shaman and general in the 2nd turn of a tournament game thanks to an enchanted river.

I've gradually grown to tolerate terrain rules from that low point, though we tend re-roll the number of terrain pieces if it's going to be too crowded.

T10
04-07-2012, 11:03
Well played sir. :eyebrows:
Thank you! Got it in one.

Snake1311
04-07-2012, 11:42
Well, I'm not going to attempt to convince you that the ability to accurately estimate ranges, a primary aspect of the last seven editions of the foremost wargame ever, is in any way a more impressive skill than using a pocket calculator.

Though I will say I have reason to disagree with your opinion.

The pocket calcluator will only give you the raw data you need (and thats if its a very good one, like a scientific calculator), and won't make the decision for you - you still have to weight the relative importance, risk and reward of each option, as well as the snowball effects; essentially assigning them arbitary values which would multiply by the success rate) :)

My experience of 7th ed was that the game was pretty much decided by whoever manages to get the charge.

BigbyWolf
04-07-2012, 12:20
With me? Or with the unhappy souls whose opinion I cited? :p

With your comments on the lack of tactics in 8th, but also your prediction about the poll showing that mysterious terrain would be massively rejected...see below...


It's the eternal fate of the Warseerite - there's always one who disagrees. A prophet has no honor in is own country. :cries: Despite being right (look at the poll...)

Poll shows only 43.42% reject it.

There's still time though...;)

Skarsnik, the Lord
04-07-2012, 12:27
I prefer not to have mysterious terrain, but I like competitive ETC games as well so it makes sense. It has happened too often to me that a forest causes something that changes the game completely (for instance, destroying/panicking a redirect unit in a crucial situation, moving into a close combat and removing steadfast, etc...), so it's better to go with regular forests IMO.

- Cheers, Skarsnik.

Urgat
04-07-2012, 13:40
Could you please quote that part of the rulebook? Iv'e been reading the terrain rules and the only optional thing I find is to decide between taking yourself the terrain you want (using the terrain rules from pages 116-131) or roll at the random terrain table.

Yeah, now that I'm back home (so I can check), I see that I exaggerated a bit, it's not the first sentence at all :p It's p142 (well at least in the French BRB), says you can either use the table, or pick your own stuff and decide what special rules they will use.

Vipoid
04-07-2012, 13:47
I dislike the rules for a few reasons:

1) I hate that you don't roll for what a piece of terrain is until you enter it. If you know what each terrain piece does at the beginning of the game, then it at least gives you a chance to strategise around it. But, when you have no idea what any terrain piece is going to do, then there's really nothing you can do other than avoiding everything.

2) I hate the fluff justification for the above - that you don't know what something is until you step into it. Bull. ****. What? Not a single man noticed that the river was made of blood? Do rivers regularly fill themselves with jam in this universe? :wtf:

It was even more entertaining when my unit of Skeletons caught stupidity by entering a Fungus Forest. Apparently they inhaled some fungal spores... :eyebrows:

3) Several of the effects just seem a little too over the top.

I don't know, maybe I'm just an old fogie, but I just prefer it when terrain is neutral. I think it should be there to block LoS, slow certain units and grant cover - not randomly switch between buffing units that enter it, and eating them.

Urgat
04-07-2012, 14:30
It was even more entertaining when my unit of Skeletons caught stupidity by entering a Fungus Forest. Apparently they inhaled some fungal spores... :eyebrows:

Ah, I agree with the rest of your post (though I like the rules), but come on, don't force us to bring the matter of how your musicians can blow their horn :p Undead always don't work with stuff like that, you gotta adapt when it's them. The spores got in their joints, and your skellies were ampered in their movements, rather than just not sure about what they should do next.

BigbyWolf
04-07-2012, 15:13
Not a single man noticed that the river was made of blood? Do rivers regularly fill themselves with jam in this universe? :wtf:

Tends to happen to the Tomb Kings if they don't let people go...

Lord Dan
04-07-2012, 15:30
"Okay, so here's what I'm thinking: if someone casts magic of any kind at the forest, it goes berserk!"
"Why?"
"Well, it's a magic forest and it gets upset. I don't know, it's magic."
"Yeah, I know. It's just starting to feel like the end of the last Harry Potter book when his 'mother's love" saved him again. You just can't keep sayi-"
"Bear with me here. Okay, so after the forest goes nuts, it moves."
"Wait, why?"
"They're magical trees."
"Matt..."
"No, I know what you're thinking. Of course there will be some non-magical forests."
"Oh, okay. How often will you roll those?"
"17% of the time."
"So there are more magical trees than not?"
"Yes."
"Matt, how do people survive in this world? I think gamers have a basic expectation of reality th-"
"Okay, now check this: a monument that fires a random spell at the closest unit every turn of the game..."

Vipoid
04-07-2012, 15:46
Ah, I agree with the rest of your post (though I like the rules), but come on, don't force us to bring the matter of how your musicians can blow their horn :p

Oh, we don't blow into them - we just chatter our teeth into the horn. ;)

In any case, the undead aspect wasn't really a complaint - more an amusing example of when terrain fluff completely breaks down.

Bodysnatcher
04-07-2012, 22:57
I really like the mysterious terrain rules, makes woods a tad more interesting.
And the unique terrain types are interesting from a converter/modeller's point of view. I likes mekkin' terrain.

Crovax20
04-07-2012, 23:19
I personally find that the mysterious terrain serves an important role in the game. It is designed because of the ease you can move through terrain in 8th. Like others have said, its to stop terrain becoming a almost non risk obstacle you can casually stroll over.

That being said I do find the mysterious terrain to be a bit over the top with some results.

DaemonReign
04-07-2012, 23:50
While basically residing in the same camp as Bodysnatcher [on this topic at least] I must say Lord Dan's scolding re-enactment of Mat Ward's design process does have a point:
While I have no problem what-so-ever with the occurence of mysterious/magical terrain I would have decreased the general frequency of the occurence.
Mysterious Forests for example - I would probably have designed the table so that instead of being surpriced that the forest is 'normal' you'd be surpriced when it wasn't.

Montegue
05-07-2012, 00:56
I know many of my opponents get irritated with random mysterious woods, but we generally play that all woods are mysterious. It can really change the game, which I think is fun on some level but obnoxious on other levels. I am sort of amused that crazy horrible forests outnumber regular ones in the Warhammer world on a 5-1 basis. Why would any army choose to have a battle on a field dominated by haunted woods and blood rivers?

Waagh Rider
05-07-2012, 01:16
I fail to see the problem. I always play with full 'mysterious' effects and goofy terrain, and it occurs to me that I have never had a blood forest do anything in my games. We roll it, but then no-one ever casts a spell on a unit in it. Same with a load of other stuff. I'll march my savage orc bigun's through anything, as it is likely to have less of an effect than not proceeding with my battleplan 'cos I'm afraid of taking D6 hits would be.
I hate it when I go for a game and the other player asks to use mundane terrain, because it tells me they are a 7th ed player at heart, who wants control of everything. When a cleverly positioned wood basically won you the game, because your opponent's best unit was effectively stuck inside it until turn 6! The ones who want to win against you in exactly the same way they win against everybody, cookie cutter Warhammer. Well I'm glad they all play Mallifaux now, 'cos they made me never want to turn up for a game in 7th ed.
Whoah, not sure where that came from, think I may have excorcised some demons there...
Peace.

Maoriboy007
05-07-2012, 01:16
Jack and Jill went down the Hill to fetch a pail of water,
Jack fell down and broke his crown
because a spiked tentacle snaked out of the nearest river and dragged im screaming into its depths while jill was cursed to death by the hill they just came down...

Nursery rhymes in the warhammer world of mysterious terrain....

Lord Inquisitor
05-07-2012, 01:19
I think there might possibly be a happy medium between woods slowing movement to the point of being completely impassable ... and not impeding movement in any way.

Sh4d0w
05-07-2012, 02:08
So you present a smirk remark about another person's post, thrown in a completely irrelevant and incorrect comparison which basically states statistics = pocket calculator, ignore the extreme simplicity of estimating ranges based on what is on the table and its irrelevance to simulating wargames, and present no arguments at all supporting your opinion (and proudly claiming so)?

