PDA

View Full Version : An Ungodly Amount of terrain at LA Games Day Tournament



dvdhwk
12-08-2007, 20:10
So for anyone else playing in LA Games Day 40k tourney, did you think there was too much terrain on the table?

The rule book calls for 25% coverage. My first table was composed of 40-50% area terrain, and my second and third were composed of 50-60% area terrain. My last two opponents said that the terrain was way in their favor throughout the tourney becasue the played mid- to short-ranged armies (Blood Angels, Dual Wing).

I play a shooty black legion army with 2 beefy assault units used for counterassault, taking objectives, etc. The army performs well on a table with standard terrain. However at the GT I had very minimal firing lanes, and very minimal range from the area terrain to my lines. I prepared my army to take on all comers in standard games of 40K at tournaments (I used the las vegas GT as a reference that had the appropriate amount of terrain according to the BBB). Had they told us ahead of time that there would be an inordinate amount of terrain, I would have built the list differently or played another army.

My issue here is the fact that they did not communicate prior that they would be changing the characteristics of standard games of 40K, in such a way that would dramatically favor certain army types.

I tried to adjust my tactics, but ultimately I felt that the terrain was so stacked against me. For note, I had a minor victory on the first table (40-50% coverage) and minor losses on the last two tables (50-60% coverage).

Does anyone else think this is a problem. Sure if I had a genestealer amry I would have loved it, but at the end of the day would have still admitted the terrain was way overdone and stacked in my favor. So from a tournament preparation, metagame persepctive, is this a problem?

elfman
12-08-2007, 20:26
I was under the impression that the rulebook quoted 25% as a minimum. We (my friends and I) usually play the upper half of 33%.

BDJV
12-08-2007, 20:33
(Disclaimer I'm not trying to be sarcastic.)

:eek: OMG, they had terrain on the table! I stopped going to the GD tourneys cause I got tired of fighting battles in a wasteland. :mad:

These types of tables will favor balanced lists. Wow, what a concept. ;)

I'm sure from a Metagame perspective this changes a lot.

I hope this is the way of the future for tourney terrain. :skull:

lord_blackfang
12-08-2007, 20:47
How dare they not give your gunline a huge advantage like they normally do with the usual near-barren tables. Hey, remember the lava boards from Las Vegas? No cover and it all counted as difficult terrain.

Vaktathi
12-08-2007, 20:57
Instead of the "omg lern2play nubcake" comments, I think the main point was that not only is it odd that the GT's would suddenly switch their terrain setups so drastically, but that they would do so in a manner that heavily favors one type of army. Yes barren wastelands favor shooty armies heavily, but 60% terrain makes it nearly impossible for shooty armies to do what they do as well.

if they stuck with 25-30% terrain instead of going from wasteland to cityfight, and had let people know ahead of time, that would probably have been better I think was the OP's point.

BDJV
12-08-2007, 21:32
Nobody so far has has made a learn to play comment, that I can see.

I was excited to see that there is apparently a change to the amount of terrain being presented on tourney tables. In no way was I puttin' down the OP. I even put a disclaimer in my post.

I think this will help change tournaments for the better in the future. IMO

Vaktathi
12-08-2007, 22:08
my comments were not so much directed at you BDJV, and your point was well taken.

dvdhwk
12-08-2007, 22:14
How dare they not give your gunline a huge advantage like they normally do with the usual near-barren tables. Hey, remember the lava boards from Las Vegas? No cover and it all counted as difficult terrain.

I wasn't complaining that it wasn't barren. I think that would be unsporting to a CC oriented lists like nids, and I would be opposed to them, even if I was still playing my gunline. I was not asking for an advantage, I was asking for parity for all armies, based on the standard set forth in the BBB. If it was common knowledge ahead of time that terrain would be that way, then that would be one thing.

I don't appreciate the knee-jerk reaction, and assumption that I want an unfair advantage over my opponents. Thanks for NOT giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Vaktathi- Thank you for clearly reading my post and giving me the benefit of the doubt, not assuming that I'm some power gamer who is trying to get an unfair advantage. You took my point exactly as it was intended.

Again, if this becomes the standard tournament terrain set up, then fine, I will adjust with my armies. In the interest of fairness to all plpayers and all armies, the expectation should in some way be communicated ahead of time, so that ALL players and ALL armies have equal footing based on reliable knowledge.

Greatoliver
12-08-2007, 22:19
IMHO, I think that terrain is good in 40K as it allows (and almost makes) movement due to the lack of firing lanes.

Different people, different opinions.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
12-08-2007, 22:21
i'd like to know:
- who set up the Terrain?
- who defined the Terrain (Area Terrain (inc. Sz Cat) vs WYSIWYG, Cover Save, Impassable/Difficult/Open, Dangerous/not Dangerous)?
- how was the Terrain defined, in general?
- how big were the Terrain pieces (physical size for WYSIWYG, width/depth for Area Terrain)?

Size 1 (6+ Cover Save) Difficult Terrain shouldnt really be too unbalancing, for example, as it doesnt block LOS to targets (except to Size 1 models over 6" in etc) and while it provides a little protection it will also slow down advancing models.

also, the depth of Area Terrain can be a big factor: its much harder to hide in a Terrain piece if its only ~7" deep than if it covers a larger portion of the board (due the 6" rule).

so how was it?

cheers :)

~ Tim

dvdhwk
12-08-2007, 22:44
Ok Lord Malek, fair questions.


- who set up the Terrain?
Terrain was set by the TO's and could not be moved.


- who defined the Terrain (Area Terrain (inc. Sz Cat) vs WYSIWYG, Cover Save, Impassable/Difficult/Open, Dangerous/not Dangerous)?
The terrain was defined by the TO's.


- how was the Terrain defined, in general?
Forest templates: 5+ area terrain, size 3, difficult terrain
Rock templates: 4+ area terrain, size 3, difficult terrain
Buildings: 4+ area terrain, size 3, difficult terrain
There were also the lava tables, where the lava was treated as difficult terrain. This could have been an equalizer, but I am of the opinion that with the ungodly amount of area terrain on the table, having some botch DT rolls could be easily overcome.
Little to nothing in the way of linear obstacles. Everything was just heavy area terrain.


- how big were the Terrain pieces (physical size for WYSIWYG, width/depth for Area Terrain)?
Again, the majority of the terrain was AT, size 3. The vast majority of the pieces were at least 6" in length/width. With few exceptions the biggest piece might be 12" by 9", with various sizes in between.

On my first table there were about 9 pieces, on my last 2 tables there were ~12 pieces. My tables were representative of the rest of the tables.

My last 2 opponents readily admitted that the terrain in all of their games was heavily to their advantage.



Greatoliver: Terrain is not the underlying issue, I like terrain, I play at my store with the 25-30% terrain rule. The issue at hand is:

In the interest of fairness to all plpayers and all armies, the expectation should in some way be communicated ahead of time, so that ALL players and ALL armies have equal footing based on reliable knowledge.

dvdhwk
12-08-2007, 22:46
Oh, I just found out on Dakka that a Tau list won... not sure what that says.

Long live the double post.

athamas
12-08-2007, 23:20
because tau do very very well at close range fire fights where lascannons cant snipe their tanks...

FoF is a very powerfull tactic, asp in such confined spaces, and SMS dont care about LOS, so you can pepper units from a distance...

Greatoliver
12-08-2007, 23:21
Greatoliver: Terrain is not the underlying issue, I like terrain, I play at my store with the 25-30% terrain rule. The issue at hand is: etc.

...

Y'okay.

Higgen
12-08-2007, 23:32
Just take it as a cue to practice more on heavily terrained tables. Honestly, it doesn't sound like your list was that badly balanced for heavy terrain. Lots of shooting is still viable, as long as you have counterassault units to back it up. You just need to keep those counters with your line. Practice more with your list and you'll be ready for any terrain they throw at you.

thegreyman
13-08-2007, 05:03
I disagree that they should have to practice playing on heavily terrained tables. At a tournament they should have 25% terrain. Period. Granted it's hard to get exactly that amount, but the game is supposed to be ballanced with that amount of terrain. Any other setup with terrain just favors one army over another so that the game could almost be shook on before rolling any dice.

At the Chicago GT 2 years ago I got the signal privelege of playing all 4 games on the Hot Mud (Lavaworld) tables with a Tyranid army that includes no MC. In my area tournies, it was nearly undefeated, but at that GT getting to play where almost the entire board is DT that doesn't give cover...

In your case, I would have refused to play on a table with too much terrain, or gotten my opponent to agree to reduce the terrain to the accepted level. After all, the game isn't supposed to be easy so that I win because you never got to shoot me past 12". On the other side, I would never want to use my Valhallans in a Jungle. It's just not fair.

dodicula
13-08-2007, 05:29
as far as I'm concerned the more terrain the better, but then again I play mainly death guard or Nids

bigred
13-08-2007, 05:52
A tournament organizer can do whatever the H@ll he desires for terrain. It's the player's job after all to build an "all comers" list. And that includes all terrain possibilities from super sparse to super congested.

What happened here is folks got used to the tilt towards shooty armies that GW has had for several years, then were surprised to see that GW "mixed it up" a bit with the terrain composition. Exactly how this is the tournament organizer's fault is beyond me.

