PDA

View Full Version : No terrain charts? huh?



Shimmergloom
10-09-2006, 01:00
Are they in the $50 rulebook or something?

If not how are we suppose to generate terrain?

What's to keep wood elf players from just littering the table with woods?

NakedFisherman
10-09-2006, 01:13
Just say you're done placing terrain after you place the first.

The big rulebook has multiple ways of setting up terrain. There are no terrain charts, though.

Use the ones from 6th Edition if you want to set up terrain in that manner.

DeathMasterSnikch
10-09-2006, 01:35
The hell?! No terrain chart? How do these new terrain deployment rules work then?

IcedCrow
10-09-2006, 01:35
Just like in 40k... they got rid of the terrain charts.

Peegore
10-09-2006, 10:14
The method isn't new at all, it's just become the 'standard' method thats all.

I like the idea that you just pick x items from the terrain you have, and tactically choose where to place then when to stop. The main change, for the better IMO is to keep the centre of the table clear of terrain.

Bit of a beggar if the only terrain your opponent with the wood elves owns is Woods... I think I'll be making a couple of portable pieces to take to games. Just in case...

the anti santa
10-09-2006, 10:33
Though there would need to be a way of stopping gunlines fighting on a football pitch, equally deploying a huge hill in the centre of the table would nefr the gunline.

No bad thing in my opinion.

DeathMasterSnikch
10-09-2006, 11:35
I know removing terrain charts isn't that strange. We didn't use terrain charts usually but it's nice to have the option. We always used terrain charts when fighting a friendly tourney.

Gorbad Ironclaw
10-09-2006, 13:02
What's to keep wood elf players from just littering the table with woods?


Err, tell him that you are not playing if he insist the entire table is one giant forest?


Alternativly, just draw up your own charts if you feel you need it. It's not like it's that difficult.

The way we do it is just to pick a piece of terrain, place it somewhere, and then the opponent scatters it 2d6". Keep going until it looks about right. And if the scatter produce something unplayable, adjust it.

Avian
10-09-2006, 13:39
Though there would need to be a way of stopping gunlines fighting on a football pitch, equally deploying a huge hill in the centre of the table would nefr the gunline.
Ah, but you are not allowed to place anything within 12" of the centre of the table, so that won't work.

Rioghan Murchadha
10-09-2006, 22:58
One thing that I wish they would've done, is carefully define terrain types the way they've done in 40k now.

I remember that hills used to be considered to slope up towards the centre regardless of what they looked like.. Made it a hell of a lot easier to determine higher ground bonus in combat..

Voltaire
10-09-2006, 23:03
The terrain tables have been replaced by something that's catching on worldwide - common sense.

People deciding where to place available terrain using their mind is really beginning to take off. Who knows, by next year people might even be able to make other important decisions without needing help from something mindless.

Oooh look, a plastic giant ;)

Shimmergloom
10-09-2006, 23:08
The terrain chart was the only thing balancing terrain. It kept people from just picking the terrain that best suited their army and placing it on the table.

Like someone said upthread, what's to keep me from just saying after I put down one hill, that I'm done.

And then you just have an empty table.

I do like the special features though. I just wish they'd kept a generic terrain chart in there. It would have taken up 2 pages max.

Peegore
11-09-2006, 00:09
The rules let you deploy one more piece of terrain after one player says he's finished. Both players must deploy 1 piece before they can pass, so you should see at minimum 2 pieces.

As for the 12" radius dead zone, then I imagine that we will see more dependance than ever before on flanking manouvers, attempting to use what terrain is there for cover.

Don't forget, there is still a dice roll to choose table edge. 50/50 chance that the Empire Artillery you face might not get the nice big single hill they just put in one of the deployment zones...;)

Personally, my group just chuck 6 or so pieces of terrain of our (joint) choice onto the board and scatter them 3d6". If they go off the table, then they don't get used. Simple.

druchii
11-09-2006, 02:23
[QUOTE=Shimmergloom;934040]Like someone said upthread, what's to keep me from just saying after I put down one hill, that I'm done.

And then you just have an empty table.QUOTE]


Pherhaps the fact that I'd spill my pop on your army and pack my things?

I honetly can't understand people who would try to ruin a perfectly good three hours of fun by trying something this peevish.

Perhaps its because I'm in my early 20s, but I can't forsee someone who tries to place a single piece of terrain on the board and be done with it, finding many games.

d

Master Jeridian
11-09-2006, 02:39
If not how are we suppose to generate terrain?


Others got to it before me..but common sense.


The terrain chart was the only thing balancing terrain. It kept people from just picking the terrain that best suited their army and placing it on the table.


If you or your opponent needs to be a f**ktard when placing terrain in order to win a game, they are not worth playing in the first place TBH. Seriously, it would become clear that they can't separate WAAC with a fun hobby.

Army List WAAC- Maybe, personally no.

Start of game (i.e. first turn) WAAC- definitely.

Terrain WAAC- pulease, grow up.

Shimmergloom
11-09-2006, 02:55
I honetly can't understand people who would try to ruin a perfectly good three hours of fun by trying something this peevish.


Why do people play Skaven, gunlines or 14power dice armies?

There's no difference when going with terrain. Your skirmishers are going to want woods everywhere and your gunlines are going to want hills everywhere.

The terrain chart made sure it was random and you could'nt control your terrain to suit your army.

It helped balance gunlines cause maybe you wouldn't get any hills on your side or no hills at all. Or maybe you were beastmen and wound up with no woods in the game.

Or you took a huge dragon, but oops, no woods or large buildings to hide him behind.

I'm sure we can all make up terrain charts and agree among friends on how to deploy terrain. But that's not the point. You're not going to always play your friends.

Same with unbalanced armies. You can agree with your friends not to play those armies and lists, but wouldn't it be much better to have the army book be balanced?

I'd rather have a terrain chart that is there to let new players understand that they need balanced lists for all sorts of terrain and not just getting to use whatever terrain they wanted all the time.

IcedCrow
11-09-2006, 03:15
After consideration... I agree with both sides.

I don't play tournaments anymore so my games don't include a hyper WAAC opponent who wants to groin stomp me through the table at all costs.

However if I played in tournaments against hyper WAAC opponents who want to groin stomp me through the table at all costs, I'd like the terrain placement to be somewhat fair.

Luckily at most of the tournaments I used to go to, a 3rd party placed the terrain.

Rioghan Murchadha
11-09-2006, 03:47
Why do people play Skaven, gunlines or 14power dice armies?


Gotta take issue here. Magic is part of the game, and an inherently risky part, with the distinct possibility for little return on investment.

I play a Tzeentch daemonic legion, led by a lord of change, backed by an exalted daemon of tzeentch, with 2 18 strong units of horrors with champs (lvl 1 sorcerors), 6 man flamer unit, and 5 man screamer unit. This army generates more power dice than the typical army, however, often, I either completely fail to cast key spells, completely fail to roll key spells during spell selection, or roll low enough that my key spell or 2 are easily dispelled even with the base 2 dispel dice an army generates.

Especially with the advent of 7th edition restricting casters to their own dice + the generic 2 only, magic is even less of a game breaker than ever before. Cry about terrain selection fine, cry about certain army comps because the lists aren't balanced fine, don't cry that magic is overpowered now... play the game with the rule and lore changes first.