Well played sir. :eyebrows:



The old rules practically meant terrain was close to impassable to any unit other than skirmishers. Drastically reducing movement of anything entering terrain makes sure units will never use it whatsoever. The current rules are vastly superior to that imo.

The old rules meant you had to actually be aware that there was a forest on the table. If you were stupid enough to put a slow moving infantry unit straight through one that was your problem. I don't see how forest that go from having an impact to no impact are vastly superior.

Jezbot
05-07-2012, 02:59
I think there might possibly be a happy medium between woods slowing movement to the point of being completely impassable ... and not impeding movement in any way.

Yeah, exactly this. A simple reduction in movement through woods and similar terrain would have been enough. And a one or two inch movement cost to move over an obstacle would be nice as well - enough to make open ground desirable, but not enough to block a unit completely from the game.

It'd mean terrain had enough of a mundane impact that magical terrain items could be scaled back to one or two or none per game, according to player preference, and you'd still have terrain playing a predictable, plausible role in every game.

Lord Solar Plexus
05-07-2012, 06:09
The old rules meant you had to actually be aware that there was a forest on the table. If you were stupid enough to put a slow moving infantry unit straight through one that was your problem. I don't see how forest that go from having an impact to no impact are vastly superior.

The old rules were crap, period. I'm not sure of your definition of stupidity but it didn't take a lot to raise awareness of those big blocks of binary terrain, and I'm pretty sure you could end up in a stupid wood even if you were a smart player like me or an even smarter one like you.

Scythe
05-07-2012, 06:48
I think there might possibly be a happy medium between woods slowing movement to the point of being completely impassable ... and not impeding movement in any way.

I could rally behind a -1M penalty, but not much more than that. On the flipside, you could have roads which give a +1M bonus. Still, in general, the problem with rules for woods is that you don't want to discourage units from entering them, ever, like last edition was (unless you were a skirmisher).


The old rules meant you had to actually be aware that there was a forest on the table. If you were stupid enough to put a slow moving infantry unit straight through one that was your problem. I don't see how forest that go from having an impact to no impact are vastly superior.

Yeah, as an impassible terrain piece. It could just as well have been a lake. Didn't help interesting gameplay in the least. The moment you discourage entering a wood so much people don't even consider it any more, you might as well discard the entire ruleset. And moving at half speed while march moves being prevented just kills any desire to enter a wood, ever.
But please explain me how, even mysterious terrain rules aside (which can do a number on your battle plans, as indicated by some posters), the lack of steadfast from ranked units with even a single model in a wood, or the gaining of steadfast by skirmishers, causes 'no impact' on the game.

Sh4d0w
05-07-2012, 08:31
I could rally behind a -1M penalty, but not much more than that. On the flipside, you could have roads which give a +1M bonus. Still, in general, the problem with rules for woods is that you don't want to discourage units from entering them, ever, like last edition was (unless you were a skirmisher).



Yeah, as an impassible terrain piece. It could just as well have been a lake. Didn't help interesting gameplay in the least. The moment you discourage entering a wood so much people don't even consider it any more, you might as well discard the entire ruleset. And moving at half speed while march moves being prevented just kills any desire to enter a wood, ever.
But please explain me how, even mysterious terrain rules aside (which can do a number on your battle plans, as indicated by some posters), the lack of steadfast from ranked units with even a single model in a wood, or the gaining of steadfast by skirmishers, causes 'no impact' on the game.

Challenge accepted. First of all I would just like to say that by "no impact" i mean very little in terms of the average game, this is from my experiences anyway. Yes I do agree that negating steadfast for ranked up units has an impact. But I disagree with the movement penalty by which i mean there is none. I never saw it as impassable terrain, just terrain that highly favored skirmishers.

Fighting in a forest: I agree that it has gotten alot more dangerous

Moving in a forest: I'm sorry but you just don't have any second thoughts when moving into one.

Urgat
05-07-2012, 09:44
I know many of my opponents get irritated with random mysterious woods, but we generally play that all woods are mysterious. It can really change the game, which I think is fun on some level but obnoxious on other levels. I am sort of amused that crazy horrible forests outnumber regular ones in the Warhammer world on a 5-1 basis. Why would any army choose to have a battle on a field dominated by haunted woods and blood rivers?

They don't know before they step in :p


it occurs to me that I have never had a blood forest do anything in my games. We roll it, but then no-one ever casts a spell on a unit in it.

That's the point. Knowing what would happen, you kind of avoid going in there, effectively turning these woods into an impassable obstacle unless you got balls of steel. I said it before, I'll say it again: current terrain is all about balancing risks versus rewards, it challenges your threat assessment.

Evil Hypnotist
05-07-2012, 11:46
I went for the 'don't mind' option, the rules are good but like most who have posted they are just a bit too much to use every game. If I'm playing a standard 'Pitched Battle'/'Battleline' (or whatever) then I am happy to give them a go but if I am doing an unusual scenario and I have to remember the rules for that, the rules for my army AND the game rules generally, the terrain on top is just too much and is mostly forgotten about during the game.

Scythe
05-07-2012, 12:54
Challenge accepted. First of all I would just like to say that by "no impact" i mean very little in terms of the average game, this is from my experiences anyway. Yes I do agree that negating steadfast for ranked up units has an impact. But I disagree with the movement penalty by which i mean there is none. I never saw it as impassable terrain, just terrain that highly favored skirmishers.

You regularly moved normal units into forests in 7th edition then?


Fighting in a forest: I agree that it has gotten alot more dangerous

Moving in a forest: I'm sorry but you just don't have any second thoughts when moving into one.

As moving in a forest has a good chance of leading to fighting in a forest, I don't believe you can separate those two. The disadvantages for ranked units ARE there. However, in 8th edition, it is at least a valid, if risky, option to move your ranked unit through a forest. You suddenly become quite vulnerable to enemy charges when you don't benefit from steadfast, and that mysterious wood might well make you stupid, or eat you. Risky, but it might be worth it. In 7th edition, traversing a wood took so long you wouldn't gain any strategic advantage by doing so, if you even managed to clear the woods within the length of a game.

I vastly prefer the more interactive nature of terrain these days, even without the mysterious terrain rules.

En Sabbah Nur
05-07-2012, 13:20
As for remembering them being a pain, pah, I'm slowly going through the list and making them all. Someday I'll just have to make a reference sheet to write down all their rules in an easily accessible manner, and the job'll be a good one :)
I would really like to see that ! Might be interesting for our games...



The old rules practically meant terrain was close to impassable to any unit other than skirmishers. Drastically reducing movement of anything entering terrain makes sure units will never use it whatsoever. The current rules are vastly superior to that imo.
I agree with that point. My friends hardly took terrains, as they found it useless and annoying (though that is THEIR problem, I know ;)), but find it more acceptable in 8th.


It could just as well have been a lake. Didn't help interesting gameplay in the least. The moment you discourage entering a wood so much people don't even consider it any more, you might as well discard the entire ruleset. And moving at half speed while march moves being prevented just kills any desire to enter a wood, ever.
I very much second that. And that is the point why not knowing what you are entering until you're in it is much more interesting, otherwise it is just considered as more impassible terrain for the ones you don't like.


I went for the 'don't mind' option, the rules are good but like most who have posted they are just a bit too much to use every game. If I'm playing a standard 'Pitched Battle'/'Battleline' (or whatever) then I am happy to give them a go but if I am doing an unusual scenario and I have to remember the rules for that, the rules for my army AND the game rules generally, the terrain on top is just too much and is mostly forgotten about during the game.
I second that also.

Like any games I've played, I really think the best way to go is to pick what pleases you, change what can be changed without too much impacting the game, and ignore what you dislike.

Lorcryst
05-07-2012, 13:27
I would really like to see that ! Might be interesting for our games...

Follow the link in Urgat's signature ... I've bought the river set from him, as well as the free sample pond, and they are MARVELOUS (even if the river is a royal pain for my Chaos armis versus my friend's Dwarves :shifty: )

En Sabbah Nur
05-07-2012, 14:40
Follow the link in Urgat's signature ... I've bought the river set from him, as well as the free sample pond, and they are MARVELOUS (even if the river is a royal pain for my Chaos armis versus my friend's Dwarves :shifty: )
I've seen that and they look great, I think I'll purchase 'em sooner... but there Urgat was talking about rules for terrain... Even if I got some of my own, I'd like to see how he managed his... Could be a good add-on to my campaign's rules ;)

Urgat
05-07-2012, 15:02
Ah, no, I was just talking about compiling the BRB terrain rules on one page for personal ease of use, is all :) I don't think I'm going to bother writing more houserules after the Blood in the Badlands gear.