-bigred

theshadowduke
13-08-2007, 06:02
The big reason they changed is the survey they took at Vegas. I personally told both Phil Kelly, and Dave Taylor that they needed to lose the Lava boards (as its stupidly hard to get a decent game once you get booted back there, good thing I spent most of my time drunk) and get more terrain on the boards. They both agreed, and said that it was something they were gonna fix after that.

dvdhwk
13-08-2007, 06:24
A tournament organizer can do whatever the H@ll he desires for terrain. It's the player's job after all to build an "all comers" list. And that includes all terrain possibilities from super sparse to super congested.

So by that reasoning it's perfectly fair for the TO to lay out NO terrain? Well 'nids players, too bad you don't have gaunts in power armor. If they set up an impassable level 3 wall in the center of every table, would you tell the IG player sorry, suck it up. Have fun dealing with all the skimmers.

And yes the TO can do whatever he wants... its a free country, and all that kindergarten reasoning. Just as I am free to tell yell and scream, at people, tell them to f-off, etc. it is still not socially acceptable or appropriate. You are failing to see the point I am making, despite me having restated it several times.

I want a fair terrain placement for all armies. Not to sparse, not to dense... if only there was someway for them to quantify that amount which could become a standard for 40k players everywhere. Oh wait, they did in the BBB.

You can't get around it, if you stray too far from that standard in EITHER direction one army type will be at a significant disadvantage, and another will be at a significant advantage. Yes, it has been too sparse in the past, and in standard GW fashion they swung the pendulum too far instead of finding balance.

Oh, and by definition it is the TO's fault that there was so much terrain, because they set it up that way. But I think you meant, why was it the TO's problem? Well since this was a major GW event, you would expect them to adhere to standards that they created (i.e. not too sparse and not to dense: just right), and if not communicate it to participants ahead of time.

As an example, a local game shop ran a tourney a year or so back. Army comp was not a standard part of the RTT's then. But the TO sprang Army Comp on the players at the event, with no forewarning. Army comp is not the standard. Some lists can be more competetive with a ton of troop choice, some really need their HS, FA, etc to shine. The TO strayed from a standard, without informing anyone prior, and participants were legitimately annoyed or upset.

A TO can do what they want (I concede that point), but if they are going to stray from a standard, then they should be up front with people.

That is the issue, if you disagree with me, please keep your disagreements in context of the issue at hand.

alex03
13-08-2007, 06:26
good thing I spent most of my time drunk

LOL!!! Booze at the grand tournies? I may go to one. :p

I cant see being drunk as conductive to good strategy, though....

theshadowduke
13-08-2007, 06:39
I placed 149th, but I had a blast.

BTW we could only drink because it was Vegas and the convention center had booze for sale.

big squig
13-08-2007, 07:08
Good.

Gun line armies do fine in heavy terrain, you just have to focus more on counter attacks, rapid fire weapons, and covering fire lanes between terrain with the right weaponry.

gun line armies that just sit there with over 100 models crammed shoulder to shoulder should play worse anyways. It's a terrible army.

Occulto
13-08-2007, 07:21
I want a fair terrain placement for all armies. Not to sparse, not to dense... if only there was someway for them to quantify that amount which could become a standard for 40k players everywhere. Oh wait, they did in the BBB.

I thought that standard is a minimum of 25%, not that every table must have 25%, no more, no less.


You can't get around it, if you stray too far from that standard in EITHER direction one army type will be at a significant disadvantage, and another will be at a significant advantage. Yes, it has been too sparse in the past, and in standard GW fashion they swung the pendulum too far instead of finding balance.

Luck of the draw hombre. Luck of the draw.

Short of making standard tables where everyone plays on exactly the same terrain, using exactly the same missions, you'll always come across games that just plain disadvantage you.

An all infiltrating army is nasty... until they play an Alpha level mission. Then they've payed a whole lot of points for nothing. Does that mean that every mission should have infiltrate?

Similarly, an all mechanised army is severely disadvantaged by escalation. Should that mean that every mission should ditch escalation to keep everyone on an equal footing?

Terrain's the same. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it hinders. A good player should be able to work their way around it.

grickherder
13-08-2007, 07:34
I generally think more terrain is better, but obviously there's a limit. One of the problems with 40k is that often there is too little terrain. The BBB section on terrain gives a good job of explaining what's optimal, but it in no way states it like it's "the rules!" or something.

Zazoo
13-08-2007, 08:23
Sorry but from you have described it does not sound like the 50%+ coverage you say there was.

9 Pieces of 6 to 9 inch pieces is not 50%+ coverage.
Or am I missing something.

What I have to say is that everything being level 3 area terrain does not make for a very enjoyable game.
Some level 2 and 1 area as well as some hill type terrain is always good to add in.

Dark Apostle197
13-08-2007, 08:38
Zazoo, I did not particularly pay attention to the 40k tournement (i watched a game, which I didn't seem to think had a lot of terrain) but I go to the LA bunker, so a lot of the terrain at the GD was probably from there along with the other stores around. We have a lot of 12x12 terrain pieces. I usually play with about 6 pieces of similar sized terrain(with buildings and hill, we have fairly big hills) and never find it to be too much terrain. Guess it is personal prefferance.

dvdhwk
13-08-2007, 08:52
Occulto: There was no luck of the draw. Did you read my answers to Lord Malek's questions? The tables I was on were all representative of all the tables. There was a ton of terrain out. If there happens to be a few tables where I'm disadvantaged for whatever reason, and I play on those, oh well, as you said luck of the draw. But they were all like that.

Furthermore your failed analogies with infiltrate and escalation are poor. If you buy infiltrate for a unit, you run the risk of playing in a mission without it. That is an up front decision. In the list I ran I run 2 CCW squads and my Lt w/infiltrate. They couldn't do it in 1 of the games, that was 60-70pts I paid to give infiltrate to units that was wasted. But I know that's a possibility when I buy it.

Again with escalation, if you decide to play a mech list, there is always the possibility that escalation will be used in one of the games.

Also, please find in any of my posts where I said the tables should be exactly 25%, no more no less. You won't.

I did say:
"You can't get around it, if you stray too far from that standard in EITHER direction one army type will be at a significant disadvantage, and another will be at a significant advantage. Yes, it has been too sparse in the past, and in standard GW fashion they swung the pendulum too far instead of finding balance."

Notice I said "too far" indicating that variation is fine, it is extremes that are not.


Sometimes [terrain] helps, sometimes it hinders. A good player should be able to work their way around it."
Oh, I agree, but again it may be difficult to "work around it" if the terrain placements are at the extreme.

If I'm playing a CC force and when I show up for the tourney the TO says: All boards will have NO terrain, I might be really annoyed and will know that shooty armies will have a significant advantage over me. If I'm playing a shooty army and the TO says when I arrive at the tourney: The entire board is one giant forest, I will be similary upset as I probably won't get any shots off with my Hvy Weapons. Again those are the polar extremes.

Grickherder: Your're right there is a limit. And I never said that 25% is the "the rules" I said it is a standard. There is a difference subtle though it may be. A standard is something that can reasonably be expected to be consistent from instance to instance. In this case, the standard is that the average games of warhammer [those played for pick-up, in tournies, etc] will be at least 25% and probably stay close to that unless there is some prior arrangement between players. If I agree to play in a tournament that uses CoD, I know that the 25% is not the standard, and I adjust accordingly.

Look, I still had a blast at the tournament. 2 of the games were really enjoyable, one was not- but not because of the terrain. I got to play 40k all day and I had fun. Would I have had more fun if I won my 2nd two games? Maybe, but probably not that much.

Big Squig Respectfully, I disagree. I am a good player, not great. But I know how to use my armies effectively. I did just what you said a "gunline" should do (though I don't know if I would consider it a gunline: 33% CC, 66% Shooty, 1% Sexy). I even used my CC units to try to lure out enemy units into the firing lanes. I believe I did very well given the set-up.

Everyone needs to understand... this was really a lot of terrain.

Neknoh
13-08-2007, 08:55
The point of building an "All Comers list" is that is should NOT have ANY specifick terrain requirements to work properly, if the table was heavy on terrain, a shooty army can DEVASTATE the enemy by setting up properly and USING the terrain in their own favour. I know that you want every army to have a fair chance, but seriously, if the tournament organisers would have told people that there'd be loads of terrain, can you tell me how many armies would have built lists specifically to compensate for it? Massed Template Imperial Guard, Blood Angels, Genestealer Armies, Nidzilla lists etc. etc. The tournament scene does NOT want to see which player can build the best list for the given terrain, they want to see which player can build the best list overall and use it well.

To call it unfair that they didn't tell you IS whining about it, and, as said, the BGB says MINIMUM, there is no maximum, be glad they didn't cover the board entirely in it.

And although not directly aimed at you, but rather to all of those people in the world who go "My army doesn't work on heavy terrain, it is unfair", I would like to say what you asked us not to... Learn to play the game! My Imperial Guard is adapted for BOTH Cityfight AND Open Field fighting, I have a few flamers, the list has a Hellhound in it, but the overall weapons are mid to long range weapons able to deal with threats in tight corridors as well as in the open field.