Ganymede
11-09-2006, 03:53
Personally, I handle terrain selection by making several tables worth of themed terrain. I just finished up my ogre table recently, so I have even more variety.

If I want to play a game, I randomly determine which of my themed terrain sets to use.

Scythe
11-09-2006, 07:57
Why do people play Skaven, gunlines or 14power dice armies?

There's no difference when going with terrain. Your skirmishers are going to want woods everywhere and your gunlines are going to want hills everywhere.

The terrain chart made sure it was random and you could'nt control your terrain to suit your army.

It helped balance gunlines cause maybe you wouldn't get any hills on your side or no hills at all. Or maybe you were beastmen and wound up with no woods in the game.

Or you took a huge dragon, but oops, no woods or large buildings to hide him behind.

I'm sure we can all make up terrain charts and agree among friends on how to deploy terrain. But that's not the point. You're not going to always play your friends.

Same with unbalanced armies. You can agree with your friends not to play those armies and lists, but wouldn't it be much better to have the army book be balanced?

I'd rather have a terrain chart that is there to let new players understand that they need balanced lists for all sorts of terrain and not just getting to use whatever terrain they wanted all the time.

I tend to agree mostly here. There is an inherit danger that in matches like wood elves versus empire, you are only going to see woods and hills on the battlefield. I liked the bit of randomness the terrain tables brought, and allowed you to field some unusual terrain pieces from time to time.

Of course, this all isn't a problem against a reasonable opponent, and I haven't tried the actual rules yet, but still...

ernyroamer
11-09-2006, 08:22
The problem here is your little miniature general is going to be looking for the best terrain possible to fight over. This means that selecteing terrain to suit your army is actually quite fluffy.

An Empire general is going to be praising Sigmar when he discovers a battle field with one very high and long hill on it. You know the hill with an impassable cliff on the side that faces the opposition. The one that faces a completely open field with a single wood or town on the extreme far side of the battle field.

I'd wager he'd never want to fight anywhere else.

Even if his opponent ended up with the hill it's hardly bad news for the general.

Gorbad Ironclaw
11-09-2006, 08:35
I tend to agree mostly here. There is an inherit danger that in matches like wood elves versus empire, you are only going to see woods and hills on the battlefield. I liked the bit of randomness the terrain tables brought, and allowed you to field some unusual terrain pieces from time to time.

Of course, this all isn't a problem against a reasonable opponent, and I haven't tried the actual rules yet, but still...


Unless you are playing an absolute dick(and if thats the case, why play?), I really can't see it being much of an issue.

Or maybe I'm just spolied by the games I played, but it certainly haven't been a problem.
And we practically never used the terrain charts. You would just end up rolling something you didn't have at hand anyway.
I thought there best use was as inspiration for what terrain to build.

Really, the best thing to do is to just talk it over with your regular opponents. If the local gunline player insist on playing only with a single hill for his warmachines and nothing else, congratulate him on the game and go and find someone else to play. It's that simple really.

Scythe
11-09-2006, 09:20
That isn't really my issue tough, I know I won't have troubles with my regular opponents. However, what I do think it affects is the general diversity of terrain on the table. With the terrain charts, You'd roll the odd watchtower, large building, marsh or river from time to time. However with choosing terrain some of these might become overpresent or absent at all.

Avian
11-09-2006, 09:44
Of course, this all isn't a problem against a reasonable opponent, and I haven't tried the actual rules yet, but still...
I have had lots of problems with opponents deploying terrain to their own advantage and they have otherwise been quite reasonable. The reason we adopted a 100% random approach to terrain here was that players in the local league (the dwarfs and wood elves in particular) would deploy the terrain so that regardless of which side they got, they would have an advantage. This was particularly evident against less experienced players. Play against a Dwarf and there would be a hill in each diagonally opposite corner, for example. The Dwarf would deploy around his and refuse to move.
Dull, dull, dull.


And what is reasonable, anyway? If my opponent takes a lot of artillery against my very artillery-vulnerable Ogres, is it reasonable that there should be a hill in each deployment zone? If my opponent gets a hill I'm screwed and if he doesn't then he is screwed.
How easy is it to be "reasonable" in such a situation?


Humans are very often too sneaky or to dull to set up the terrain. I don't know why they dropped the terrain tables entirely, you would think they could have kept them in at least.

zak
11-09-2006, 10:54
I can see both sides of the argument. I don't see why people can't still use the table from 6th Edition if they want a random table. I understand that some opponents will moan that it's no longer 'the current rules', but these opponents need to be taken away and locked up.
In our gaming group we usually get a third party to set all the tables up and then get a random table. Sometimes your lucky, some not.
In any game where your playing against an opponent in a tournament scenario you are always going to get those that want to get that little advantage and that's where I think you need the random tables. In most tournaments I have attended this has never been a problem as the organisers set the terrain beforehand and you got on with it.

Voltaire
11-09-2006, 12:37
Fairness is the essence of Warhammer games a lot of the time. Would you be complaining so much if the random terrain generator gave your opponent a Hill? I think you would all be complaining anyway. There is no middle ground here. Either you decide the terrain and try your best to make it fair, or you do it randomly.

Scythe
11-09-2006, 16:28
I am not following you entirely. With my Dark Elves, which are pretty shooty orientated, I always have to keep in mind that I might not have a hill for certain in my deployment zone. Now with the new rules, I can almost count on it. Random is just that, random. Fair game if that wood elf player rolls 3 extra woods. Next game he might not be so lucky.

gcrutch
11-09-2006, 17:21
I stupidly threw the 6th edition rulebook away in order to make room for more 7th edition game books. Now that I no longer have the 6th edition Terrain Charts, can someone tell me if they have published or available anywhere else?

Thanks!

whitra
11-09-2006, 21:11
My group always avoided terrain issues by making sure it had a theme- river valley, outskirts of a city, temple in the foothills, etc. You discuss the ground you want to fight over with your opponent so you both have an idea of what the battleground should look like. All of us were in the habit of placing terrain that would lead to interesting situations rather than being too overpowering.

I'm making a game board for Mordheim right now, and i'm considering avoiding any beardiness with terrain placement (it's hugely important there) and I'm considering making fixed terrain, so that the whole thing can have a theme. Not sure which way I'll go.

Hashut's Li'l Helper
11-09-2006, 23:47
Gotta take issue here. Magic is part of the game, and an inherently risky part, with the distinct possibility for little return on investment.

I play a Tzeentch daemonic legion, led by a lord of change, backed by an exalted daemon of tzeentch, with 2 18 strong units of horrors with champs (lvl 1 sorcerors), 6 man flamer unit, and 5 man screamer unit. This army generates more power dice than the typical army, however, often, I either completely fail to cast key spells, completely fail to roll key spells during spell selection, or roll low enough that my key spell or 2 are easily dispelled even with the base 2 dispel dice an army generates.

Especially with the advent of 7th edition restricting casters to their own dice + the generic 2 only, magic is even less of a game breaker than ever before. Cry about terrain selection fine, cry about certain army comps because the lists aren't balanced fine, don't cry that magic is overpowered now... play the game with the rule and lore changes first.