Been toying around with a grid based generator system based on where the battle would happen (you pick Empire, World Edge Mountains, etc, and you get a corresponding chart), but, well, it's not really necessary.
Btw, are you around Paris?

ColShaw
05-07-2012, 18:47
I always thought the alternate jungle rules used in the Lustria campaign would've worked fine for 8th Ed, with a little tweaking. Those allowed better movement through terrain, while it remained a factor to be considered.

Gradek
05-07-2012, 20:19
I like the mysterious terrain rules, but would have liked to see a bit more variety and it to only be half of terrain (instead of the 5/6 it is now).

Plexi
06-07-2012, 06:37
I made up two separate charts. One for special pieces that we use D3+1 of and another of normal pieces that we use D6 of. End result is that we no longer have a board that is filled with random terrain, but we still manage to have the appropriate amount of terrain for 8th edition.

En Sabbah Nur
06-07-2012, 07:52
I made up two separate charts. One for special pieces that we use D3+1 of and another of normal pieces that we use D6 of. End result is that we no longer have a board that is filled with random terrain, but we still manage to have the appropriate amount of terrain for 8th edition.
Like the idea ! :)

IcedCrow
06-07-2012, 13:07
Our first couple of campaigns we tossed the random terrain out the window because it seemed a little too over the top. We now use them all the time.

Without them, the terrain rules (as has been mentioned above ad naseum) do very little except look pretty. You may as well play on a featureless table.

I know in 6th/7th ed many of the competitive guys would either not use much or any terrain except for hills and a couple walls, or it would all be set off to the side so that every battle was a clearing so that terrain had little impact on the game. As such it does not surprise me that many people polled would like to get rid of the random terrain because it would seem from my own experience that many people have never liked terrain impacting the game.

My own personal opinion is that the random terrain adds an element of surprise to the game that one cannot plan for, and I like games like that and as such like the random terrain.

Metacarpi
06-07-2012, 13:16
I'm of a similar opinion, the only reason my gaming group restricts it to a couple of pieces is because it becomes tricky to keep track of what everything does! I like a bit of a variable that you can't plan for in my games, it makes them more exciting!

Montegue
09-07-2012, 06:13
From a war-strategy standpoint, a battlefield with a lot of terrain makes little sense. What generals would want a bunch of ancient monuments and magical rivers in their chosen field of battle.

Then again, terrain is essential for game balance. LOS rules rely on terrain features to help balance some spells and artillery fire. Hills can grant combat res bonuses and provide higher vantage points for shooting. Some units are powerful, but balanced by having to suffer from dangerous terrain tests.

I *wish* the scenarios would provide for terrain as well. "Town Battle", for example, would force you to set up a village or town and defend it from marauders. "Dawn Attack" could require setting up an encampment or some such. You get the general idea.

Rolling on the random chart can make for some very silly battlefields. Oh look! A dwarf brewhouse constructed next door to an Idol of Mork! Oh my god, this village is set up alongside a River of Blood. Excellent for irrigation, I hear! Look at this tiny patch of woods that beat the **** out of anyone who steps inside! Surely the people of this area love to risk their children's lives living so near such a dangerous place!

Bodysnatcher
09-07-2012, 08:32
Rolling on the random chart can make for some very silly battlefields. Oh look! A dwarf brewhouse constructed next door to an Idol of Mork! Oh my god, this village is set up alongside a River of Blood. Excellent for irrigation, I hear! Look at this tiny patch of woods that beat the **** out of anyone who steps inside! Surely the people of this area love to risk their children's lives living so near such a dangerous place!

Now I don't see anything wrong with these:
The Orc idol next to the brewhouse - Orcs have invaded and are stamping their mark. The brewhouse has been valiantly defended by its master brewers as they know it's their only chance of rescue.
The river was quite normal until the warping tides of magic altered it. Alternatively, there has been a massive battle upstream and the corpses and gore are getting shovelled into the river.
As for woods suddenly going crazy, this is the warhammer world. What could have been perfectly normal trees could have been awakened by the Asrai, or even the mere presence of a daemonic host.

hashrat
09-07-2012, 22:09
If you happen to have terrain to represent every possibel feature, its ok. If not its paperwork for little return.
I like them and use them, but I prefer to roll for all hills and all woods and all rivers as 1 type, rather than try and remember what each particular wood does, I roll then say "thats the type for all woods".

Powerposey
10-07-2012, 00:25
Does anyone else use little markers for the mysterious terrain? Very simple, or just write down what happens on a scrap piece of paper. Takes a few seconds, put it next to the forest or river, and you don't need to keep referencing the book. I do not understand when people say it is too hard to remember additional rules.

I think GF9 even makes a set of tokens.

Bodysnatcher
10-07-2012, 22:05
I made a set of tokens. Very handy.

Jericho
10-07-2012, 22:31
A set of 25mm or 40mm bases with something on them to represent these random terrain types is always a good idea. I've been meaning to get around to it for ages for Fantasy, and now 40k could use them too.

I also need to make a set of tokens for those spiky death cacti that kill anybody nearby and turn into yet more spiky death cacti. God I love those things, we built a few bases of them a while back for a throwback 2nd edition table and they make me so damn happy.

Lordsaradain
11-07-2012, 19:20
I play by the rules, because they are.. THE RULES. But tbh I'm not a great fan of warhammers randomness, I prefer the strategy "chess" way of thinking when playing, although I think the current edition of warhammer leaves much less room for such planning. :p

Artiee
11-07-2012, 20:16
We only use mysterious forests and rivers. Sometimes some of the fences. Only do the buildings on special Big Battle events. But those are preset buildings.

Confessor_Atol
11-07-2012, 20:34
I actually don't hate them (although they're liy out in the book is horrible). They rarely have a major impact on the game, and occassionally bring something to it.....

Bingo the Fun Monkey
11-07-2012, 21:46
They rarely have a major impact on the game, and occassionally bring something to it.....

This. Like many others, at the beginning of 8th ed I was determined never to use the Random Terrain. I thought it would undo my meticulous "chess" style planning (odd for a Greenskin player, I know) and leave my fate in some dice rolls. On the other hand...it is just a game. I haven't encountered a situation where a game was lost because someone entered a forest. Sure a mage will suffer in a Blood Forest, but you knew the risk before you entered there. In many ways, I enjoy "exploring" the table. I feel the random terrain, like many other aspects of 8th ed (random charge distance, the magic phase, etc) help push players out of their comfort "control" zone. You don't know what that forest holds. You don't know how many power dice you will get. You aren't agonizing over making sure that your unit is just 1" outside of the enemy's charge distance (I fail to see how that is tactical in the eyes of 7th ed evangelists).

Kind of off topic, but I'm also glad range guessing is gone. I played dwarfs and was good at it, but it relied too much on what is ultimately a physical skill. One might as well determine whether the shooting phase happens by arm wrestling or a spitting contest or who can turn their eyelids inside out.

Andy p
12-07-2012, 11:03
In a game of chance and dice I think one more factor to take into consideration when evaluating said chance is fine.

Anyone who doesn't like the terrain rules is someone who doesn't want to have to make the effort to take into consideration the area of the battlefield. Your surroundings are as important as information on the enemy army and yours.

The terrain stops every fight turning into a "I go straight forward ok now you go straight foward....raghgh fight time" unless of course you are facing a gunline in which case it changes slightly into a "I go foward now you stay back, pew pew, now I go forward, now you pew pew, now we fight.....raghghg".

It annoys me that my gaming group hardly ever wishes to play with them, because they are worried that random chance might affect their chances of victory.....*facepalm*. It means you have to think about what that wood might be, it actually brings STRATEGY back into the game, working out whether you should risk that stream or not.

With this in mind you can place and move your units with deliberate consideration as to how those terrain pieces might affect the game.

If you are able to defeat a deathstar horde that otherwise you would struggle to even dent, because you were clever enough to utilise the terrain against your opponent....why is that a bad thing?