I am glad to hear that there wasn't any large areas of open terrain, covering a large chunk of the contested area (i.e. not deployment zones) should always be done if you ask me, you'll still cover only a third of the table... at MOST if you cover the ENTIRE zone in between armies in terrain, if you spread it out more, the game comes allive. I am personally sick of all of this Lascannon Line and "If I get you, I kill you, if not, I loose" mentality that is running through 40k at the moment. I play shooty armies, that is true, but I adapt to the situation and I try to enjoy the game, if the table is heavy on terrain, it might disadvantage an army that isn't all too great at close combat slightly, but god damnit! If your army is disadvantaged, you play to your advantages to make up for it during the battle! You don't ask for pictures of the terrain just so you can make up for it when constructing the list!

There, rant over.

dvdhwk
13-08-2007, 09:20
Zazzoo There were some hills thrown in. Also I'm estimating on the size of the pieces and what not.

In my store, what we usually do is have both players go pull out terrain and place it all in 1/4 of the table. Then we distribute it. So my estimation is based on my observation that there were approximately twice as many pieces, and they were almost exclusively size 3 area terrain.


As far as most of the posters who are implying or explicity stating that I need to learn how to play, build better lists, stop trying to twist things to my advantage, stop whining... forget it.

I brought this up out of interests of fairness for all army types. I would hope I've made that abundantly clear, but some people apparently want to see my posts as whining and b-tching that I couldn't take advantage of other people's armies. Why was no one telling the nid players to suck it up in vegas at the lack of terrain?

I'm going to do the forum equivalent of "I'm taking my toys and leaving." Sort of. Unless someone wants to me to directly answer something, I can't keep taking the time to write these long-winded posts, especially when some people don't take the time to read them fully, and then try to put words in my mouth saying I said things I never did.

I don't have a problem if you disagree with me. Some people have made thoughtful posts that disagree. I just don't like have my motives and my attitudes questioned by people who don't know me.

So I'll just go back to picking on newbies with my "gunline", forcing them to play on sparse tables, so I can decimate them to make myself feel better as a human being... because ultimately, 40k is how I choose to validate myself. Oh, and I'll also forget rules that happen to be disadvantageous to me at one point and then remember it at another point when it is advantageous. Because that is the characticature that I've inferred that some of you might have attributed to me.

I'll take my desire for balance and equity elsewhere.

Modhail
13-08-2007, 10:17
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h213/Modhail/Avatars%20etc/ttiwwop.gif
In other words: are there any pictures of these GT tables in action so we can judge for ourselves?
At this point all we have are second hand accounts from people who claim either "too much" or "not too much" based on the amount of terrain they are accustomed to.
As everyone has a differing frame of reference and is unaware of the others' frame of reference this can only devolve into a "pot vs kettle"-deadlock...

Part of it is also dependant on where, and when you learnt to play. A club with a group of enthousiastic terrain makers will usually have a higher terrain density, where a place where making terrain is considered a "chore" will have fairly barren tables.
The edition in which you started playing is also very formative for your preferred terrain density, each edition of 40K has had something different to say about how much terrain is preferred.
Going back in time:
4th ed: about a quarter of the table's surface should be covered as a general rule.
3rd ed: bizarrely says nothing about how much terrain to use. Going on the random terrain generators as a guide (assuming average rolls), you would come to about a 40 to 50% coverage. With the occasional barren or congested table due to fluke dice rolls.
2nd ed: And I quote: "We've found, almost without exception, that the denser the terrain the better the game will be" and "This is vitally important in Warhammer 40.000 because it stops heavy weapons and vehicles from completely dominating the game and causing it to degenerate into a long range shooting match."
1st ed: GM decides or players mutually agree. The sample scenario has a roughly 50-60% coverage, looking at the map.

So, for example, to someone like me, who started playing in second edition, and in a club with a lot of scenerybuilders, the current "regulation" table looks positively barren. At the point where many new players will start saying "that's too full", I'm thinking "Hmmm, it could use another piece or two".

In the issue of "too much/not enough" or "fairness"*, frames of reference are everything...


*: Some people play hardball, others play for fun, both have different definitions for fairness, and differing tolerances for perceived imbalance.
(Someone playing for fun, for example, would welcome a "last stand scenario" where they're outnumbered and outpointed 2-1 and consider it an acceptable imbalance. A hardline there-must-be-exact-balance tournament-style player would have a fit at the "unfairness" of it... Same game, different frame of reference. Not pointing any fingers or condemning either style of playing here, just observing.)

Bye, Modhail.

Scythe
13-08-2007, 11:03
Again, the majority of the terrain was AT, size 3. The vast majority of the pieces were at least 6" in length/width. With few exceptions the biggest piece might be 12" by 9", with various sizes in between.

On my first table there were about 9 pieces, on my last 2 tables there were ~12 pieces. My tables were representative of the rest of the tables.

My last 2 opponents readily admitted that the terrain in all of their games was heavily to their advantage.


Alright, lets make a small reality check.

Assuming all terrain was the maximum size, 12" by 9", (tough there were smaller pieces according to you, I ignore them for a second for the sake of argument), all pieces have a surface of 108 square inches. In your last 2 tables, that would end up in 1296 square inches covered with terrain.

Now, assuming you played on a standard 6'x4' table, that equals about:

1296/(50"*75") = 0.3456

In other words, only about 35% coverage. As most terrain pieces were smaller (and probably not on square bases either), the real coverage would have been lower.

A table often looks a lot more terrain filled as its real number suggest. Remember, even when you fill a quarter of the table with terrain, that quarter should be completely and utterly filled to achieve the full 25%; no gaps between pieces anywhere. Trust me, a table with true 50-60% coverage is EXTREMELY crowded, and you probably end up with no firelanes at all (depending on terrain sizes).

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the tables you played on might have had a lot more terrain as standard gaming tables, which changes the game considerably for a lot of people, but according to the 'at least 25%' guideline, I think the coverage was was pretty spot on.

UncleCrazy
13-08-2007, 19:57
The rules clearly state that 25% is the minimun. Scythe did some numbers that look about right to me. Now what you are saying is there should be no games played using more than the minimun? If 25% is the minimun and 100% is the max then shouldn't most games use about 63% terrain? 25+37.5=62.5% (37 being half of the 75%)

frenrik
13-08-2007, 23:46
The army that won at the end of game 3.

http://www.pbase.com/blackmoor/image/83815543.jpg

Alexandr Ulyanov
14-08-2007, 02:01
If I'm playing a CC force and when I show up for the tourney the TO says: All boards will have NO terrain, I might be really annoyed and will know that shooty armies will have a significant advantage over me. If I'm playing a shooty army and the TO says when I arrive at the tourney: The entire board is one giant forest, I will be similary upset as I probably won't get any shots off with my Hvy Weapons. Again those are the polar extremes.


Completely right.

If I have an IG drop troop infantry list and they put me on mostly jungle boards vs. cc armies in seek and destroy, they might as well have made me forfeit all the matches since they have denied me any viable DS opportunities and guaranteed that I will get virtually no shooting.

zeep
14-08-2007, 02:47
That image doesnt look bad at all. Kind of light really.

cailus
14-08-2007, 03:22
Sounds like good tables to me!

iamaddj
14-08-2007, 03:23
Me and 4 of my friends played in the chacago GT last month and we all thought that they also had way too much terrain there. The avrage field had 9 - 11 12x9' pecies on it. Almost all of these where size 3 also. Even my freind playing all infultrating chaos agreed there was two much. In one game he was able to set up terrain in a cross ( the mission was cleanse) so he could infultrate super close and never be shot at, is that fair??? even he didnt think so.

thegreyman
14-08-2007, 04:33
(now this is what I know of the rules the last time i played on one of those lava tables...)

You might not realize that those orange lava flows are also all DT... so really, that table would have been 60-70% DT. Owie.

bigred
14-08-2007, 05:12
That is so NOT a lot of terrain! If that pic is indicative of the terrain, it looks about right. Many smallish terrain features, that you can maneuver around and fight to control Line of Sight with.

The maneuver armies will be jumping from cover to cover, while the shooty lists will be be setting up concentrated killzones and defending their positions with countercharge units.

I'm not seeing how a table like that would cripple any army, unless players tried to game the fact that for the past few years, GW events have been notorious for super sparse (@3-4 6"x6" features on an otherwise empty board) terrain that really tilted things towards static gunline lists.

Adepticon had as much terrain as that pic or even a little bit more.

-bigred

theshadowduke
14-08-2007, 05:26
From that Pic I would say they are just about right with terrain, maybe a couple more pieces on non-lava tables, but that seems about right for a GT.

th0r
14-08-2007, 05:33
Big problem I'm having lately (especially after city fight) is how the majority of the board gives up a 4+ cover save. I mean that basically makes armies with the disadvantage of little armor void. I love playing against Tau/Guard when there entire gunline is in 4+ cover. Also I had to play against speedfreaks with quite literally a solid wall of buildings across the middle. IMO tournaments are getting quite stupid these days.

big squig
14-08-2007, 07:10
That pic shows about how much terrain should be on a table, not too much. If your playing with less terrain than that, your playing wrong.

Scythe
14-08-2007, 09:44
Completely right.

If I have an IG drop troop infantry list and they put me on mostly jungle boards vs. cc armies in seek and destroy, they might as well have made me forfeit all the matches since they have denied me any viable DS opportunities and guaranteed that I will get virtually no shooting.