Actually most people don't hate these armies because they can't win against them (although some certainly do). They hate them because they are not interactive. the whole game is about how you roll on your dice. What I do has very little effect on the game.

On topic though. I liked the terraign tables, even in friendly games. it allowwed a certain randomness to the terrain, while aloowing my mates and myself to place it without worrying about being thought of as gamey.

It gave different battles, different feels, and allowed us to impart a small bit of fluffines to our battles. It seems that this will lead to a lot of barren wastelands, populated only by a couple of hills or woods.

hacksaaw
12-09-2006, 00:46
Really, the best thing to do is to just talk it over with your regular opponents. If the local gunline player insist on playing only with a single hill for his warmachines and nothing else, congratulate him on the game and go and find someone else to play. It's that simple really.

Fantasy battles should be minimal in terrain. premodern battles were usually fought on relatively level and clear terrain. That is what the generals looked for inorder to fight on. if a general was manuevering his empire army before battle and ended up facing a chaos army he wouldnt deploy and fight with a hill between him and the chaos army. he would look for a ridge line like Wellington at Waterloo upon which to stand against the hord. with clear lines of fire.

so almost all battles were fought on relatively open terrain.

in fact i would probably have increased the clear zone in the middle of the table to 18 inches.( outside of special situations, look at the battle of Stirling bridge for an one).

but then im also not really psyched with the removal of the various psych tests for flank and rear attacks, they remove yet more of the "realism" from the game system.

Darkvoid_bluff
12-09-2006, 03:12
I liked the terrain tables as they brought "different" terrain to the battlefeild, if left entirely up to the players I think that we're in danger of seeing more battlefeilds based purely upon woods & hills, depending on the armies compisition.

IcedCrow
12-09-2006, 03:17
I liked the random chart in that it was "fair". I disliked the random chart in that I've seen some very odd battlefields indeed.

druchii
12-09-2006, 03:35
Why do people play Skaven, gunlines or 14power dice armies?

There's no difference when going with terrain. Your skirmishers are going to want woods everywhere and your gunlines are going to want hills everywhere.

The terrain chart made sure it was random and you could'nt control your terrain to suit your army.

It helped balance gunlines cause maybe you wouldn't get any hills on your side or no hills at all. Or maybe you were beastmen and wound up with no woods in the game.

Or you took a huge dragon, but oops, no woods or large buildings to hide him behind.

I'm sure we can all make up terrain charts and agree among friends on how to deploy terrain. But that's not the point. You're not going to always play your friends.

Same with unbalanced armies. You can agree with your friends not to play those armies and lists, but wouldn't it be much better to have the army book be balanced?

I'd rather have a terrain chart that is there to let new players understand that they need balanced lists for all sorts of terrain and not just getting to use whatever terrain they wanted all the time.

Again, see my post above.

I simply don't play people like that. If I do, I'll get my Bretonnians and I doubt they'll call me.

The game is about fun, not who can curb-stomp who.

This isn't to say that the random terrian chart in the book being done-away with is a GOOD thing, I'm just saying that with mature, GOOD gamers it shouldn't be a problem.

My friend and I have always grabbed 6-8 pieces of terrain, and thrown them randomly on the board, and then scattered them 2d6 inches. Usually we try to pick things like hills, a piece of impassible terrain, and a water feature.

I just can't understand how, in a non tournament setting, people would willingly ruin a good time by shamelessly trying to win.

Perhaps it's just because I'm past being polite, but when that dwarf player sets down a hill on both corners of the board, I place a piece of impassible terrain in the middle of the board. How is that fun?

Why not call people out on what they're doing? Explain to them how their set-up ISN'T fun to play against. Most people are reasonable, and will desist their lame actions when called on it face to face.

d

snurl
12-09-2006, 07:19
Sometimes one person in our group will set the table, so to speak, then the other players either choose or dice for which side thry want. It makes for some cool, realistic battlefields.

Lord Lucifer
12-09-2006, 13:42
The terrain chart was the only thing balancing terrain.

No it wasn't, mate.
It was one way of balancing terrain.
I sometimes used it.

Another thing I used to balance terrain was 'sportsmanship'
It's where I realised I was playing games against friends (wargaming is a social hobby, unless you play someone you've never met before, pretty soon they'll be some degree of friend) and shouldn't try to find some unfair advantage by placing terrain.

The other method I used for terrain deployment was the 'looks good' method.
It's where I make the table look pretty, and then my opponent picks the side he wants, or vice versa





Seriously, we shouldn't need an arbitrary terrain-placement method in order to enjoy a fair game of Warhammer. We should all be mature enough for that.

If you have a problem with the way your opponent places terrain, for Gawds sake talk to them.


Cheers
-Luci

whitra
12-09-2006, 13:55
Why not call people out on what they're doing? Explain to them how their set-up ISN'T fun to play against. Most people are reasonable, and will desist their lame actions when called on it face to face.
d


I agree that that's the best way to solve these issues, but too often people have told me that saying "not fun" was just my waying of trying to get an unfair advantage.

The way I see it, if you're the laid back type of player, you should already be playing with a group that can set up terrain fairly. If you're competitive in everything type of player, you should see the set up as another competition in itself and act accordingly. If you find yourself in the wrong group, find different people to play with, or accept that you'll have to play the way your group wants to play rather than calling for rules changes that force them to play like you.

IcedCrow
12-09-2006, 14:12
EXACTLY

If you are hyper competetive about your terrain placement, play with people of like minds.

If you are laid back, play with laid back people.

When you mix the two together you often have issues!

Avian
12-09-2006, 16:01
If you're competitive in everything type of player, you should see the set up as another competition in itself and act accordingly.
Just because you are a competitive player doesn't mean you think that terrain placement should be part of the competition. Heck, I don't think that the skills required to get the most out of terrain placement are of the kind that have much to do with Warhammer.



But let's just get to the point, shall we?

Do you think that removing an option when it comes to placing terrain makes for an overall better game?


You can choose not to use terrain tables that exist, but you cannot chose to use terrain tables that do not exist. I cannot understand why people here are opposed to including the option in the rulebook. Why is that?

Gorbad Ironclaw
12-09-2006, 16:05
I cannot understand why people here are opposed to including the option in the rulebook. Why is that?


Not oppose to them being included(did anyone actually say that?), just that I don't think they are needed. I think they can be good as examples, but I don't think they are that good as actualy playing aids.

IcedCrow
12-09-2006, 16:08
I don't care if they exist either way.

Avian
12-09-2006, 16:10
I don't think they are needed.
You watch some innocent noob get butchered by a canny veteran who places terrain to get the maximum advantage, and I think you will change your opinion. That kind of practice just leads to dissatisfied and upset noobs and that ain't got for the hobby, if you ask me.

Gorbad Ironclaw
12-09-2006, 16:14
But what does a terrain chat have to do a canny veteran butcheing a innocent noob? Thats pretty much going to happen anyway if the vet is out for blood.

Regardless, as I keep saying, there are plenty of ways to place terrain, we never used the rulebook method, so I maintain, it's not needed. I don't object to it being there, but it's not vital(and the new terrain placement rules sounds really bad).