The mentality should not be: I lost because of some stupid terrain. It should be: I lost because I was too stupid to take terrain into consideration. Of course it is everyones choice what they play with, I dont mind if people dont want to use the terrain rules, but at least admit the true reasons as to why....well apart from if you are just too lazy to set up terrain.

Vipoid
12-07-2012, 12:41
Anyone who doesn't like the terrain rules is someone who doesn't want to have to make the effort to take into consideration the area of the battlefield. Your surroundings are as important as information on the enemy army and yours.

...

It annoys me that my gaming group hardly ever wishes to play with them, because they are worried that random chance might affect their chances of victory.....*facepalm*. It means you have to think about what that wood might be, it actually brings STRATEGY back into the game, working out whether you should risk that stream or not.

I really don't get this argument.

There's this really bizarre tendency for people to say "Random chance enhances strategy because you have to plan around it."

How? How does this make the game more strategical?

Do you know what actually makes the game more strategical? (Hint: it doesn't involve dice). Do you know what really forces you to think tactically?

An opponent.

A person with his own plan, whose only purpose is to defeat you. Think of it as a battle of wits between him and you. However, when you throw in random terrain, you make it less about strategy and planning, and more about who gets the good rolls on their forests, and who gets the bad rolls. And, once again, no one likes losing to a random number generator.


However, I will say this: If the terrain rules were generated before the game started, then I would be on your side. If you knew what every piece of terrain did before the battle started, then I believe it would add to the strategy involved (or, at the very least, wouldn't diminish it). If you know that a forest causes stupidity, then you know the risks of entering and are aware of how to mitigate them as much as possible. Similarly, if my opponent sets up models near a Blood River, then I'll be aware of the possibility of Fear, and so will deploy tactically in response (making sure I have decent Ld buffs for the squads most likely to be charged - General, BSB etc.).

But, as it is currently, when terrain effects are generated only when someone enters them... no. it just doesn't add anything tactically, because once you move in it's already too late. You can't plan around them, because there's nothing to plan around. You have no idea if the terrain will help you or hinder you. If it will help you, then you have no idea how, and so can't utilize it. Similarly, if it will harm your units, then you have no idea of how and so, once again, can't plan around it. This is *not* strategy - this is randomly getting either helped or screwed over by terrain.

Do you know what you can do though? Do you know what 'strategy' you can use to overcome this?

Ignore terrain.

Basically, just do everything you can to avoid setting foot in it, and so avoid unnecessary risks. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the entire point of random terrain to make people want to actually enter terrain? I thought that people not wanting to enter terrain at all was meant to be one of the big flaws with 7th, and exactly what the random terrain rules were meant to correct. However, avoiding terrain has become the most logical option.

IcedCrow
12-07-2012, 13:11
Because strategy involves both taking the odds / risks of the mechanics in place AND the opponent.

Avoiding risks and not wanting to use risks is fine and dandy but a game that represents a war should also represent the facets of war that make it a war... and som eof those things are events BEYOND YOUR CONTROL. Planning for the things you cannot control is indeed a part of strategic planning.

The random terrain represents unknown risks. I've noticed that a lot of players don't like risks (ever see their army lists? Optimized out the gills... why? Because they are minimizing / removing the risk by having a jacked out army)

No one entered terrain in 5th edition. No one entered terrain in 6th edition. No one entered terrain in 7th edition. No one wants to enter terrain in 8th edition. Nothing really has changed. (NO one is obvious hyperbole on my part but this applies to a good number of people)

I have won several games because a key unit became poisoned from a wood and that tipped the scales for me. I have also been hurt by terrain that damaged me. The risk part is what comes into play. The mere fact I entered an unknown forest however causes many people to go "WTF why would you do that? That was stupid! You could have had something BAD happen to you! Then the terrain would be SCREWING YOU OVER!!"

In previous editions... there was no risk. The woods just slowed you to a crawl unless you were a skirmisher so why bother entering them. Answer: you didn't. To top it off most people I know just cleared terrain away and fought on big featurless tables with some terrain along the borders.

Today: same basic deal. They ignore terrain and stack it on the borders of the table only for different reasons. Now its because they don't want the risk of the terrain hurting their units. Yeah there can be benefits too but even if there was just 1 in 20 chance of something bad happening, then that would be the game "screwing them over".

That's something that *I* personally don't understand. But then again I guess that comes down into what type of game you are looking for. A chess-like game is fun for people but other people would rather have a game that has unknown risks much like a real battle would have (and I'm not speaking out of my call of duty experience, I'm speaking out of having served in an actual combat unit outside of the little men world).

To say that there is no strategy in that is incorrect. There is as much strategy in dealing with unknown terrain elements as there is using a min/max list with deathstar hordes and ignoring terrain rules and just shoving forward shouting "TIMMEH!!!" until you meet in the middle in turn 2 or 3 while chucking 6 dice at the Purple Sun hoping for IF to win you the game. That seems to be a very highly regarded way of playing warhammer today and many people think that this is the pinnacle of strategic game play.

So to many people, the only way random terrain would ever be used is if they were 100% always something positive for you to gain. Otherwise you'd never enter them. Much like you would never take a "sub optimal" unit, because there is risk involved. If there is any risk at all, it should be avoided at all costs. Quite frankly I don't see why people just get rid of any and all terrain and just start the game in the middle of the table locked in combat with the opposing death star. It would save you time, you could get multiple games in and get rid of the useless movement phase, which only serves to move you forward to the center of the table to engage the opposing unit moving to the center of the table.

note: you means general you not a certain individual.

Andy p
12-07-2012, 13:17
I really don't get this argument.

There's this really bizarre tendency for people to say "Random chance enhances strategy because you have to plan around it."

How? How does this make the game more strategical?

Do you know what actually makes the game more strategical? (Hint: it doesn't involve dice). Do you know what really forces you to think tactically?

An opponent.

A person with his own plan, whose only purpose is to defeat you. Think of it as a battle of wits between him and you. However, when you throw in random terrain, you make it less about strategy and planning, and more about who gets the good rolls on their forests, and who gets the bad rolls. And, once again, no one likes losing to a random number generator.


Wow, dont play the game then. Because you will lose games where you did nothing wrong with your troops because of a random dice roll, you will fail easy charges or a spell you really needed because of a random dice roll. Troops who SHOULD have won 9 times out of 10 might fail that one time because of a random dice roll. This isn't an argument.

And that was my point really, as an opponent I can force people to go where I want them to with terrain because they refuse to make use of it. I am incorporating the terrain into my strategy, I allow for the person's irrational and naive fear of mysterious terrain to play into my advantage. I like putting juicy and tempting targets in front of or behind trees or a river, because people are so paranoid about a bloody forest, that they wont risk anything. Nevermind that the majority of them arent even of consequence.

I dont see why this isn't a part of strategy, it seems really odd to my mind that people are so concerned about something outside of their control ruining their chances of victory....how about you take control of it then? Because you can take control of it, you can choose where to place certain units since the terrain is places before

I MAKE THE TERRAIN PART OF MY PLAN! Seriously, how doesn't random chance make the game more strategical? Or at the least....tactical which is different but relevant.



However, I will say this: If the terrain rules were generated before the game started, then I would be on your side. If you knew what every piece of terrain did before the battle started, then I believe it would add to the strategy involved (or, at the very least, wouldn't diminish it). If you know that a forest causes stupidity, then you know the risks of entering and are aware of how to mitigate them as much as possible. Similarly, if my opponent sets up models near a Blood River, then I'll be aware of the possibility of Fear, and so will deploy tactically in response (making sure I have decent Ld buffs for the squads most likely to be charged - General, BSB etc.).

But you can do that though, that's why I said people can choose what they want to choose. But many people disregard special terrain altogether out of some fear of it doing them over. There are still static rules to terrain that are more likely to do you over, such as steadfast being removed by forests. Compared to that the occasional D6 hits or stupidity is pretty inconsequental. Of course that is just forests but even rivers and buildings arent that bad and ive never seen a board that was covered with buildings and rivers.



But, as it is currently, when terrain effects are generated only when someone enters them... no. it just doesn't add anything tactically, because once you move in it's already too late. You can't plan around them, because there's nothing to plan around. You have no idea if the terrain will help you or hinder you. If it will help you, then you have no idea how, and so can't utilize it. Similarly, if it will harm your units, then you have no idea of how and so, once again, can't plan around it. This is *not* strategy - this is randomly getting either helped or screwed over by terrain.