You might not realise it, but difficult terrain doesn't hinder deep strike the slightest bit. Only impassable terrain does. In fact, a drop troop army would do quite well in this envoirnement, as you can strike against a part of the enemy, and be in cover or completely out of sight, making retribution a lot more difficult.


You might not realize that those orange lava flows are also all DT... so really, that table would have been 60-70% DT. Owie.

Looking at the picture posted, I'd say that those lava flows do not take up more than 10% of the table...


Me and 4 of my friends played in the chacago GT last month and we all thought that they also had way too much terrain there. The avrage field had 9 - 11 12x9' pecies on it. Almost all of these where size 3 also. Even my freind playing all infultrating chaos agreed there was two much. In one game he was able to set up terrain in a cross ( the mission was cleanse) so he could infultrate super close and never be shot at, is that fair??? even he didnt think so.

Please read my previous post. You'll see that such amount of terrain is pretty much spot on % wise (tough all being size 3 might have been a bit annoying). ;)


Big problem I'm having lately (especially after city fight) is how the majority of the board gives up a 4+ cover save. I mean that basically makes armies with the disadvantage of little armor void. I love playing against Tau/Guard when there entire gunline is in 4+ cover. Also I had to play against speedfreaks with quite literally a solid wall of buildings across the middle. IMO tournaments are getting quite stupid these days.

Well, rubble and ruins are just a lot easier and cheaper to make as trees I guess. You cannot really help it at tournaments, but at house games, it pays to invest in a varied scenery collection. Do not stick with the basic 'easy to make' stuff, but try something different. Makes games a lot more interesting.

Huw_Dawson
14-08-2007, 10:25
Your arguement is flawed by the fact that your army does exceedingly well in a 25% terrain enviroment. Hence you might as well be whining about how you can't have obliterators in elites anymore. (or something)

You did really bad at a GT. Get over it, rather than moaning about all that terrain on the table. CC armies worked properly for a change? More power to them!

- Huw

Higgen
14-08-2007, 10:32
While I definitely agree that heavy terrain isn't something to be afraid of, and actually something you should embrace and practice on, there is a situation where I feel the game becomes imbalanced for shooty armies in heavy terrain. Namely, Cleanse. They're already setting up their entire army just over 18" away, and now you're giving them multiple safe avenues of approach. It's even worse when they infiltrate all around your army, and you've packed 120 models into your one little table quarter.

Every other situation I have no problem with heavy terrain (coming from a mainly gunline Guard player), but tacking on two handicaps like that really hurts. God help you if it's Omega level.

Lord Solar Plexus
14-08-2007, 10:43
Good.
...

gun line armies that just sit there with over 100 models crammed shoulder to shoulder should play worse anyways. It's a terrible army.

Funny, and here I was thinking that of mobile horde armies!

fwacho
14-08-2007, 10:44
That pic shows about how much terrain should be on a table, not too much. If your playing with less terrain than that, your playing wrong.

I'll agree with you squig. (it almost seems light to me) my games are predominantly woods and small rivers (rivers do offer directional cover) withteh woods being size three. also a lot of 6+ cover save high grass (size 1) is thrown around in logical places usually getting a good 10% coverage all on it's own. I probaby average about about 20-25% coverage minus roads and grass. an occasional building also finds a way in.

I play mostly shooty armies and it's all about firelanes. by assaulty ork army also has a few tricks.

one note: my terrain setup is usually one half part maze of woods and buildings and the other half a large open space with terrain around the perimeter. (allowing both styles of armies a fair chance) if they did this withth terrain at the gamesday there should have been no problems. If they packed the whole board and buried the midlines I could see how that would be terribly unfair.

EDIT: Actually I've found that my regular opponents Mech guard and my Mech eldar absolutely shine in omega level (its gamma that gives us the willies)
Heavy terrain is not evil it's how its set up that matters.

Higgen
14-08-2007, 11:12
Ah, but is it Omega level Cleanse? Here's my reasoning for my statement. I play a massive infantry gunline with counterassault elements backed up by two Russes. If the enemy is starting 18.1" from me in heavy terrain, he's generally going to deploy very bunched up, and becomes even moreso as he moves towards you in his first turn. If those Russes aren't there to punish him for clumping up, my one turn of shooting won't be anywhere near potent enough to allow me to survive in CC. Couple that with the fact that I cannot spread out so many models in so small an area, and there is no way I can win such a fight. I can possibly fight to a draw, but right from the start I'm dancing to his tune.

My worst experience with this was against an Alpha Legion army...Ow.

Warp Zero
14-08-2007, 11:23
A tournament organizer can do whatever the H@ll he desires for terrain. It's the player's job after all to build an "all comers" list. And that includes all terrain possibilities from super sparse to super congested.

What happened here is folks got used to the tilt towards shooty armies that GW has had for several years, then were surprised to see that GW "mixed it up" a bit with the terrain composition. Exactly how this is the tournament organizer's fault is beyond me.

-bigred




Luck of the draw hombre. Luck of the draw.

Short of making standard tables where everyone plays on exactly the same terrain, using exactly the same missions, you'll always come across games that just plain disadvantage you.

An all infiltrating army is nasty... until they play an Alpha level mission. Then they've payed a whole lot of points for nothing. Does that mean that every mission should have infiltrate?

Similarly, an all mechanised army is severely disadvantaged by escalation. Should that mean that every mission should ditch escalation to keep everyone on an equal footing?

Terrain's the same. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it hinders. A good player should be able to work their way around it.

You're right, but.....and this is just me I think.....the game has many variables and factors in it already. All the different armies, all the different doctrines/traits/variations, all the different missions. There's already plenty of challenge building an "all comers" list based off those variables...now you're saying that you want to add ONE MORE variable? A huge one at that....

Terrain is a huge factor in these games. In my opinion, it would be vastly annoying to have to "factor in" the chances of ending up with either sparse or dense terrain without warning into a tourny list. Like I said, its challenging enough to build an army to take on a variety of army styles and missions. In my opinion, terrain should be optimum to gameplay and consistant.



To call it unfair that they didn't tell you IS whining about it

I detected no whining from the OP. But if your definition of whining includes bringing up an issue of game balance....then yeah...I guess its whining. But forums are for discussion. Negative and positive things we've experienced. The OP politely brought up a point. Asked what we thought of the new terrain. I think too many of you jumped down his throat.

I agree with lots of other posters when they said previous GTs had too little terrain. They totally did. Those boards had way too many "no man's land" areas. I personally play Eldar, and I love lots of terrain. But, I also love balanced games. When my gaming started on the 40k hobby, we played with way too much terrain. Games were crazy.

It seems a bunch of people like the amount of terrain in the picture on page 2. I can't really tell because it doesn't show the whole board. Looks like, 75% of the board I'm looking at. That being said, to me....it does look like just a smidge too much terrain. But that doesn't impact a normal mission too much. But I'll tell you what does.

Its not the amount of terrain in that pic that's imbalanced, its the amount of 4+ terrain that's imbalance. 3+ and 4+ cover saves should be coveted and strategically fought for. On that board, it seems to be in abundance.

Back to my gaming club as an example. The reason why Kroot are cheap is because they die so easily. But now, with so much 4+ terrain laying around....an army has access to cheap 4+ armor save troops. Same with IG. Suddenly, all cheap troops that don't need to move can sit in terrain and survive a lot longer than they normally do. There shouldn't be that much 4+ terrain.

Terrain should not only be 25%-30% , but they should be varied as well. After playing more games with more variations, the games with my gaming group have become more balanced. We use 25-30% terrain. Plus, of the terrain pieces used, a third of them are either 6+, difficult terrain or impassable, another third 5+, and the final third 4+.

This makes key choke points or areas of interest. Stategies used start to also focus on grabbing and setting up in 4+ terrain. Or 3+ (if there's a bunker or some such around). Optimum cover is no longer special if its in abundance. And like I said, cheap units start to become worth more than their points due to this.

As far as what the main rulebook says: yes...it doesn't say you HAVE to use the guidelines for terrain, but you know....to me, Grand Tournaments should be the height of gameplay. Every part of the competition should be expertly ran. That includes terrain set up. A vital part of the game. The Organizers should really be spending a lot of thought and care when they do this. I know it seems silly, but really...its not a friendly pick-up game at the local shop. Its a tourny.

This whole discussion is rather silly if we were talking about the usual games. But at a tourny, everything should be done with the highest amount of professional care. IMHO that is. ;)

Zazoo
14-08-2007, 11:40
I have to agree that the OP didnt seem to be complaining, more like asking some opinions.

As to too much terrain, well that only happens if there is too much level 3 or impassable terrain on the board.

If you have 70% covered but some isnt difficult and level 1 and some LOS level 2 etc then the board isnt as crowded.

Also an abundance of 4+ cover is also not great.

But that is just my opinion.

Griffin
14-08-2007, 13:45
Terraine looks fine to me - it's got some nice cover, but it's not so dense so that you couldn't set up firing lines/kill zones.

Occulto
15-08-2007, 01:51
You're right, but.....and this is just me I think.....the game has many variables and factors in it already. All the different armies, all the different doctrines/traits/variations, all the different missions. There's already plenty of challenge building an "all comers" list based off those variables...now you're saying that you want to add ONE MORE variable? A huge one at that....