Yes, you can run into players abusing terrain placement. But the same kind of player are likely acting like a dick in other aspects of the game as well, so why play him.

Gekiganger
12-09-2006, 16:27
You watch some innocent noob get butchered by a canny veteran who places terrain to get the maximum advantage, and I think you will change your opinion. That kind of practice just leads to dissatisfied and upset noobs and that ain't got for the hobby, if you ask me.

Exactly how I feel. Even if it was me playing against a new player I doubt I'd set up the terrain (given a choice) in some way that I couldn't use it to good effect. The new player however will not have as much experience placing terrain therfore will end up with a less effective half of the board.

Placing terrain shouldn't be what decides the outcome of a battle but, just like magic, it plays a larger part in a battle depending upon the experience of the players.

Taking the terrain chart out of the book was a bad idea. It only benefits experienced players in an unfair way. I feel sorry for all the new players who don't have the benefit of the terrain charts from the older books.

Avian
12-09-2006, 16:35
Yes, you can run into players abusing terrain placement. But the same kind of player are likely acting like a dick in other aspects of the game as well, so why play him.
You as a young and innocent noob probably don't know that he's a git. You are probably so flattered to be playing an experienced veteran that you don't realise you are being screwed over and you probably think that this is the way it's supposed to be.

I have organised a lot of local leagues that bring together people with quite different levels of experience and who often don't know each other and not letting terrain placement be something you can abuse greatly helps in preventing the unreasonable players from taking advantage of the reasonable but unsuspecting.

whitra
12-09-2006, 21:12
Avian:





Just because you are a competitive player doesn't mean you think that terrain placement should be part of the competition. Heck, I don't think that the skills required to get the most out of terrain placement are of the kind that have much to do with Warhammer.

I don't think I agree here. If you're playing competitively and choosing your list competitively you wouldn't be competitive in terrain placement? Why those two but not the third? Maybe we're not thinking the same thing with competitive, and I will admit there's middle ground that I missed in the other post, but my point is still there: If you need terrain charts to keep people playing the way you want them to, you need to evaluate why you're playing with that group and change your own style or find a new one.


Do you think that removing an option when it comes to placing terrain makes for an overall better game?

Better? No. Nor do I think it's going to make most peoples games any worse. If the terrain rules were a stricter system (say, paying points for terrain, order of placement, etc) then perhaps I'd be skeptical of losing it. However, my experience and quite a few posts in this thread already attest to a lot of terrain placement being on the fly.


but you cannot chose to use terrain tables that do not exist.

I have a great respect for you on account of the scenario generator and the create a unit bits. Something like this for terrain should be in the reach of most gamers.


I cannot understand why people here are opposed to including the option in the rulebook. Why is that?

I'm not opposed to including it in the rulebook. My stance is that its loss should have only a very minor effect on the game. Perhaps it's based on my vain hope that most people play with their friends and can compromise and deal with it.


You watch some innocent noob get butchered by a canny veteran who places terrain to get the maximum advantage, and I think you will change your opinion. That kind of practice just leads to dissatisfied and upset noobs and that ain't got for the hobby, if you ask me.

Terrain is one of a dozen ways that canny vet'll butcher that noob. Remove the terrain, and it's the vets army list that'll unbalance the game. Remove that, could be his knowledge of range or spatial judgement. Or his greater knolwedge of the stats of his troops and his opponents. Etc.

Vets beat noobs. If it's a good vet, he explains and the noob learns. If he's a bad vet, the noob'll get dissatisfied and upset. As it stands, that particular example is no more applicable to terrain than to another aspect of the game in which the vet has greater knowledge.

Gekigamer:



Exactly how I feel. Even if it was me playing against a new player I doubt I'd set up the terrain (given a choice) in some way that I couldn't use it to good effect. The new player however will not have as much experience placing terrain therfore will end up with a less effective half of the board.

And when you use a random chart, do you set up the terrain to your advantage still? The chart doesn't take the competitiveness out of terrain. it only makes it a little more random.

Perhaps that randomness favors the vet? Let's use this noob vs. vet example: Presuming their is no random terrain chart, the noob still should be able to figure out "hills in deployment for cannon" "trees block LOS" "impassable to anchor a flank" because these are rules set down in the rulebook. He won't be able to place as well as the vet, but he could still do okay by keeping it simple.

Same situation, random terrain. This should benefit the more experienced player. Lots of games means he'll have a more comprehensive understanding of the available terrain and should be able to make good use of whatever he rolls. Whereas the noob, who's knowledge is more rudimentary, will be much more at the mercy of the charts, to get terrain that he understands the effects of.


Placing terrain shouldn't be what decides the outcome of a battle but, just like magic, it plays a larger part in a battle depending upon the experience of the players.

I don't believe anyone here said it should.


Taking the terrain chart out of the book was a bad idea. It only benefits experienced players in an unfair way. I feel sorry for all the new players who don't have the benefit of the terrain charts from the older books.

I obviously disagree, for the reasons listed above. I can see how terrain itself can tip the balance, but i'm not so sure that the terrain charts were the way to fix this. Personally, I'd go with a third party setting up a board, players who can be mature enough to agree on how the terrain should be set up, or themed boards where one side's advantage/disadvantage is secondary to the story.

Gekiganger
12-09-2006, 21:34
Gekigamer:

That's Ganger to you :eyebrows:


And when you use a random chart, do you set up the terrain to your advantage still? The chart doesn't take the competitiveness out of terrain. it only makes it a little more random.

Yes, but it stops people who play WE for example hogging a crap load of hills or woods. I doubt a O&G, skaven or chaos player has as much use for a hill as an elf will.



Perhaps that randomness favors the vet? Let's use this noob vs. vet example: Presuming their is no random terrain chart, the noob still should be able to figure out "hills in deployment for cannon" "trees block LOS" "impassable to anchor a flank" because these are rules set down in the rulebook. He won't be able to place as well as the vet, but he could still do okay by keeping it simple.

for the first part as above.
As for the new player having to learn how to use terrain yes, they will. They won't however be playing against an opponent who has the advantage of being able to pick out good terrain pieces for their battle plan. The opponent is just as likely to have some useless or bad terrain pieces for their battle plan as the new player.




Same situation, random terrain. This should benefit the more experienced player. Lots of games means he'll have a more comprehensive understanding of the available terrain and should be able to make good use of whatever he rolls. Whereas the noob, who's knowledge is more rudimentary, will be much more at the mercy of the charts, to get terrain that he understands the effects of.


Instead of being at the mercy of his own experience? We are talking about new players not people who have vast experience with terrain.



I don't believe anyone here said it should.


But people don't see a problem with terrain charts being removed.



I obviously disagree, for the reasons listed above. I can see how terrain itself can tip the balance, but i'm not so sure that the terrain charts were the way to fix this. Personally, I'd go with a third party setting up a board, players who can be mature enough to agree on how the terrain should be set up, or themed boards where one side's advantage/disadvantage is secondary to the story.

The terrain chart staying in the book hurt no one. Removing it only removes the advantage new players have of preventing vets taking only terrain that benefits them.

Shimmergloom
12-09-2006, 21:56
It's not just hurting new players. It's hurting anyone who has to go up against WE, BoC, skinks or lots of shooting.