I dont understand. Why cant you use that against your opponent?



Do you know what you can do though? Do you know what 'strategy' you can use to overcome this?

Ignore terrain.

Basically, just do everything you can to avoid setting foot in it, and so avoid unnecessary risks. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the entire point of random terrain to make people want to actually enter terrain? I thought that people not wanting to enter terrain at all was meant to be one of the big flaws with 7th, and exactly what the random terrain rules were meant to correct. However, avoiding terrain has become the most logical option.

And this is the crux of the argument; I cant control it fully so I wont bother with it. This isn't chess and it isn't going to be. You dont have to use the terrain rules but dont try to excuse your lazyness.

Actually I want to ask: How often has terrain actually ruined your games? And if you look back, could it have been something to do with disregarding their impact?

I dont force people to play with mysterious terrain, but I do tire of the same pointless arguments used to back up that dislike. You make terrain sound like some monstrous decider.

Urgat
12-07-2012, 14:00
Basically, just do everything you can to avoid setting foot in it, and so avoid unnecessary risks. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the entire point of random terrain to make people want to actually enter terrain? I thought that people not wanting to enter terrain at all was meant to be one of the big flaws with 7th, and exactly what the random terrain rules were meant to correct. However, avoiding terrain has become the most logical option.
Well then let me correct you. Since there's very good results in there just as there's very bad ones, the goal is to make the player decide whether it's a good or bad idea to enter terrain. That's risk assessment, which is a tactical skill. If I put a unit of archers in a forest and it turns out it's a poisonous thicket, you probably ain't gonna laugh if you got a monster nearby.

ColShaw
12-07-2012, 14:18
Anyone who doesn't like the terrain rules is someone who doesn't want to have to make the effort to take into consideration the area of the battlefield. Your surroundings are as important as information on the enemy army and yours.


Blanket statements do not a sound argument make. Regardless of your intention, they come across as condescending and arrogant, and weaken your point rather than strengthening it.

I fail to see how taking issue with a particular way of implementing terrain rules (i.e. random tables) shows that a player doesn't want to "take into consideration the area of the battlefield." Any terrain rules force you to take the terrain into effect. What I, and many like me (note the absence of blanket statement), take issue with is terrain that is random, bizarre, and often has a disproportionate effect on the course of the game. Commanders throughout history have dealt with woods, rivers, buildings, and ruins... that weren't going to come to life and kill them.

IcedCrow
12-07-2012, 14:25
How about change Blood Forest to Ambush Forest. Where instead of the trees coming to life, you change the flavor text to "enemies in the woods hiding ambush the unit".

What would you consider a "disproportionate effect"? I've never had the terrain totally decide a game for me, it has supported in one way or another (for or against)

MiyamatoMusashi
12-07-2012, 14:35
Commanders throughout history have dealt with woods, rivers, buildings, and ruins... that weren't going to come to life and kill them.

Exactly this.

People consider Alexander a great general, but at the Battle of Issus he had to deal with a river and a Persian army that outnumbered him three to one. The river didn't need to be randomly either boiling or made of blood to make what he did that day an awesome achievement.

People consider Hannibal a great general, but he didn't win Cannae by walking into a wood that made his troops' arrows randomly poisonous. He won it by inventing a tactic based around manoeuvre and the strengths and weaknesses of his men that revolutionised warfare and is still taught in military colleges two thousand years later. "Find a wood that makes your weapons poisonous" is not, as far as I know, part of the curriculum.

People consider Napoleon a great general, for all that he made some mistakes; but when he fought the brilliant Italian campaign in his early career, he didn't win it because the Italians accidentally walked past a nest of psychic wasps - he won it through brilliant and inspired manoeuvre that left his enemies clutching at thin air. Likewise, when he finally lost, at Waterloo, it was Wellington's stalwart defence coupled with Blucher's belief in his allies and his determination to come to their aid that were the prime factors; it wasn't because Napoleon marched through a swamp and got molested by a Fimir.

"Random terrain makes things more strategic", indeed. Stuff and nonsense. If you think it makes the game more fun for you, then just say so, and good luck to you, though you might want to think about accepting that different people find different things fun. But don't try to make out (like andy p did, and a few others in this thread) that his own personal preferences for what is fun have some kind of morally superior connection to strategy, and everyone who disagrees with him is lacking in the finer subtleties of the military arts (and by implication should take up knitting or something instead). Absolute rubbish.

Urgat
12-07-2012, 14:42
Commanders throughout history have dealt with woods, rivers, buildings, and ruins... that weren't going to come to life and kill them.
Few of them faced dragons, undead, orcs or trolls, too... And just after lecturing Andy P on weakening one's point...


People consider Hannibal a great general, but he didn't win Cannae by walking into a wood that made his troops' arrows randomly poisonous. [...]People consider Napoleon a great general, for all that he made some mistakes; but when he fought the brilliant Italian campaign in his early career, he didn't win it because the Italians accidentally walked past a nest of psychic wasps

Yet they would have taken the opportunity if they'd found such things on the battlefield, however outlandish they would have appeared to them. It wouldn't have made their tactics any less relevant.
If they didn't use those things, it's because they didn't exist. If Napoleon had had access to orbital ion canons or a handful of wizard lords, he wouldn't have lost at Waterloo, because he would have used them. You were not really making a point, you know :/

IcedCrow
12-07-2012, 15:15
Random terrain DOES make the game more strategic because it makes you deal with unknown elements and risk mitigation more so than if they were not included, which by their very inclusion make you have to deal with them which is where strategy comes into play. By adding them to the game you have added a strategic element, which makes the game more strategic because there is another layer you have to deal with (more layers)

There's nothing nonsensical about saying random terrain makes the game more strategic anymore than saying that an object that has four equal length sides is a square. By adding an element to something you make the overall result more of, as it possess a greater amount of the element. You may not like it, you may hate it, it may rub you the wrong way, but random terrain does in fact make you have to deal with the unknown and strategize how to use or avoid it.

Something that is more fun is of course not neccessarily more strategic. If anyone were to say that the game is more fun with random terrain therefore it is more strategic, then I would never agree with that person in those regards. That argument gets tossed on both sides of the fence. The people that hate random terrain poo poo it with phrases like "whacky-hammer" and by saying that the game is so random that even a 7 year old novice can take on an "experienced vet" and that there is "no strategy or tactics in warhammer now, just throwing dice", which get tossed about all the time in many venues be it my local store or various internet forums when dealing with this very topic.

It's mainly said from someone bitter who is angry that they lost or that they could lose the game because their chess tactics may not always work anymore. And yes that means that it is less fun for them because the game doesn't give them absolute control, which there is nothing wrong with not having fun or having fun, but when one side poohs the other side it becomes like politics.

Andy p
12-07-2012, 17:39
Blanket statements do not a sound argument make. Regardless of your intention, they come across as condescending and arrogant, and weaken your point rather than strengthening it.

I fail to see how taking issue with a particular way of implementing terrain rules (i.e. random tables) shows that a player doesn't want to "take into consideration the area of the battlefield." Any terrain rules force you to take the terrain into effect. What I, and many like me (note the absence of blanket statement), take issue with is terrain that is random, bizarre, and often has a disproportionate effect on the course of the game. Commanders throughout history have dealt with woods, rivers, buildings, and ruins... that weren't going to come to life and kill them.

Does it have a disproportionate effect on the game? I would like to see a study using a group of gamers playing a set number of games and seeing how many of them were won or lost because of terrain.

As for my blanket statement, 'many like me' is just as vague except you have ushered in a series of faceless nobodies in a poor attempt to back up your own generalisations. And if I have to mention what is wrong with 'commanders throughout history' I may just need to go sky-diving without the parachute.

I do however notice the irony, (not to mention hypocrisy), in condescending towards me about my apparant condescension.



"Random terrain makes things more strategic", indeed. Stuff and nonsense. If you think it makes the game more fun for you, then just say so, and good luck to you, though you might want to think about accepting that different people find different things fun. But don't try to make out (like andy p did, and a few others in this thread) that his own personal preferences for what is fun have some kind of morally superior connection to strategy, and everyone who disagrees with him is lacking in the finer subtleties of the military arts (and by implication should take up knitting or something instead). Absolute rubbish.