Terrain is a huge factor in these games. In my opinion, it would be vastly annoying to have to "factor in" the chances of ending up with either sparse or dense terrain without warning into a tourny list. Like I said, its challenging enough to build an army to take on a variety of army styles and missions. In my opinion, terrain should be optimum to gameplay and consistant.

You misunderstand me.

Do I want it? Not necessarily for the points you made. It'd probably make my life easier if I knew exactly what I was going to encounter, just the same as releasing the missions beforehand allows you to write a list that will perform reasonably well.

However, I know it's flat out impossible to account for all of those points (having been a TO myself before) and make everyone happy. The reality is that any terrain is going to affect players differently, so I don't lose any sleep over it. Quite the opposite, because as you say, it's interesting to play a whole range of situations.

Like most people, I've played on two tables using exactly the same terrain pieces (just arranged differently), against exactly the same army, against the same player, using the exact same mission and it's turned out completely differently. Implying that adhering to a certain percentage is going to magically even out the effects of terrain is simply wrong.

Let's say that a "non-extreme" table has 1/3 terrain. That still allows a lot of variation. Expand on it to say: "at least 2 buildings, 2 hills and 2 bits of area terrain" - the way those are set up are still going to change how people's games go. For instance if there's a LOS blocking piece in the middle of the table, it'll advantage fast assault armies. If there isn't, then chances are shooty armies will benefit.

What I can't believe, is how some tournaments seem to allow people to place the terrain before the game starts. Where I am, it's never like that. The TO (and/or their helpers) set up everything before hand in an impartial manner and no one gets to change it. Combined with a random draw for tables, if someone gets hit with a disadvantaged situation, it's actually no one's fault. (The "***** happens" clause)

Some people get disadvantaged because of the terrain, some the matchup of armies, some the mission, some the dice, some a combination of all four. That's not even going into the possibility that you might encounter people with different skill levels or that you might roll terribly.

When I did run a tournament, I figured it was best to just hope that it all evened out over the entire tournament, just like every other variable. Trying to account for everything makes it ridiculous. This game, at the end of the day, can simply be unfair.

Whether the TO's a professional or not, some things are just impossible to control.

Alessander
15-08-2007, 03:39
dammit, dupe post during server lag. Ignore this one.

Alessander
15-08-2007, 03:44
Most people don't actually know what 25% terrain looks like, visually, when it's spread out.

Take your terrain set and pack the lower right quarter of the table with terrain. So absolutely no table shows in that quarter of the table, butt everything side-to-side. That's the 25% minimum, and that's a LOT of terrain. You spread it out and it looks like it's WAY more than 25%, but it's the minimum 25%.

Here's an example. Exactly 25% of the this 6x4 table is packed with terrain. Does that seem like a lot of terrain? It is. But it's 25%.

http://www.silvercompassdesigns.com/personal/25percenttable.jpg
(I hope that everyone's terrain set is far less colorful than this)

I've set up RT tournament tables before, and we always pack a quarter of the table in the manner shown above then spread it out. It ends up looking like it's more than 25%, but it's not.

Here's the same table as shown above, with the terrain spread out. nothing has been added, the shapes have just been shuffled around. Imagine if those shapes were all size 3 hills, ruins, forests and whatnot:

http://www.silvercompassdesigns.com/personal/25percenttable2.jpg

see? most GW tournies rarely even have this much terrain, since players freak. But this is what the rulebook defines as *minimum*. Terrain just tends to look much more than it really is.

Warp Zero
15-08-2007, 03:56
see? most GW tournies rarely even have this much terrain, since players freak. But this is what the rulebook defines as *minimum*. Terrain just tends to look much more than it really is.


Proper amount of terrain isn't just about making sure its 25%. If that's the case, you're above illustration works. But if you re-read page 78-79 of the main rulebook, you'll see other "factors" go into making a balanced game table besides just 25% terrain.




Trying to account for everything makes it ridiculous. This game, at the end of the day, can simply be unfair.

I agree. But I never meant to imply that you could gain absolute control over all these factors. I'm just saying that there are degrees of control. Each of these little bits help. Will it be totally 100% balanced? Nah...but trying to control as much as you can keeps it from swinging wildly from one end of the spectrum to another. My point was that TOs should attempt, to the best of their ability, to keep it the conditions as close to the middle as possible.

grickherder
15-08-2007, 04:23
Alessander-- you just inspired me to triple my terrain collection. It's building time!

Occulto
15-08-2007, 04:26
I agree. But I never meant to imply that you could gain absolute control over all these factors. I'm just saying that there are degrees of control. Each of these little bits help. Will it be totally 100% balanced? Nah...but trying to control as much as you can keeps it from swinging wildly from one end of the spectrum to another. My point was that TOs should attempt, to the best of their ability, to keep it the conditions as close to the middle as possible.

That's the thing, from everything that's been said, I don't think the TOs did anything wrong. I think that for an event that size, and of that nature they would've had to make some concessions.

GW events tend to source their terrain from a wide range of stores in the regions. Lots of little bits of terrain are a lot harder to keep track of and transport than a whole bunch of big terrain pieces. On a less savoury note, big terrain peices are harder to steal. :( All it'd take is some jerk to go there and decide he's going to souvenir a few hedges or walls and it potentially ruins some table for the next game.

Going back to a comment made by dvdhwk something becomes apparent:



Forest templates: 5+ area terrain, size 3, difficult terrain
Rock templates: 4+ area terrain, size 3, difficult terrain
Buildings: 4+ area terrain, size 3, difficult terrain
There were also the lava tables, where the lava was treated as difficult terrain. This could have been an equalizer, but I am of the opinion that with the ungodly amount of area terrain on the table, having some botch DT rolls could be easily overcome.
Little to nothing in the way of linear obstacles. Everything was just heavy area terrain.

They're all fairly generic (if the TO is going to classify terrain, he'll want as few ambiguous pieces as possible), robust and they're all easy to mass produce. Take a look at those buildings in that picture, it's obvious that they haven't had a lot of time devoted to them - more likely every store got a few boxes of CoD sprues, some textured paint and told to build a few tables worth.

TheSanityAssassin
15-08-2007, 05:54
The issue that I seem to have with this as a frequent TO myself, is the lack of creativity with what to do with Terrain. The actual coverage doesn't look obscene, but given that it isn't a Cities of Death tourney, every little piece shouldn't be Size 3 4+ Difficult Area. A good setup will include a bit of Size 1 and 2, as well as a reasonable chunk of true LoS terrain, as well as some Impassable. Looking at the rock board there, if everything is Size 3 Area, but passable....there aren't that many extended fire lines...and assualt armies would be able to simply plow over the rocks into the lines avoiding the majority of fire....and if you've ever played against JSJ Eldar or Tau with a shooty force in terrain like that, it isn't fun. Finding a good terrain balance can be very tricky, and I've found that leaving alot of it mobile and in the hands of the players is a good things. Just let them alternate placing pieces till it's run out, then roll for turn as normal.

Carlos
15-08-2007, 08:48
There is a little known fact that more terrain makes for better games. Ill cram as many hills, trees and buildings onto the battlefield as possible as this is 40K and not fantasy and everything that is not a tank battle is generally fought over dense terrain of all shapes and sizes.

Scythe
15-08-2007, 09:16
see? most GW tournies rarely even have this much terrain, since players freak. But this is what the rulebook defines as *minimum*. Terrain just tends to look much more than it really is.

Very nice images. Those illustrate the 25% coverage a lot better as words can (and also visually confirm that the shown tables were not that terrain filled at all). ;)

Ranhothep
15-08-2007, 10:07
As Warp Zero allready pointed out partly, the main problem with terrain is not the amount, but the type. Especially if its area terrain. There is a biiiig difference between area terrain and wysiwig terrain. Remember that a part of a units cost is based also on their survivability. take tyranid MCs. they have high toughness, great save sometimes even regeneration. Now imagine your carnifexes all get a 5+/4+ cover save suddenly, while your Hive tyrant can get into HtH without ever being shot at, thanx to an abundance of area terrain (speaking from experience from the recent european team championships) Now you tell me that I shouldnt play a gunline army. Do Ig,Tau have any choice? There arent many cc units in those lists. Even space marines have a hard time standing up to a tyranid assault without proper chances to get some of the big guys down first. Tau can go mechanized and try to avoid cc. Marines too to some extent, but still rhinos arent that great avoiding since they are no skimmers. Ig are screwed over.
Against non assault oriented armies Tau suddenly shine in terrain. They can effectively deny the opponent any chance of retaliation, thanx to their jet packs.

To sum it up, lots of terrain isnt bad. Lots of area terrain, bigger than size 1 is starting to influence the game a whole lot, giving saves to lots of units/models who were designed without it, is unbalancing.

Stormhammers
15-08-2007, 10:12
Yeah, looking at some of those pics, that is waay too much terrain. I play guard, actually, rather mobile guard, so I like cover...alot. but too much just boggs down the game.

RelictorLord
15-08-2007, 23:42
The gamesworkshop i usualy go to in hanley(stoke on trent (engalnd)) has a 40% terrain covergae on all of its boards, and I have never had a dodgy game on them, more terrain makes for more diverse interesting games.

Alessander
16-08-2007, 04:11
Alessander-- you just inspired me to triple my terrain collection. It's building time!