You're not going to find many lizzie players who aren't going to put lakes or marshes onto the board as much as possible.

Or are you going to find WE players who don't have 3-4 woods.

All the maps are going to look the same. You can just plan out how you want the terrain to look and work best for you and go from there.

Playing with friends are all well and good. And vs friends, I"m sure you can come to an understanding. But I know in my area we have had lots of new players the past year and more show up everyday. So I play vs new people all the time. Odds are a new person is going to want terrain that helps him. It's bad enough when players stick woods in front of hills and litter the center of the board with woods restricting movement to a huge degree. But now the default set-up will allow them to just choose all woods or all hills or the like.

I have no problem with a vet or anyone who gets the terrain randomly placing it to their advantage. The balancing factor though was that they could not control what terrain they got.

And now they can.

Gekiganger
12-09-2006, 22:02
It's not just hurting new players. It's hurting anyone who has to go up against WE, BoC, skinks or lots of shooting.

You're not going to find many lizzie players who aren't going to put lakes or marshes onto the board as much as possible.

Or are you going to find WE players who don't have 3-4 woods.

All the maps are going to look the same. You can just plan out how you want the terrain to look and work best for you and go from there.

I have no problem with a vet or anyone who gets the terrain randomly placing it to their advantage. The balancing factor though was that they could not control what terrain they got.

And now they can.

Indeed, every battlefield will look the same. Hills, Woods, waterfeatures and mountains. Not many people will pick the characterful features that really make a battlefield look good (villages, army specific terrain etc) if it doesn't benefit their army.

Shimmerglooms point is a more pesimistic yet true version of what I think.

whitra
12-09-2006, 22:32
Thank god I don't play warhammer with the types you all seem too.

Sorry, Gekiganger, for the misread of your name.

Voltaire
12-09-2006, 22:37
A good general will turn terrain to their advantage and be able to avoid providing it as strength to others. A player who tries to set this whole thing up to their sole advantage is a bad player and doesn't want fun - what the game was intended for.

I remember something very unusual and very VERY cool a few years back. Does anyone remember the final Albion scenario? The one without Terrain and where running from battle wasn't an option? Try playing that scenario these days and I think you will find it more enjoyable than your normal game.

Shimmergloom
12-09-2006, 22:53
Why is the standard reply, "I don't play with those types of players!". How can you control playing against a new person you've never played before? Do you guys really just play the same few people over and over and over?

And no one new ever?

I'm not going to debate how you'd play with your friends, cause that's a pointless debate. You might as well say power dice batteries or ratlings didn't need a change cause your friends never played like that!

Voltaire
12-09-2006, 23:03
Its the standard reply because everyone thinks they are the epitome of gaming standards. Au contrair is the normal response to such anecdotal evidence and it will continue to be until a more substantial argument can be produced instead of tin men foolishness.

whitra
13-09-2006, 00:04
Gekiganger:

Point taken about the woodelves and loads of forests. It's a situation I hadn't run into and thus hadn't considered.


The opponent is just as likely to have some useless or bad terrain pieces for their battle plan as the new player.

My point there was that the experienced player should be able to get some advantage out of any piece- there shouldn't be a useless or bad piece. To your next point- I am talking about players with experience- I was specifically commenting on the post a bit back that noobs getting slaughtered on account of vets because of a lack of terrain.


But people don't see a problem with terrain charts being removed.

It might follow that a lot of people don't think it's that big a problem.


The terrain chart staying in the book hurt no one. Removing it only removes the advantage new players have of preventing vets taking only terrain that benefits them.

Nonetheless, the charts have been removed. That's where my "play with people who think like you" bit comes in. I'll expand on this thought below.

I can't accept this protecting noobs from vets as a legitimate argue all on it's own. If the vet isn't trying to teach the newer player, he's gonna get slaughtered anyways. With or without the terrain charts, the vet has an advantage. What that argument is against is the playstyle that takes every possible advantage at the expense of enjoyment, rather than the inclusion of a few charts.

Shimmergloom:

My reply wasn't: "I don't play with those types of players." I merely expressed gratitude at not playing in the environment you do- I don't believe I could enjoy the game in that situation. From your posts it seems that you're in such a crappy environment that rules are required to ensure both players have fun- and even that is questionable since the rules that make the game playable for you deny options to the other player.

With the exception of one unrelated post earlier in this thread, I've said nothing of how I play with my friends. My contribution that led to my current involvement was: "play with people who play like you."

I've nothing against playing with new people. I definetly do not attempt to "control" them. What I do is make sure I do is try to find people to play with who think the same way I do, so that things like this aren't an issue. Looking back over this thread, it's a common enough response, given the amount of people who have offered outside the rulebook fixes that I presume are accepted by their groups.

I would call what you're doing controlling them- you're argueing for rules to be included so that they have to play in a certain way before you even meet. Granted, it makes the game more fun for you, but it is control none-the-less.

What I tried to do in the initial post was offer a way for you to have fun: "find people who play like you, or learn to enjoy the people you're playing with." But the responses have been so pessimistic that I'm almost thinking it's impossible for some people to enjoy playing unless there are rules everywhere; hence, my gratitude at not being in your situation.

Voltaire:

Just incase that tin man/epitome nonsense was directed at me (which is logical, since these posts did follow an outburst of mine) I want to make it clear: I do not think I am the epitome of any standard of warhammer, and I apologize if I've implied so.

Now that that's out of the way:

"My group doesn't play like that!" Is no less substantial than the arguments being brought up by others. Some are expecting the worst case scenarios (see shimmergloom's bit about the lizardmen/wood elves), which does not strike me as any less anecdotal; the pessimists start from the assumption that all players will win at all costs, the optimists from the assumption that players will sacrifice opportunities to win in favor of an enjoyable game. I've not seen anyone offer evidence that either of these assumptions is more valid than the next. What has been occurring is an argument from different first principles, and you're calling one side less substantial only reveals bias.

And just to end on a high note: Agreed, the point of the game is to have fun.

Edit: I need to correct something I said above. I did mean to say "I don't play with those type of players" as Shimmergloom said- IF "by those type" he meant people who stack the terrain. Although there is the odd game, I usually avoid them, because I'm not tactically minded or competitive enough to find a way around that and still find the game satisfying.

However, he still misinterpreted me; I play against new people, but they are not "those kinds of players." I got the distinct impression from Shimmergloom's two posts that new (meaning here people I haven't previously played) will take advantage of the terrain set up in a way I don't like. My outburst referred to a dislike of the environment that produced such a negative outlook on the game; it does not signal a dislike of playing new people.

Shimmergloom
13-09-2006, 03:18
I merely expressed gratitude at not playing in the environment you do-


However, he still misinterpreted me; I play against new people, but they are not "those kinds of players." I got the distinct impression from Shimmergloom's two posts that new (meaning here people I haven't previously played) will take advantage of the terrain set up in a way I don't like. My outburst referred to a dislike of the environment that produced such a negative outlook on the game; it does not signal a dislike of playing new people.


I don't play in that enviroment among regular opponents. But new players will always do whatever helps them the most. Well I should say, almost always. Not always, but you know it would happen more often than not.

Just like many new players will always type up the most powerful list they can make, they are going to put down the best terrain that helps them out.