Well this is about preference yes and I did say that people are free to use what they want in regards to terrain, im not going to force people to use the rules if they dont wish to. But I do think it is slightly biased to pretend that the other side of this argument isn't debating about strategy when there are blatent examples of just that.

Also it is a strawman to mention 'and everyone who disagrees with him is lacking in the finer subtleties of the military arts (and by implication should take up knitting or something instead.' not only is that not even close to my argument, but I thought it was clear that this was about the context of strategic planning in WARHAMMER.

Im not saying that people who dont wish to use the rules are strategically impaired but that they pretend the reason is because of an element of chance from arbitrary dice rolls, when in reality if they wanted to incorporate the terrain into their games, they could, but many refuse to because of a fear that they bring in much more influence than they actually do. If you want a true element of unfair chance in this tabletop gaming system, look at something like animosity; which I dont object to because it does fit in with the element of O&G's but that's irrelevant to this topic.

In the case of fun, it really is up to you. If you were playing with me for example, it's not as if id bark at you like a drill sergeant and say: "oi you miserable ****, get that terrain out!!" but I just dont see the argument that they bring this horrible level of randomness that has a great deal of control over the games outcome.

Although im sorry if I came across somewhat earnest in my position.

Lord Inquisitor
12-07-2012, 20:19
Random terrain DOES make the game more strategic because it makes you deal with unknown elements and risk mitigation more so than if they were not included, which by their very inclusion make you have to deal with them which is where strategy comes into play. By adding them to the game you have added a strategic element, which makes the game more strategic because there is another layer you have to deal with (more layers)

With this argument it is all a matter of degrees. I know we've discussed this before, but again I feel the issue is very much one of where you draw the line.

Clearly, yes, a certain amount of uncertainty is part and parcel with a game like WFB or 40K. The vast majority of wargames use dice or some other form of random number generator to represent this uncertainty. I absolutely cannot disagree that this is part of what we consider strategy and without the element of chance there would be no requirement for contingency planning and all that.

However, it is also absolutely the case that increasing randomness decreases the impact the players' decisions have on the game. If every unit moved randomly we would have no control over them and there would be no game. Likewise, terrain that had a rule something like "on a 4+ you win, 1-3 your opponent wins" as a reductio ad absurdum, while technically balanced, is not a fun game at all!

At the other extreme, chess - and I know you yourself are a chess player, undoubtedly vastly better one than I am - has plenty of skill required to win.

So at low levels of randomness, increasing randomness increases the level of flexibility required of the players. But increasing randomness corresponds exactly with reduced impact of player actions on the game. At low levels, then, we deem the game too predictable, not representative of the very real effect chance has in real combat. At high levels, on the other hand, the game ceases to be one that tests the skill of the players but merely involves the most lucky player winning. Both are not desirable, but most people would rather err on the side of "less random" than "more random".

There is a line that is necessarily rather blurred. Most of the time we prefer to deal in probabilities - troops with higher stats are more likely to win against troops with lower stats. This appeals to us, we can stack the odds in our favour but we still have the possibility of unlikely odds to contend with.

Most of the complaints about terrain aren't that they should be entirely predictable, but that they're freakishly random. You can't know for sure how many models you will lose to dangerous terrain, but you can make a reasonable prediction. You can't predict what a Sorcerous Portal is going to do.

The other aspect is the level of impact of the terrain feature. These vary from a fairly benign Elven Waystone to far more game-changing effects. Many give an advantage to one side and not the other or they have a phenomenal impact on the game - playing against Warriors of Chaos with a Tower of Blood in the middle of the board is pretty horrendous, which I experienced the other day. Giving basically the whole enemy army Hatred and Frenzy dominated the game. Likewise a Boiling Flood can literally destroy an army. I did that once, used Siren Song to pull a TK army into a Boiling Flood. While amusing (it still makes me chuckle) but it really wasn't much of a game.

The very worst offenders are both highly random and highly game-affecting. Blasted sorcerous portals are a prime example. The effect of the portal is pretty much entirely random, you can't predict what it'll do. Handing out Wildform or Soulblight can have a huge effect on the game. My first game of 8th had a sorcerous portal and nothing we did seemed to make as much difference as that damn portal. With no maximum range and a really significant effect of the spells it was really game dominating. I nearly ragequit the game right then. :shifty:

So in conclusion a bit of randomness is okay, but a lot is not. Likewise, if something is random but not that important, it's okay it's a bit of flavour that's all. But if it is random and really dominates the game more than player movement or action, yes that's going to be annoying.

Maoriboy007
12-07-2012, 20:56
I find that when terrain does affect the game , that is in the wrong way. When an opponant beats me (or vice versa) I want it to be because I was cleverly outmaneuvered, not because some stupid statue randomly blasted half of my army into oblivion....

IcedCrow
12-07-2012, 22:10
Ok guys... I've never once seen a statue randomly blast half of an army into oblivion in 8th. I've played many many games of it with the random terrain. The worst thing I've seen is a large unit of fast cav got mangled one time. The rest of the time the effects are usually very benign.

Therefore I do not see how the random terrain is that game impacting. Could it be? Sure, I can also roll 13 1s in a row when rolling to hit. And I've done that twice. In 5th edition my chaos lord had 13 attacks needing 3s to hit, I rolled all 1s.

In 6th edition I had four cannons and two hell blasters that all rolled a misfire and then a 1 on the chart to blow up in Chicago.

It happens. It's very very rare but it happens.


Most of the complaints about terrain aren't that they should be entirely predictable, but that they're freakishly random.

The complaints I see so very very often are that the random terrain will cause you to lose the game and like the above, will "blow your army into oblivion", when I've never once seen that be the case ever. So freakishly random results that just implode an army I am not seeing. If you could trigger a purple sun or something when walking over a fence, I could see your point. I'm not seeing that ever. The effects of the terrain are all typically very benign, such as offering poisoned attacks, doing D6 S4 or S5 hits, etc...

Example:


I find that when terrain does affect the game , that is in the wrong way. When an opponant beats me (or vice versa) I want it to be because I was cleverly outmaneuvered, not because some stupid statue randomly blasted half of my army into oblivion....

This this this has NEVER once happened in any games I've played or watched in this edition.

A second heavy set of complaints I see is that there should be nothing on the table that is unpredictable. That you should be able to roll everything up at the beginning so you know everything before the game begins. So indeed many people complain that they don't like any random elements on the table at all (they usually then cross rant into random charge distances and why that makes 8th edition a game for monkeys and lower evolved primates because it has "no tactics, just lots of dice rolling") which is highly disingenuous.

I've had to deal with sorcerous portals before many times. They influence the game yes. NO QUESTION. But they did not ever dominate the game.

I still think the issue with those that hate the terrain in many cases is that you cannot out-list the terrain because you don't know what's going to be there. You can't optimize against that which you don't know is coming. When I look at the people who complain the loudest about random terrain, 99% of them are all avid hardcore tournament goers. I'm not saying that to browbeat or to degrade, I'm saying that I notice the ones that care the most about it are the ones who are more concerned with total balanced games for tournaments (which is kind of fun when you consider that GW games are never balanced and the army lists are always skewed).

I agree that too much random is bad. However the random that exists in warhammer fantasy is not ... IMO... too much random. It closer aligns to a proper battle. That's why I like it more. In a proper battle you don't have that much control over your force that you did in previous editions of this game. In proper battles you do have the terrain to contend with and sometimes you don't know what the terrain held in store for you.

I think the best answer is that there should (and indeed are) be events that don't use the random terrain. In fact I know of events that use the old charge distance rules and no random terrain. It works for them, they enjoy it, so my hats off to them (though they used to ding us for houseruling because houseruling to them meant that "someone beat you and you couldn't deal with it so you houseruled it away", now they don't say anything lol)

ColShaw
12-07-2012, 22:12
Anyone who doesn't like the terrain rules is someone who doesn't want to have to make the effort to take into consideration the area of the battlefield. Your surroundings are as important as information on the enemy army and yours.


Im not saying that people who dont wish to use the rules are strategically impaired but that they pretend the reason is because of an element of chance from arbitrary dice rolls, when in reality if they wanted to incorporate the terrain into their games, they could, but many refuse to because of a fear that they bring in much more influence than they actually do. If you want a true element of unfair chance in this tabletop gaming system, look at something like animosity; which I dont object to because it does fit in with the element of O&G's but that's irrelevant to this topic.