Yay, I've been sig'ed! I think this marks a milestone on Warseer, right up along with "Malek concurring with with you on a ruling" and "Brimstone sending you a private message about copyright stuff".

WIth my spread-out-table diagram, even if everything on the table was size 1 wysiwyg terrain, it'd be a lot of terrain. The point of the diagram was just to show that most people play with 10-15% terrain, max.

Relictor: 40%? Not even the cramped table in the CoD book had that much terrain.

grickherder
16-08-2007, 11:57
Yay, I've been sig'ed! I think this marks a milestone on Warseer, right up along with "Malek concurring with with you on a ruling" and "Brimstone sending you a private message about copyright stuff".

I've got a couple of those milestones in my warnings section :D.

It was just a really solid post that showed a ton of information with those pictures.



WIth my spread-out-table diagram, even if everything on the table was size 1 wysiwyg terrain, it'd be a lot of terrain. The point of the diagram was just to show that most people play with 10-15% terrain, max.

I'm trying to make the even split of LOS blocking terrain, cover providing, difficult and all that recommended in the rulebook.

Proper amounts of terrain hide a lot of the problems with 40k-- like the first turn shoot outs that destroy huge amounts of the other persons army. To play with 10-15% is to purposefully make the game show it's weaknesses. It doesn't need any help doing that.

dcikgyurt
16-08-2007, 12:43
@dvdhwk

I don't mind playing with lots of terrain, and I also use a black legion gunline. Terrain slows models down and give me longer to shoot at them. Less terrain means I can get better fields of fire. It's swings and roundabouts really.

However, I do hate it when you go to a tournament and all the tables have the exact same amount of terrain. I like variety, and not just this table is desert, this table is jungle, etc. Half the fun of 40K and WFB is the challenge you're faced with each time you approach a game. I've had some great games against 'nids on boards that were roughly 80% coverage, and one of the best games I've witnessed was orks Vs eldar with no terrain WHAT SO EVER.

The main question I would ask is this. Did you enjoy playing?

Lord Malek The Red Knight
16-08-2007, 12:46
@ Alessander - great diagrams! :)

one tiny problem...


Imagine if those shapes were all size 3 hills, ruins, forests and whatnot
"Size 3 hills"? :rolleyes:

surely you mean WYSIWYG Hills?
(when was the last time you walked through a solid hill? :p)

~ Tim

Scythe
16-08-2007, 13:08
WYSIWYG [/I]Hills?
(when was the last time you walked through a solid hill? :p)

~ Tim

Maybe those hills are not solid, but filled with a huge cave system? :p

Now that I think about it, a giant hill filled with caves could be a rather interesting terrain piece...:D

Eldanar
16-08-2007, 14:50
Hmmm...

The guy that won (whose Tau is shown on the previous picture 2 pages back) is a friend of mine and a regular opponent. He plays a JSJ suit army with 3 hammerheads.

To be honest, I thought the terrain actually looked a little sparse in the picture shown, and it is no wonder he blew the Eldar player off of the table.

But the guy that won also placed in the top 2 or 3 at the Atlanta GD tournament, he came in second at the Necro, he placed 5th at the Chicago GT, all this year, and he won the Atlanta GT two years ago (going 4-0-1 with the "1" being a game he almost lost against me :evilgrin:). He knows what he is doing and is a good player.

Warp Zero
16-08-2007, 14:50
@ Alessander - great diagrams! :)

one tiny problem...


"Size 3 hills"? :rolleyes:

surely you mean WYSIWYG Hills?
(when was the last time you walked through a solid hill? :p)

~ Tim

I'll also point out some more problems.

I've played games with that many pieces of terrain. Its a nightmare. If a crazy CQB type game is what you're looking for, sure...its cool. But that's what Cities of Death is for. For regular games, your diagram has too many terrain pieces. Tyranids and Orks would dominate on that board.

Now when I say, too many pieces, I don't mean too much terrain. There's a difference. You have the right amount of "coverage". That being 25%. But you have too many pieces. Ideally, as the rulebooks says on pages 78-79, you should be using around 6 pieces. Those 6 pieces, when coming together in one quarter, should fill that quarter of board. After playing many many games and experimenting, I've found 6-8 pieces ideal. Your diagram has around 47 terrain pieces! Do all of them block line of sight? Are the skinny pieces walls? The average lane of fire seems to be about 4 inches wide!

Now, I'm taking a while stab in the dark when I say this, but I assume you're one of those guys that hates seeing sparse terrain boards? Well, you know what? Me too. I'd say, just about 4 out of 5 times I walk into a GW store and look at someone's terrain set-up, its way too little. Most times its like, two buildings on each side that are right smack up against the players' deployment board edge. So, I see the need to champion the goal to educate people on what 25% terrain is. However, your diagram is overkill.

Lots of people seem to dismiss terrain set-up as an afterthought. To me, its just as important as your army composition and play strategy. Terrain set-up is an art. There should be just as much thought and care in a tourny board as there is when good video game designers draw up FPS maps and RTS maps.

Also, one of the things I see players most guilty of is picking a terrain set up that gives their army and play style the most advantage. Or defending the method of terrain set-up based on said selfish reasons.


However, I do hate it when you go to a tournament and all the tables have the exact same amount of terrain. I like variety, and not just this table is desert, this table is jungle, etc. Half the fun of 40K and WFB is the challenge you're faced with each time you approach a game.

I agree with that too. But I think there are margins to stay within. I would still keep the coverage between 25%-35%, but maybe vary the pieces. Maybe one board has 6 pieces that make up the coverage. Then maybe another board has 8 pieces. Then another has 4 big pieces. The amount of pieces and how they are placed offers plenty of variety in my opinion....plenty of variety without breaking game balance that is. And of course, plenty of terrain themes. Jungle, Arctic, Desert, Ash Wasteland, Spaceship Crash Site, Chaos Infected World, etc....



I've had some great games against 'nids on boards that were roughly 80% coverage, and one of the best games I've witnessed was orks Vs eldar with no terrain WHAT SO EVER.

I think fun games can be had by playing on such extreme boards, but I don't think that has a place in tournys. Kicking it with your buddies in the game room, sure....at a tourny? Yuck.

Democratus
16-08-2007, 15:18
@ Alessander - great diagrams! :)

one tiny problem...


"Size 3 hills"? :rolleyes:


A hill can have a size, as specified in the FAQ. But that size only counts for drawing LOS over area terrain.

Though I am suprised at how many people don't understand the difference between WYSIWYG terrain and Area terrain. Even when I go to a well established tournament I often find myself having to teach (or worse argue with) my opposing player about non-area terrain. If I had a nickel for every time an opponent said, "let's just declare all terrain pieces as size 3 area terrain" then I would at least have several cans of soda. :)

dcikgyurt
16-08-2007, 15:23
I agree with that too. But I think there are margins to stay within. I would still keep the coverage between 25%-35%, but maybe vary the pieces. Maybe one board has 6 pieces that make up the coverage. Then maybe another board has 8 pieces. Then another has 4 big pieces. The amount of pieces and how they are placed offers plenty of variety in my opinion....plenty of variety without breaking game balance that is. And of course, plenty of terrain themes. Jungle, Arctic, Desert, Ash Wasteland, Spaceship Crash Site, Chaos Infected World, etc....

The only problem with theme boards is that the guy(s) building them can go over the top and you end up with a board that models don't stand up on and all your dice rolls are cocked. I do agree with you point about the number of pieces of terrain though. 6-8 is about right, then you vary the size of the terrain. You certainly don't have all your terrain the same size and add bits to increase coverage.


I think fun games can be had by playing on such extreme boards, but I don't think that has a place in tournys. Kicking it with your buddies in the game room, sure....at a tourny? Yuck.

I don't know. I wouldn't have a problem with such extreme boards at a tourny (except no terrain). You've got just as much chance of playing on one of those boards as playing on an "ideal" board and although everybody goes to a tournament wanting to win, I would hope that enjoying a fun game would come first.

Remoah
16-08-2007, 15:59
Ok, youíre all missing his point here.

The amount of terrain in Birds Eye View area doesnít matter, itís what it looks like to model line of sight, to the model and itís line of sight, around 25% of the view should be blocked by terrain.
This is not a clear 20-30% of itís view blocked in EVERY turn, but a combination of all itís turns, one turn it may have 60% vision blocked, in another it may have a clear firing arc.

In a sense, those tables with a true 25% of coverage is HELL on anything but CC armies, these days, most shooting armies canít win on anything but open desert!
I remember having whole imperial guard lines, special and heavy weapon squads rolled up by 1 squad of infantry!
That shouldnít happen!

Itís not just terrain, itís the rules for close combat, once models engage in CC, itís too easy to win. Itís not as if a squad doesnít jump and say Ďhey, weíre being chargedí and they all fire back. Weíre trying to develop Stand and Shoot rules at Outpost, and I think GW needs to think about it.

CC armies get an easy time, especially when theyíre wearing and half decent armour or with intervening terrain. And no, this isnít an IG player having a sook, I do know IG are supposed to die in close combat, but when weíve got NO line of sight, or our enemy can move in whilst taking fire from virtually nobody, it peeves you to hell.

I think that 25% is more of a LOS thing rather than ACTUAL coverage.