I think we all know that's the case and all know when we were new we would go for the big lists before we tried playing with all our troops.

With the terrain chart though, it would regulate how a new person placed terrain and taught them not to depend on terrain to win the battle for them.

Once you become friends with the person, then you and they understand not to do things like that, but until then, I liked having the terrain chart there to keep me from having to worry if I'm gonna see 4 woods or 3 lakes when I play a new WE or Lizzie player or just a player who has played a while, but I've never played before who isn't playing out of friendship.

I don't necessarily agree that a vet vs noob game will have the vet going for the worst terrain to hurt the newb. The vet can usually crush the noob anyway.

A intermediate guy though, maybe he'd do so out of love for crushing newbs. But what I would call a vet, wants more players in the game and doesnt' want to just crush newbs and send them running to warmachine or 40k.

In the end, I think the terrain charts are something that really balanced terrain. It was something I did not like when I started playing, but now I don't want to play without it.

DjtHeutii
13-09-2006, 03:47
I never liked the terrain charts and I'm glad they are gone.

I've had too many situations where people split the board in half with bridgeless rivers of lava or mounted their Screaming Skull Catapults and Casket of Souls atop Jebels.

Pffft.

Good riddence.

I'm not a particular fan of random placement, either, but it's about the most fair way to do it absent a 3rd party to set terrain up for a fight if the players themselves can't come to some arrangement.

Our group almost exclusively uses the 3rd party set up option.

hacksaaw
13-09-2006, 03:59
So what is wrong with a wood elf army placing woods, or a LIzard army looking for swampy features? Isnt that where they would look to fight a battle?

Thats the whole point of the supposed pre battle manuevering that would have gone on inorder to get the armies to fight at some point. Either they are trapped, or they think they have some advantage to be gained by fighting there.

Shimmergloom
13-09-2006, 05:19
Because it just lets them always fight on favorable terrain. And that's not the way battles work.


I've had too many situations where people split the board in half with bridgeless rivers of lava or mounted their Screaming Skull Catapults and Casket of Souls atop Jebels.



Well if you bothered to read the terrain rules, lengths of terrain cannot be more than 12" long and areas no more than 12x12.

So unless they rolled for rivers over and over there's no way they could cover the board with a river.

And a river or stream has to enter one edge and exit another, so if they roll for one section, that means one little corner of the table would have a river 12" long diagnolly on it. Affecting the game very little.

Also you can't put war machines on impassable terrain.

And finally I don't see how no terrain chart is going to help your situation. Those players can now just put the river out every game without having to roll for it.

Scythe
13-09-2006, 08:19
I never liked the terrain charts and I'm glad they are gone.

I've had too many situations where people split the board in half with bridgeless rivers of lava or mounted their Screaming Skull Catapults and Casket of Souls atop Jebels.


That's just a plain illegal setup. With the random terrain charts, you could only extend a river longer than half of the board with the opponent agreeing. And even then, there should be at least 2 crossing points. Read the full rules before commenting like that.

Gorbad Ironclaw
13-09-2006, 09:17
Why is the standard reply, "I don't play with those types of players!". How can you control playing against a new person you've never played before? Do you guys really just play the same few people over and over and over?

And no one new ever?


Outside of tournaments(where this whole debate is pointless as it doesn't apply anyway), I play all my games at the club, or against a small handful of friends.

And even playing new players at the club, it was never an issue. We always either had some 3rd party set up the terrain, or scattered it. We never used the terrain charts in the book. It is perfectly possible to have nice, friendly games without using those. As such, I don't really see the big cause of concern. All it takes it talking to your opponent about how to do it. And if they insist on filling the table with swamps because they are lizardmen, tell them that that unless you can come to some mutual agreeable way to set up the terrain to not overly favour one army or another, there are no game.

Avian
13-09-2006, 09:41
If you're playing competitively and choosing your list competitively you wouldn't be competitive in terrain placement?
Believe it or not, but there are more than two types of gamers in the world.

I will do my best to win, but I don't think terrain placement should be part of that competition.



Why those two but not the third?
Because the skills required to get the most out of terrain placement are not the skills I think have anything to do with being a good Warhammer player.

When I started playing FB quite a few years ago, the terrain was all the same - a hill in each deployment zone and a couple of woods or buildings off to the side where they were decorative, but didn't actually influence things. Dull. It took quite some time to alter this, because people did not want to do things that would disadvantage them, but after I started organising competitive league play, it became apparent that some people would go to extraordinary lengths to get an advantage and that particularly hurt beginners who did not realise what was going on.

That was why I introduced completely random terrain placement, based on a Mike Walker article. Now the more experienced gits cannot rely on convenient hills for their gunline armies or plenty of difficult terrain for their non-engagement armies and the less extreme builds are more fun to play against.



Maybe we're not thinking the same thing with competitive, and I will admit there's middle ground that I missed in the other post, but my point is still there: If you need terrain charts to keep people playing the way you want them to, you need to evaluate why you're playing with that group and change your own style or find a new one.
What about new players who don't know what kind of person they are up against? What if there are two or three people who are gits when placing terrain and keep ruining leagues and things for other people? How would you avoid having the events you run being ruined by those two or three people? People who don't understand that the game should be fun for both players.


Seriously, people: Think outside the box! Not all people play the way you do.

Saying things like: I don't see the need to remove an option for abuse because
a) I don't play against abusive people, or
b) those people will always find other abusive methods

is not constructive.

Voltaire
13-09-2006, 09:50
Avian, did you ever play the Albion scenario where no terrain whatsoever gets placed on the board?

Avian
13-09-2006, 09:54
The "fight to the death in a thunderstorm with no terrain" scenario? No, that scenario was a bit too flawed for my liking. Very easy to abuse with the right army.

Scythe
13-09-2006, 09:55
Urgh, don't mention that horrible scenario which also screwed over any ranged attacks.

I played that once, and seriously, that scenario is one of the worst ever written.

Voltaire
13-09-2006, 09:58
I personally thought it was written for people who knew how to use their army to the best of its ability. The only thing wrong with the Scenario was the Thunderstorm.

Scythe
13-09-2006, 10:57
Fighting to the bitter end isn't balanced at all. The game was written to last a finite amount of turns with a good reason. Units flee the battlefield for a good reason. Taking that away crashes the game. Games against certain armies could go on forever.

DjtHeutii
13-09-2006, 13:49
Because it just lets them always fight on favorable terrain. And that's not the way battles work.



Well if you bothered to read the terrain rules, lengths of terrain cannot be more than 12" long and areas no more than 12x12.

So unless they rolled for rivers over and over there's no way they could cover the board with a river.

And a river or stream has to enter one edge and exit another, so if they roll for one section, that means one little corner of the table would have a river 12" long diagnolly on it. Affecting the game very little.

Also you can't put war machines on impassable terrain.

And finally I don't see how no terrain chart is going to help your situation. Those players can now just put the river out every game without having to roll for it.

At least it won't be impassable Lava. :)

The situation was such that he did indeed roll a river of lava twice and as the rules stated you could connect identical segments of terrain into one single piece. He cut off 1/4 of the board and placed his Warmachines and 5 units of 10 handgunners in there.