So..."anybody" becomes "many" which, as you kindly noted below, is also somewhat of a "weasel word" statement. You also are ascribing motive to people whose motives you could not reasonably know (the "fear" comment).


As for my blanket statement, 'many like me' is just as vague except you have ushered in a series of faceless nobodies in a poor attempt to back up your own generalisations. And if I have to mention what is wrong with 'commanders throughout history' I may just need to go sky-diving without the parachute.

I do however notice the irony, (not to mention hypocrisy), in condescending towards me about my apparant condescension.

Fair enough. I apologize for any condescension on my part. Here's, as best I can manage, what I ought to have said:

I interpreted your post as condescending and insulting to people who do not agree with you, myself included. I personally believe that having randomly determined terrain effects brings an unnecessary degree of randomness to a tactical game which already has a great deal of it. In my opinion, tactical skill is better tested by dealing with the enemy you find on the battlefield, and the known quantity of the battlefield itself (which is to say, woods slow down and disorganize bodies of troops, water slows everybody, buildings are difficult and dangerous to assault and clear, etc.)

Obviously we disagree. Let's try to both do so without the strawmen and ad hominem attacks going forward, shall we?

Urgat
13-07-2012, 02:14
Ok guys... I've never once seen a statue randomly blast half of an army into oblivion in 8th. I've played many many games of it with the random terrain. The worst thing I've seen is a large unit of fast cav got mangled one time. The rest of the time the effects are usually very benign.


Maybe he was playing a 200pts game? :p

Lord Inquisitor
13-07-2012, 16:36
Ok guys... I've never once seen a statue randomly blast half of an army into oblivion in 8th. I've played many many games of it with the random terrain. The worst thing I've seen is a large unit of fast cav got mangled one time. The rest of the time the effects are usually very benign.
I've seen much worse than that. I've had literally half my army in model count die in an Ard Boyz prelim game to various sources. The TK + boiling flood example I gave the terrain literally destroyed the vast majority. Now, I did use Siren Song to pull his units into the river and Acquiescence to make them stupid and keep them there, so the river had a bit of help, but really I would say the river accounted for around 90% of his army. An extreme example to be sure, but terrain can have a MASSIVE effect on the mechanics of the game. Again, giving a WoC army Frenzy and Hatred to basically all units is not something that's trivial at all, particularly when my units don't get the same bonus.


Therefore I do not see how the random terrain is that game impacting. Could it be? Sure, I can also roll 13 1s in a row when rolling to hit. And I've done that twice. In 5th edition my chaos lord had 13 attacks needing 3s to hit, I rolled all 1s.
Rolling 13 1s out of 13 dice is 13,060,694,016 to 1 (and frankly above my "yeah right" threshold for internet stories - no offence). Rolling a boiling flood is 1 in 6. See the difference? Likewise a S4 hit ignoring armour saves on every model in the terrain feature is not something I would count as a unlikely thing to impact a unit that gets caught in the terrain feature.


The complaints I see so very very often are that the random terrain will cause you to lose the game and like the above, will "blow your army into oblivion", when I've never once seen that be the case ever. So freakishly random results that just implode an army I am not seeing.
Many are rather more subtle than that, but no less powerful. Last time I was playing WFB my friend was playing someone else on a table with a Sorcerous Portal and his chaos warriors had their Chaos Armour stripped off them, literally reduced to zero armour. Sure, it didn't kill them, but that's a big change for the game! Next game we played and we had the Tower of Blood in the middle of the table. There's a big difference between his Warriors having their armour permanently removed and being granted Frenzy and Hatred! These aren't small, trivial little effects for flavour when we're talking about a horde of warriors.

IcedCrow
13-07-2012, 17:51
I used to have a picture of the occurance on my blog =)

As to the other thing, I would say then to only participate in events that do not utilize the random terrain if that is what would make the game more enjoyable for you. As an aside, and very much in general and not geared toward you or anyone here, the only thing that burns me is when someone mentions how now the game is for lower primates and that their strategic genius is being screwed over by the random charges and terrain because it's insulting (and most often is the case those people couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag without having a min/max list to rely on)

I am a big advocate of houseruling. I've done it forever and will do it forever. The only difference right now is that I am playing in an edition of both fantasy and 40k where I don't have to houserule a lot anymore because the game more closely aligns to what I want whereas before the game closer aligned to things I did not like, so that makes me happy right now from my own personal standpoint until the game swings again which it inevitably will.

Vipoid
13-07-2012, 18:41
As an aside, and very much in general and not geared toward you or anyone here, the only thing that burns me is when someone mentions how now the game is for lower primates and that their strategic genius is being screwed over by the random charges and terrain because it's insulting

Heh, I imagine you must really hate (http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2011/06/why-does-fantasy-suck/)Stelek (http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2012/01/warhammer-fantasy-gameplay-wise-whats-wrong-with-it/)then (http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2011/06/fantasy-the-laughs-continue/). :p

IcedCrow
13-07-2012, 19:14
Hate it? no. It just very much sounds like someone who is bitter that his old tactics don't work anymore and he doesn't want to be bothered with learning how the new edition really works. There are enough logical fallacies in there to invalidate most of what he's saying based on the amount of hyperbole he uses alone lol.

Lorcryst
13-07-2012, 19:19
Heh, I imagine you must really hate (http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2011/06/why-does-fantasy-suck/)Stelek (http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2012/01/warhammer-fantasy-gameplay-wise-whats-wrong-with-it/)then (http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2011/06/fantasy-the-laughs-continue/). :p

OK, I read those ... all I see is a bitter WAAC tournament player that cannot have fun ... oh, and is quite rude too ... no respect whatsoever for others, huge globs of bile, and a very biased opinion based on the Ard Boyz tournament.

We don't play the same game, me and him.

And I'm glad for that.

Of particular note is his vitriolic view of "beer and pretzels gamers", when that was the point of the game for 25 years now ... Fantasy NEVER was geared towards tournament play.

Urgat
13-07-2012, 19:49
Heh, I imagine you must really hate (http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2011/06/why-does-fantasy-suck/)Stelek (http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2012/01/warhammer-fantasy-gameplay-wise-whats-wrong-with-it/)then (http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2011/06/fantasy-the-laughs-continue/). :p

How can he ask for 40k bodycount and then call that armies? :eyebrows:

T10
17-07-2012, 11:09
Does anyone else use little markers for the mysterious terrain? Very simple, or just write down what happens on a scrap piece of paper. Takes a few seconds, put it next to the forest or river, and you don't need to keep referencing the book. I do not understand when people say it is too hard to remember additional rules.

I think GF9 even makes a set of tokens.

There are usually no more than four pieces of forest terrain on our standard table, so keeping track of what's what usually isn't a problem.

Snake1311
17-07-2012, 11:34
Heh, I imagine you must really hate (http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2011/06/why-does-fantasy-suck/)Stelek (http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2012/01/warhammer-fantasy-gameplay-wise-whats-wrong-with-it/)then (http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2011/06/fantasy-the-laughs-continue/). :p

This amused me greatly, this guy is a massive loser :D

He's also clearly never heard of comp, which fixes over half of the things he rages about (the important half anyway).

And he plays space marines in 40k, which discredits him automatically. Although I find it funny how he complains that cover has no effect on the game, when he runs power armour in 40k :D

Lord Solar Plexus
17-07-2012, 11:53
Ah, good old Stelek. Still raving and frothing and strutting his life upon a stage until it's heard no more...

I remember two games in which terrain contributed to my defeat:

In the first one, a unit of Slaves fought my Knights (12 + BSB + TGM). Of course the former would be steadfast for a looong time but I had something else in store for a flank charge. The problem was that a Blood Tower gave the Slaves hatred and frenzy every round, and so they were able to defeat the Knights with just S3 attacks after two rounds before I could get help over.

In another one, I reduced a HPA to 5 wounds, then it drank from a fountain and restored them all.

Of course houses and rocks and narrow defiles have had an impact on the deployment or movement of units more often than I can count. Which has nothing to do with magical terrain and is I think as it should be.