Cry of the Wind
16-08-2007, 16:10
The tournaments I go to normally are a little light on terrain which for tends to mean a shorter game as less thought has to go into each move. The biggest problem with the table showed in the picture was the fact that every rock was size 3 area terrain with 4+ cover. If it was size 2 and 5+ it would probably be a very interesting table to play on. I think my guard would have had a great time on that table though (mostly static gunline). The difficult terrain would have slowed down any close combat troops and there are still many open firelanes, also my tanks would love it as they'd have enough terrain to hide behind for a change and would get a few shots off before exploding. My Tau would have are hard time not winning for that matter.

I wouldn't really complain about that terrain setup myself though. Have you ever had to cross an open field to get to a fortress wall that is manned by Tau!? I never saw the Crisis Suits and the only door to the fortress was covered by 20 Kroot and Broadsides. Adding insult to injury he also got first turn.... Still don't know what the TO's were thinking with that table.

Eldanar
16-08-2007, 17:06
There are two tranes of thought in regard to tournament terrain:

You either have (1) all of the tables roughly equivalent in the number of pieces, size of pieces, types of cover, etc.; or you have (2) wildly varying terrain tables, with some with a lot and others with little.

The first is more fair, but it is somewhat boring. And while the second can be more interesting, it can also be inherently unfair to some armies and advantageous to others.

The problem is not which option is used, rather whether the participants know ahead of time what they will get, which in turn brings up two more points:

(1) Is it better to let everyone know what the terrain will be like ahead of time so they can plan accordingly; or (2) is it better to not let them know and force them to expect anything?

As long as they are not taken to excess, I tend to lean toward the second option in both of these classes, as it tends to force people to take more balanced all-comers types of lists.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
16-08-2007, 17:29
Ok, youíre all missing his point here.

The amount of terrain in Birds Eye View area doesnít matter, itís what it looks like to model line of sight, to the model and itís line of sight, around 25% of the view should be blocked by terrain.
This is not a clear 20-30% of itís view blocked in EVERY turn, but a combination of all itís turns, one turn it may have 60% vision blocked, in another it may have a clear firing arc.

I think that 25% is more of a LOS thing rather than ACTUAL coverage.
i think you will find that you are mistaken (see p79 of the rulebook). ;)

~ Tim
p.s. i prefer 25-40% coverage myself, but a good mix of Terrain (Size 1-3 Area Terrain, WYSIWYG Terrain of various physical sizes, Cover sves mainly 4+ to 5+, but with a little 6+ and 3+ thrown in, Impassable/Difficult/Open ground)

Theblackprince
16-08-2007, 18:18
It would seem to me that there is something to this. I was reading the winners list for GD Balt. Nids and chaos domanated the top 20. These two armys are really good in close combat. Maybe the reason for the doanation is there was to much terrian and it gave an advantage to close combat style armys.

just a suggestion.

NotElite
16-08-2007, 18:23
I prefer my terrain to the mostly the wreckage of my enemy's vehicles!

FOR THE EMPEROR!

Ok, ok, I think the real issue here is someone was suprised about how the terrain was laid out and was unprepared for it. If you know what to expect, you can prepare. Tables I've seen are pretty barren. The LV GT would have suprised me. However, I LIKE more terrain, just because I find it more asthetic and challenging.

dvdhwk
17-08-2007, 07:29
Wow, this has actually turned into a discussion instead of "learn to play noob."

Dissenting opinions abound, but at least there's discussion.

Warp Zero brought up something that had been bugging me: Alessander's 25% pic. That pic was a bit disingenuous, as it tried to maximise the sheer number of pieces, giving a skewed view of what 25% terrain placement is. I realize that it is technically 25% coverage, but I venture most games are not played with those many pieces.

So I drew this up quickly, showing 6 pieces of terrain that together comprise 25%.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/dvdhwk/25percent.gif

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/dvdhwk/terrain.gif

Now if some of those were of varying size, and heck even if there were a few more pieces (linear obstacles, etc) then I would have ZERO problem playing on that board with any of my CC or my shooty armies.

Now throw on 4-5 more pieces of roughly equivalent size (account for some deviation) and make them predominantly size 3 area terrain (even some hills and craters) and the board might start to be a little congested.

As I've maintained earlier, going to either extreme below or above the 25-33% can produce very unbalanced games. There has been some agreement, and their has been some dissent. Cool.

As some have said, you can't account for every variable. I will concede that. But shouldn't terrain placement be a variable a TO could account for?

We all play in different stores, in different states/provinces, and heck on different continents. We're all used to a certain amount of terrain placement in our areas. But when there is a tournament, especially a major Games Day Tourney or a GT, shouldn't a TO use a standard/guidline/rule-of-thumb that all players have equal access to: the rulebook. This should theoretically level the playing field for all people who play on a divergent types of terrain set up.

Would I have brought this up as a problem if I HAD NOT been playing a shooty army? Probably not. But I still would have considered it a problem. I never started a post saying terrain was too sparse at the LV GT since it didn't negatively affect my power armoured troopers. But I'm the first to admit that it gave me a drastically unfair advantage against the genestealer player who did his damnedest to make the best use of the available terrain. I don't think he did well all weekend because of the terrain.

But once we got past: "learn to play" I've enjoyed the discussion on the last several pages.

Zazoo
17-08-2007, 07:41
I shivver anytime someone suggests adding 3+ terrain to a board.

I disagree with that and at our club 3+ cover is only available if you pay points for it or its part of the mission.

Hellfury
17-08-2007, 08:36
I don't have a problem if you disagree with me. Some people have made thoughtful posts that disagree. I just don't like have my motives and my attitudes questioned by people who don't know me.

Welcome to the intarnetz!




I'll take my desire for balance and equity elsewhere.

Translation: "I'm taking my game and going home!" :rolleyes:

I wonder if one can make sour grapes into whine?

Yep. This thread proves it.

I wasn't at the LA GT, but from what I have seen of other people battle reports, the OP's view of what was actually fielded was emotionally exaggerated, it seems.

dvdhwk
17-08-2007, 09:01
Translation: "I'm taking my game and going home!"


I'm going to do the forum equivalent of "I'm taking my toys and leaving." Sort of.

Wow, Hellfury, did you skip that? Great work reading past all of my claims for balance and instead reading what you wanted to read. This thread was on the right track, but your condesencion and high-horsedness - that's right, "high-horsedness" - brought it back down again.

So I'll thank you too, for thinking the worst about me, instead of reading all of my actual posts. Oh and emotionally exaggerated? I gave quantitative, objective data of the terrain. There was no exaggeration. It is my subjective opinion that that amount of terrain was too much, regardless of the army type. Other people may have a different subjective opinion regarding the data and that's fine.

Scythe
17-08-2007, 10:01
Wow, this has actually turned into a discussion instead of "learn to play noob."

Dissenting opinions abound, but at least there's discussion.

Warp Zero brought up something that had been bugging me: Alessander's 25% pic. That pic was a bit disingenuous, as it tried to maximise the sheer number of pieces, giving a skewed view of what 25% terrain placement is. I realize that it is technically 25% coverage, but I venture most games are not played with those many pieces.

So I drew this up quickly, showing 6 pieces of terrain that together comprise 25%.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/dvdhwk/25percent.gif

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/dvdhwk/terrain.gif

*snap*



It all remains a very subjective case. I took the freedom to rearrange the terrain pieces from your diagrams slightly different (hope you don't mind).

As you can see it already looks more crowded as the other diagram (mainly due our eyes focussing on the center of the picture), simply because the pieces are more to the center of the board. It would also change gameplay, naturally, as the center of the board sees more action as the far edges.

So, what is right or wrong? Even the rulebook cannot give us a water proof answer; only guidelines. Players should just feel free to do what they think works best, as the guidelines are just that. Of course, in a tournament, you would expect a little tighter system, but then, in a game were each tournament on its own has vastly different rules on what army lists and additional units are allowed and what not, vastly different missions and structure, would you really expect a coherent terrain system? :p


I shivver anytime someone suggests adding 3+ terrain to a board.


Erhm, why?

dvdhwk
17-08-2007, 10:34
It all remains a very subjective case. I took the freedom to rearrange the terrain pieces from your diagrams slightly different (hope you don't mind).

How dare you! ;)

Your point is well taken though. The terrain section in the BGB only provide guidelines. It is entirely possible to follow those guidelines to the letter and still have a terrain setup that may vastly favor one army type over another.

As other posters have said, you can't make everything perfectly balanced for all people. And that is very true; it is an ideal, which cannot be attained. Nevertheless, TO's (and I have been a TO numerous times, and know all of the headaches that come along with that) should strive to do their very best.

I think I should clarify, I'm not angry at the GD TO's, and I'm not saying I could do it better (the biggest tourney I've run was around 24 people, and it had its share of problems), I just wanted to get a feel for what people thought. I will be sending a polite email to Dave Taylor congratulating him for taking feedback to heart about the lack of terrain at the LV GT, and comment that I felt that they over compensated. If I'm the only one that does that, then the next event will probably be similar. He shouldn't change it for 1 person, but if there are many more who felt like I do and let him know, then maybe it would change.

I can tell you that at next years southwest GT and LA Gamesday I will be preparing lists that will be better able to deal with dense tables. I'm willing to change, it was just a little hard to adjust to the extreme reversal in terrain density on the spot. If that's whining, then so be it.