That we were rolling for terrain at all was in my view a failure of the game to be "freindly" in any way shape or form anyway.

Jebels are plateau that is impassible on 3 sides , but clear terrain on the top. Since they were placed in his deployment zone his warmachines could be placed there. (Different guy, same BS)

Sentinel75
13-09-2006, 13:55
I spent yesterday making a PDF of the old terrain charts and the underground terrain chart from WD and annotated which features were now "Special Features" If anyone is interested I can email it to them. Shoot me an email to jgpeery@unity.ncsu.edu

DjtHeutii
13-09-2006, 13:56
Outside of tournaments(where this whole debate is pointless as it doesn't apply anyway), I play all my games at the club, or against a small handful of friends.

And even playing new players at the club, it was never an issue. We always either had some 3rd party set up the terrain, or scattered it. We never used the terrain charts in the book. It is perfectly possible to have nice, friendly games without using those. As such, I don't really see the big cause of concern. All it takes it talking to your opponent about how to do it. And if they insist on filling the table with swamps because they are lizardmen, tell them that that unless you can come to some mutual agreeable way to set up the terrain to not overly favour one army or another, there are no game.


This is my current thought on the matter as well.

Hashut's Li'l Helper
13-09-2006, 14:12
First, I admit I like terrain charts. and play with them about every game even among friends (we dice off to see whose army is invading whom and use the appropriate chart). I think it adds another element to the game, and I appreciate any additonal tactical elements. That being said, I certainly don't see the need for the terrain charts, and can play perfectly well , and fairly, without them if needed.

The question that I have to ask however is how did they hurt the game. If you didn't like them, you didn't have to use them. Much like the additional rules for skirmish or seige, they added a bit of extra flavor to the game, that could be ignored if it wasn't wanted.

I can't see any reason, in a book where over half of it is dedicated to fluff, that they could not have been included in the new BRB. If someone can give me a good reason that they should not be in the BRB I'd love to hear it.

So far I've only heard reasons why they were not necessary, not why they should be excluded. Hell, 2/3s of the stuff in the BRB isn't necessary, as well as being totally non functional. At least the terrain charts were functional.

mageith
13-09-2006, 15:10
I like the new terrain rules set up, but I did add a sort of terrain chart to it however based on my reading which I think is different from others here.

"Begin by selecting the terrain pieces you're (you are) going to use (you need an amount appropriate to the size of the game)...(2)

From this I concluded that, for example, a table of 4x6, my usual, would have six pieces of terrain laying in the middle for players to choose from. However, there is no way listed to determine what those six would be. In our league, each player could choose three.

"...either player declares he will pass and stops deploying terrain.'' (3)

I'm reading this as play or pass. No player can pass until he deploys one piece of terrain.

So worst case scenario is if I want to have minimum terrain and I win the roll. I place a piece of terrrain (something my opponent chose probably) in a far corner. Opponent places. I pass. He places again and that's it. He gets to choose two pieces of terrain. He's got his dwarven hill corners or his WE trees or whatever he likes.

To that end I've prepared a chart with a set of terrain pieces (7-10) to put on the table. We can either roll two dice or the defender can choose which set of terrain to use. Maximum number of terrain pieces will be six for our tables.

DESERT: Sand x3, Dunes x3, oasis, road (2)
TUNDRA: Scrub x3, Rock Patches x3, wood (3-4)
MOUNTAINS: Hills x3, foothills x3, Peak, woods, water (5)
HILLY: Hills x4, high Hill, difficult hill, woods, water, special. (6)
GRASSY: Grass x4, Hill, Woods, water. (7)
FORESTED: Woods x4, hill, scrub, water, special. (8)
RUINS: Ruins x2, hills x2, grass x2, obstacle, water, special . (9)
10: JUNGLE: Jungle x4, water x2, grass, special (10)
11: SETTLED: Obstacle x2, grass x2, hills x2, roads x2, building within 2 inches of water. (11)
12: VILLAGE: Village, Hills x2, grass x2, woods x2, water. (12)

I have defintions for each of these terrains.

whitra
13-09-2006, 19:54
Believe it or not, but there are more than two types of gamers in the world.

I will do my best to win, but I don't think terrain placement should be part of that competition.

There are?

At any rate, you missed my point- why competitive in only certain aspects of the game?



Because the skills required to get the most out of terrain placement are not the skills I think have anything to do with being a good Warhammer player.

This doesn't really answer that question. Once gain, why doesn't terrain fit in competitive play? I'd appreciate an answer at little more substantial than because you think so-I'm sincerely interested.



When I started playing FB quite a few years ago, the terrain was all the same - a hill in each deployment zone and a couple of woods or buildings off to the side where they were decorative, but didn't actually influence things. Dull. It took quite some time to alter this, because people did not want to do things that would disadvantage them, but after I started organising competitive league play, it became apparent that some people would go to extraordinary lengths to get an advantage and that particularly hurt beginners who did not realise what was going on.

That was why I introduced completely random terrain placement, based on a Mike Walker article. Now the more experienced gits cannot rely on convenient hills for their gunline armies or plenty of difficult terrain for their non-engagement armies and the less extreme builds are more fun to play against.



What about new players who don't know what kind of person they are up against? What if there are two or three people who are gits when placing terrain and keep ruining leagues and things for other people? How would you avoid having the events you run being ruined by those two or three people? People who don't understand that the game should be fun for both players.

The reason why I bring up the argument "they'll do it anyways" is because I don't think this is a valid objection on it's own. The issue in this case is gits and ruining fun. Terrain is one (of many) symptoms of this issue. The issue still exists whether or not you change the way terrain is handled- thus terrain tables don't solve the problem.



Seriously, people: Think outside the box! Not all people play the way you do.

Saying things like: I don't see the need to remove an option for abuse because
a) I don't play against abusive people, or
b) those people will always find other abusive methods

is not constructive.

I hope this isn't directed at me, because this hasn't been my argument.

Mageith: I like your table.

Edit:
To Avian and Hatsheput's Little Helper:

It's not a matter of what should have been included. I haven't been argueing for or against. I suggested what I thought players should do: Make sure they're playing with the right group of people, because if they are, they shouldn't have to worry. I only pointed out the extremes, Avian pointed to middle ground, and I've asked him to explain that middle ground. It's because I think he's on a slippery slope, but I really can't say if I don't know why he thinks that.

Because Avian said I was missing the point, I looked back to the first post to make sure there was a direction and I wasn't off topic. Then I noticed that NakedFisherman, in the second post, explained how players could prevent abuse (Mageith reiterated clearly in the post directly above). Thus, it's false to say this rule allows abuses- by Mageith's read, the opponent can place two pieces of terrain. That makes a lot of your arguments about the power that gits have a lot less substantial.

Hashut's Li'l Helper
13-09-2006, 21:15
It's not a matter of what should have been included. I haven't been argueing for or against. I suggested what I thought players should do: Make sure they're playing with the right group of people, because if they are, they shouldn't have to worry.

My response was not so much a response to anything that you said, but rather a statement/question of its own. It seems to be another example of "fixing" things because they are "too complex" (maybe this isn't the case but I can"t honestly think of any other reason). I play with people who won't place terrain "unfairly", but the ability to work around GW does not make their decision any better. Terrain placement was mostly a hodgepodge of rules in 6th anyway, now it is non existant.