Skopey
17-07-2012, 12:04
wow nerd rage lol. That guy needs to take a break from wargaming a bit i think. Sheesh. Its not like its a pro sport. Its just a game. Plus comparing it to Having an Xbox etc made me smile XD Why would i get any of those when a top spec PC would be much better. Plus he failed to mention the fact the games for them cost a fortune. So yeah he could get all those consoles for the price of an army but he'd be bored with no games to play on em ;)

Ghremdal
17-07-2012, 12:36
We generally use only nonmagical terrain, only the rivers/forests are mysterious. Most of the time the effects of mysterious terrain don't add much (if at all) but sometimes it changes things up. For example, a boiling flood wiped out 15 of my NG at one time, which diminished their numbers considerably, so they could not remain steadfast. Though that was my own fault for not using another unit to check what the river was.

Nonmagical terrain plays a huge role in our games however. The biggest effect it has is to deny steadfast, limit movement and to block LOS. And it all comes down to just nonmagical forests, rivers, hills and buildings.

We only occasionally use other magical terrain, and only use it if a impartial third party places it on the table, or both players agree on it. Some magical terrain is over the top. Others are fairly fun and balanced (idol of Gork for example).

Urgat
17-07-2012, 12:46
wow nerd rage lol. That guy needs to take a break from wargaming a bit i think. Sheesh. Its not like its a pro sport. Its just a game. Plus comparing it to Having an Xbox etc made me smile XD Why would i get any of those when a top spec PC would be much better. Plus he failed to mention the fact the games for them cost a fortune. So yeah he could get all those consoles for the price of an army but he'd be bored with no games to play on em ;)

Do people really give a damn to random nobody's whose ego are so big they feel the need to make websites about their "truths"? It's not even opinions anymore there, it's "I say it's like that so it's like that" (well, only needed to read the blog's name to guess what was coming).

Vipoid
17-07-2012, 12:54
Nonmagical terrain plays a huge role in our games however. The biggest effect it has is to deny steadfast, limit movement and to block LOS. And it all comes down to just nonmagical forests, rivers, hills and buildings.

Sorry, but how does nonmagical terrain deny steadfast? :confused:

IcedCrow
17-07-2012, 12:57
Forests and rivers take away steadfast.

Vipoid
17-07-2012, 13:03
Forests and rivers take away steadfast.

Ah, so they do.

I was looking at the Steadfast rule. :p

Urgat
17-07-2012, 13:04
Rivers also prevent marching and remove rank bonus.
Forests are dangerous terrain for almost everything that's not infantry and moves anything but normal move, provides light cover and remove steadfast (gives steadfast to skirmishers).
They're very important, even w/o being mysterious, whatever people say.

IcedCrow
17-07-2012, 13:04
That's a very commonly overlooked rule actually :) I've had to make it a point to mention it specifically in our league packets.

Ghremdal
17-07-2012, 15:28
My Wyvern warboss loves rivers and forests, my friends marauder hordes not so much. Even Warriors/Chosen are at risk when venturing in them.

Favorite tactic of mine is to try and bait charges into such terrain and then countercharge with my wyvern boss or arachnarok.

Phazael
17-07-2012, 15:35
Random Terrain really only affects the game where woods are concerned. Very few people enter water features, if they are even present, so those rarely come into play. The only forest result that can hose a game plan is the fungal forest, because stupidity can wreck an entire gameplan, especially if it happens to a perimeter unit outside the LD bubble. Other than that, the mysterious wood effects are mostly minor inconveniances that can be mitigated with preperation. I do think it is silly that Wood Elves do not get to ignore some of the negatives of them, however.

My only real issue with mysterious terrain is that it is logistically annoying and people often forget what was rolled up. The 40k tables are far more random and unforgiving.

Phazael
17-07-2012, 15:37
PS- Stelek is a massive tool with personal issues that bleed into his internet ramblings. The fact that he thinks he knows everything about fantasy without ever having played it in a single GT tells you all you need to know about him.

Eternus
17-07-2012, 16:07
In short, I voted that I use them where possible, but agree with the pro MT crowd, that there should be fewer pieces of MT on the table. Maybe if half the terrain pieces (rounding up) were Mysterious Terrain, randomising which ones they were, it would be better. I certainly think woods & rivers etc are worth it for the Steadfast breakage, and as such are tactically important which is great, but having a bit more random never hurt a game IMO.

I hate when people can plan out the entire battle in advance, and 8th is all about breaking that trend.

IcedCrow
17-07-2012, 16:10
Real battles you couldn't plan out in advance so that's why I also like 8th.

And for water features, you force the opponent to use them by parking your unit next to it and if he wants to charge and has to maximize his models you can make his unit touch the river, thus breaking his steadfast.

Vipoid
17-07-2012, 16:10
I hate when people can plan out the entire battle in advance, and 8th is all about breaking that trend.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

Are you saying that you don't like people to be able to strategise before a game starts? :confused:

IcedCrow
17-07-2012, 16:13
If he's on my line of thought it means that you can set up each turn and outcome before the game starts. 7th edition was largely like that, you could look at a table layout and predict every turn like a movie script.

Eternus
17-07-2012, 16:40
I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

Are you saying that you don't like people to be able to strategise before a game starts? :confused:

Strategising is one thing, and I have no issue with this, but some people took it to the nth degree in 7th, knowing exactly how far their units could move etc, but in 8th, you have to account for the randomness of imprecise charge ranges, the magic phase and terrain effects. In short, you have to plan more flexibly, to allow for a hugely changeable set of circumstances.

You can't be as sure how a game of 8th will turn out compared to 7th, which is the best thing about it in my opinion. In extreme cases during 7th, you didn't even have to put models down on the table to know the outcome, just compare the lists and who was playing. Now every battle is worth playing.

But I'm not going to turn this into a 7th vs 8th rant. :angel:

Maoriboy007
17-07-2012, 21:29
Strategising is one thing, and I have no issue with this, but some people took it to the nth degree in 7th, knowing exactly how far their units could move etc, but in 8th, you have to account for the randomness of imprecise charge ranges, the magic phase and terrain effects. In short, you have to plan more flexibly, to allow for a hugely changeable set of circumstances.

You can't be as sure how a game of 8th will turn out compared to 7th, which is the best thing about it in my opinion. In extreme cases during 7th, you didn't even have to put models down on the table to know the outcome, just compare the lists and who was playing. Now every battle is worth playing.

But I'm not going to turn this into a 7th vs 8th rant. :angel:When someone puts down a Chosenstar and a wizard I pretty much know how the game is going to play, I'm going to avoid it like the plague and hes going to cast Infernal Gateway and Pandemoneum so much its sickening. Same as with any steadfast block,unless I can magic it off the table I'll spend 3-4 turns of grinding with it. Not that the one turn combats of 7th were much better (although they were at least quicker) but 8th is just a different side of the same coin really and can be equally annoying. It just depends which side of the coin you prefer.

Toshiro
17-07-2012, 21:34
I *wish* the scenarios would provide for terrain as well. "Town Battle", for example, would force you to set up a village or town and defend it from marauders. "Dawn Attack" could require setting up an encampment or some such. You get the general idea.

Rolling on the random chart can make for some very silly battlefields. Oh look! A dwarf brewhouse constructed next door to an Idol of Mork! Oh my god, this village is set up alongside a River of Blood. Excellent for irrigation, I hear! Look at this tiny patch of woods that beat the **** out of anyone who steps inside! Surely the people of this area love to risk their children's lives living so near such a dangerous place!

We've solved this in our local gaming community by putting up terrain together without rolling, simply striving to build a beautiful and sensible field that is enjoyable to play on. :)

Urgat
17-07-2012, 21:43
When someone puts down a Chosenstar and a wizard I pretty much know how the game is going to play

Hopefully this is over in a few months.

Lord Solar Plexus
18-07-2012, 05:42
Do people really give a damn to random nobody's whose ego are so big they feel the need to make websites about their "truths"?

Yes, they do, really. The guy has a following like some TV prophet. Or perhaps he's writing the sycophantic posts there himself, who knows?



It just depends which side of the coin you prefer.

In my neck of the woods, you need the whole coin to pay for stuff.

Urgat
18-07-2012, 05:58
Yes, they do, really. The guy has a following like some TV prophet.

That must be one happy crowd. Well I'll just quickly forget he exists, it's a waste of brain cells.