BTW I also like Iths chart, and it is/would be fine in a club/among friends. It's the pickup games that can be the problem. And in the current rules, the only solution to "unfair" terrain is an almost empty field, BLEAGH. (assumes a competative terrain placement)

Shimmergloom
13-09-2006, 22:37
There's more of an issue here. Everyone will have an opinion on what FAIR terrain placement is vs unfair placement. Just like everyone has an opinion on fair army lists vs unfair army lists. I'm sure a lizardmen player will think a lake or 2 in every game is fair. I happen to think that's pretty unfair.

Which is why the terrain chart was good. It let it be random and thus neither side could complain.

It also ensured you had some great variations in maps and there was less chance to have the same terrain over and over.

Avian
14-09-2006, 12:02
At any rate, you missed my point- why competitive in only certain aspects of the game?

This doesn't really answer that question. Once gain, why doesn't terrain fit in competitive play? I'd appreciate an answer at little more substantial than because you think so-I'm sincerely interested.
I just don't think haggling should be a relevant skill in Warhammer. I'm not going to justify this any more than that.



The reason why I bring up the argument "they'll do it anyways" is because I don't think this is a valid objection on it's own. The issue in this case is gits and ruining fun. Terrain is one (of many) symptoms of this issue. The issue still exists whether or not you change the way terrain is handled- thus terrain tables don't solve the problem.
I just cannot accept "doesn't solve the entire problem" as a valid argument. It helps and that is important.


When you choose your opponent and know him or her well, there is probably no problem, but sometimes you don't choose your opponent or you don't know him. In those cases I believe it is good to have the option for a system that isn't influenced by the players.

Sometimes friendly competition will bring out the worst in otherwise reasonable people and there is a reason players are not normally allowed to set up terrain themselves in tournaments, for example.

Having the option didn't hurt anybody. Removing the option hurts those with unreasonable opponents and I really don't think it's a good idea for people who don't have unreasonable opponents to defend a change that hurts those who have.

Ender Shadowkin
14-09-2006, 22:31
Ah, Terrain placement is near and dear to my heart. So here is a long post (hang in there . . .)

I play with a very competitive bunch and we all enjoy varied battlefields and tactical situations. Our players have no problem deploying pieces to their advantage. If players could deploy a hill in their deployment (and wanted too) they always would. This would lead to people building there lists knowing they could deploy on a hill or hide those scouts and playing with damn near the same battlefield every game, booring . . .

So, we had/made enough stuff used to use the terrain charts.
Unfortunately there are some pieces that are fun to make and look cool but would rarely show up, so it was hard to motivate to make them. Also, certain players would angle a piece to get as much advantage as possible (e.g. plateau in deployment zone corner , so all sides impassible) Did this cause some tough situations, oh yes (some river/swamp maps vs lizardmen come to mind). So how did we fix this?

Well first off we randomly spin terrain (using scatter dice) this really cuts back on abuse of defended obstacles and ridges with cliffs. Secondly we modified the charts. I grouped the terrain for a particular region (say Ulthuan or Lustria) into 3 categories, Common, scarce, and unique. You roll a dice for each 2x2 section of the table to see what you get (1-3 common) 4-5 is scarce, 6 is Unique.

The common features are things usually found in the old charts with rolls of 6,7, or 8. Ya know hills, woods, swamps walls, depending on what region you were playing, Scarce were the 9s, 10s, etc. and unique was the 2s and 12 s or anything else you thought would be cool to make. Now I could make that Elven Palace and know that I could using 1 of 2 games on average instead of 1 in 36 . . . (or something) .

So this leads to an excellent guide of what an how much stuff to make and use (a little felt never hurts while your waiting for the hot glue to dry). The other rule we used is (within reason) if there were no more of those pieces in the pile of that type, you had to pick something else. We typical have 2+ of each (and 6+ total) of the common items for a chart (that we use), 2 of some scarce things, and there could only every be one instance of a unique feature (e.g. river/Palace/Wizards Tower)

There are few other rules we use as well, such as river placement, if you want one ,you pick where it starts, but your opponent picks where it leaves the table then you take turns placing up to 3 crossings etc, etc).

We have found this method gives a great representation of a region (fluf! ), can allow appropriately slight home field advantage to certain armies, and in general results in a tactically fun and visual impressive battlefield. It also allows us to build certain pieces that will look cool knowing that you will get to play with them on a regular basis. And no one feels guilty (or can complain) about being too competitive in the terrain placement phase. We will clearly continue to play like this in the 7th edition.

I have complete terrain charts (and sets) for the following regions Ulthuan, Lustria, Old World, Chaos Wastes, Badlands, and Dwarven realms. If anyone is interested I could list the charts we have made or throw up some pictures (not that anything is all that fancy).

Sentinel75
15-09-2006, 13:15
I would love to see what you guys use! I am always interested in region specific terrain!

Chiron
15-09-2006, 13:50
This doesn't really answer that question. Once gain, why doesn't terrain fit in competitive play? I'd appreciate an answer at little more substantial than because you think so-I'm sincerely interested

I'd say because setting up the backdrop of the battlefield shouldnt intrinsically benefit either side, a properly competitve game should test the generals army instead of eg: gunlines having nothing but hills or Bretonians having nothing but open space

as far as possible terrain should be setup to a) provide a challenge for both players and not put one at a disadvantage b) add an element of positioning add LOS to a battlefield so you have to factor it in when working out a plan


anyway, all the games I've played its either been a friendly "setup how you like" or place a couple of items and roll scatter and 3d6 to see where it finally ends up, seems to work alright and means you cant be 100% where its going to end up

mageith
15-09-2006, 14:27
I'd say because setting up the backdrop of the battlefield shouldnt intrinsically benefit either side, a properly competitve game should test the generals army instead of eg:

Picking your battle site as long been one of the things that marked a good general.

As to what's part of game general, isn't really stated and proper use of terrain has always been a factor. (Even properly using randomly placed terrain.)



gunlines having nothing but hills or Bretonians having nothing but open space

That won't happen. Every player will get to place at least two pieces of terrain.



as far as possible terrain should be setup to a) provide a challenge for both players and not put one at a disadvantage b) add an element of positioning add LOS to a battlefield so you have to factor it in when working out a plan

Can you find that stated or implied anywhere?

One of the big complaints of sixth edition was the undercostedness of bows. Now bows are more valuable because they can be placed in two ranks and generals know that they will mostly likely have a hill or two. They can depend on that.

OTOH, hills are not as good as they used to be because the enemy bows can shoot at them from ALL ranks while hill users can only shoot in TWO ranks. Even gunlines on hills will be very vulnerable to bows. I think the new terrain rules are really quite inspired. And they are the rules unless BOTH players agree to something else. (246, Alternate Setups).



anyway, all the games I've played its either been a friendly "setup how you like" or place a couple of items and roll scatter and 3d6 to see where it finally ends up, seems to work alright and means you cant be 100% where its going to end up
And, of course, that's fine until you meet a player who's army is based on using the Rules as Written and he feels cheated when his shooters will be vastly under utilized because he didn't get any hills due to the random placement of terrain.