Ammedie
20-08-2007, 15:27
having 1/4 of the bord in terain is essential but it need to be a gooz mix of things.


lots of 6 - 8 inch oval trees and hills even otted aroud is lame.


the best games have open areas and areas of dencer similla terrain.

all the hills to gether and or trees and bulidings. placed at right angles to deployment so one player isnt hugely disadvantadged with either side but there is enfuf intret to make it an important choice

srintuar
20-08-2007, 16:30
Zazzoo

I'll take my desire for balance and equity elsewhere.

Terrain, sometimes in super abundance, and sometimes a barren 25% is what the game is about.

The only time you have a right to complain is when it is less that 25%, which is outside the range suggested by the BGB. Anything from 25% to 100% is fair game, and thats the way the game is balanced. Sure, you can make lists that are very weak without long firing lanes, but thats your own mistake.

Even shooty armies can do well, because the most important part of the shooting phase for infantry is the 12" death zone right before assault.

If you cant deal with 100% terrain, you wont be able to deal with nightfighting missions either, and that means your list is probably broken.

Scythe
21-08-2007, 08:30
Even shooty armies can do well, because the most important part of the shooting phase for infantry is the 12" death zone right before assault.

That depends hugely on what shooting army you are talking about. An IG army is generally long ranged, while a sisters army shines within 12" of the enemy.


If you cant deal with 100% terrain, you wont be able to deal with nightfighting missions either, and that means your list is probably broken.

There is a huge difference between a line of sight of 2d6x3" (average 21") and a line of sight of about 6", which will be close to the maximum you get on a 100% filled table (assuming no vast size 1 area terrain pieces).

srintuar
22-08-2007, 16:15
That depends hugely on what shooting army you are talking about. An IG army is generally long ranged, while a sisters army shines within 12" of the enemy.



There is a huge difference between a line of sight of 2d6x3" (average 21") and a line of sight of about 6", which will be close to the maximum you get on a 100% filled table (assuming no vast size 1 area terrain pieces).


Hrm, not all terrain is area in the first place.

Roads are a special type of terrain that dont block LOS.

Not to mention lakes, lava rivers, mud pits, quicksands, etc.

Pitted rocky group, blast craters, barbed wire fences, and sandbags dont block terrain much to speak of. Even large rock formations only provide minimal interruptions, based on their shape.

I have played on tons of maps with nearly 100% terrain but respectable mixes of terrain.
If you play on 100% size 3 forest... well thats just as tactical as an empty table top.

Vishok
22-08-2007, 17:49
War is not fair.

This is a game about war.

How many games do you know that are fair?

Sink or swim time. The OP needs to practice with the exact army he took to tournament...on a JUNGLE TABLE OMG.

I read these boards some times and read some silly sh@t, and this discussion certainly qualifies as such.

Put terrain on the table. Take it off. I don't care. By the way, that's 25% minimum. +10% and take a look. I get the feeling most who say they play with 30% is more like 10% due to their lack of balanced perception.

I'm one of those guys who knows that all is balanced, whether I perceive it or not. Lists, dice, LUCK and all the other things that go into a scenario in our game.

So I'm not gonna waste time wondering or whining about what is what or why is why.

Mine is but to do or die.

Maybe I made a point to some of you.

Glabro
23-08-2007, 15:07
I'm one of those guys who knows that all is balanced, whether I perceive it or not. Lists, dice, LUCK and all the other things that go into a scenario in our game.


Explain. I seem to have misunderstood your point. I understood it to mean that you "know" that all games of 40k, provide an even chance of victory for either side when the first miniature hits the table, and that the player who plays slightly better always wins, regardless of anything.

LuciusAR
02-09-2007, 14:37
I shivver anytime someone suggests adding 3+ terrain to a board.

I disagree with that and at our club 3+ cover is only available if you pay points for it or its part of the mission.



What?!!! Unless your a marine player and are simply loathe to see another army have as good a save as you I see no logic to this statement.

Effective use of terrain and cover not only makes for better, more thoughtful games but is something that is not IMHO emphasised enough in the current edition of 40k.

Try playing FOW where all infantry get a 3+ save regardless of cover. This is followed by an additional test if they are in cover. You will find that this works very well.

'The more terrain the better the game'. This was mentioned in practically every WD back in the days of 2nd ED. Now terrain is viewed as an inconvenient LOS blocker as opposed to the infantryman's best friend which it should be.

Darkangeldentist
02-09-2007, 15:46
It's nice to have a discussion about too much terrain for a change.

I'm sorry but I haven't read a lot of this thread so if I'm repeating things please forgive me.

I sympathise with the original posters comments though my knee-jerk reaction was the same as many others. He had a shooty army with counter assault units which did nothing to invite or illicit sympathy to his argument. Shame since the argument is valid.

The tournaments I've been to (not many) have a distasteful fondness for size 3 terrain, most of it area terrain at that. This makes masses of terrain a real problem as it both blocks line of sight and restricts movement for all.

Most of the tables I play on I try for 25-40% terrain. 15% of this will be size 3 terrain probably area terrain. The rest will vary and include hills rubble and assorted scatter pieces. These will be size 2 or smaller and their primary purpose to to provide cover that does not completely block line of sight.

A lot of the bigger tournaments sound like they're improving the amount of terrain on the tables but too much is size 3 area terrain and that quickly clogs the board. Smaller pieces of terrain are more subjective to interpretation and often cause more trouble. Big pieces are easy to sort out and often to make as well.

I'll see for myself how the UKGT turns out this year for terrain but if the situation if changing it at least means there is dynamic. Which means they are actively trying to ammend the situation. (However slowly it may seem.)

Easy E
02-09-2007, 16:23
There are two tranes of thought in regard to tournament terrain:

You either have (1) all of the tables roughly equivalent in the number of pieces, size of pieces, types of cover, etc.; or you have (2) wildly varying terrain tables, with some with a lot and others with little.

The first is more fair, but it is somewhat boring. And while the second can be more interesting, it can also be inherently unfair to some armies and advantageous to others.

The problem is not which option is used, rather whether the participants know ahead of time what they will get, which in turn brings up two more points:

(1) Is it better to let everyone know what the terrain will be like ahead of time so they can plan accordingly; or (2) is it better to not let them know and force them to expect anything?

As long as they are not taken to excess, I tend to lean toward the second option in both of these classes, as it tends to force people to take more balanced all-comers types of lists.

And this is precisely why we need a Codex: Tournaments. If people want to get to as close to a "true" competitive environment as they would have you believe then Codex: Tournaments is the answer. It would lay out solid guidelines for how tournaments should be organized from Terrain, Lists, Scoring, Missions, and streamlined rules. Then all TO's would know to follow Train of thought 1 and then 2 per Eldanar's options (and as an example only). It could also lay out a restiction like 1 Level 3 Area terrain piece aproximately X inches, 2 Level 2 Area terrain approximately X inches, and 3 WYSIWYG terrain of level 1 about xinches if such detail was needed. Everyone going to the Tournament would know and expect this, since they would have just as much access to Codex: Tournaments as the TOs.

This Codex would be no different then something like Apoc or CoD. A Supplement for playing 40k in a tournament, competitive environment instead of at home or in the shop.

Apocalypse
03-09-2007, 00:55
I think the more terrain the better... I think it adds another element of strategy...

Warp Zero
03-09-2007, 01:40
War is not fair.

This is a game about war.

There's plenty of "elements" in the way 40k plays to represents the ups and downs of war. One side having an advantage over another. Even more so in a regular friendly/casual game of 40k where you might play some really difficult missions like "Ambush" (where you're the defender). But most of the discussion is centered on competitive tournament play. Being a tourny, things have to be fair. Why? Because its a competition. Its not real life...nor is it real war. As it is, dice rolls for missions, table sides, and who starts first is enough of a random element to "challenge" people. It is of my opinion that we don't need a huge spectrum of terrain. Or at least, if there is, inform the players beforehand.


How many games do you know that are fair?

Fair? It can be argued that fairness is in the eye of the beholder. You may say that giving a penalty for double dribbling in Basketball is unfair, but I think most people established that it is indeed fair. But if your question was more about...how many games offer a fair chance at winning to both sides equally...then, my answer is: Lots of games.

Chess, Backgammon, Blackjack, Football, Basketball, 100 yard dash, Volleyball, Horseshoes, Checkers.....shall I go on?

Every now and then I hear the same statement on how real war isn't fair so its silly to expect our GAME of miniatures to be fair too. Always gets a chuckle out of me. I mean really, you guys gotta relax. Its a game meant to help escape and have fun for a few hours. Sure, there's an intense competitive side to it (tournies), but its still a game meant for enjoyment. Real life has tons of unfairness going on. We delve into our hobbies and other activities to escape it. Please leave your "realism" at the door. Thankyou.




Sink or swim time. The OP needs to practice with the exact army he took to tournament...on a JUNGLE TABLE OMG.

The OP would've if he knew that the tourny was going to be set up terrain in a dense fashion. Plus, its not like the OP thought it was a massive hindrance to his games, he just came here to ask what we thought of the situation. Man, take it easy and read people's posts a little slower.


I read these boards some times and read some silly sh@t, and this discussion certainly qualifies as such.

I totally know what you mean. I just responded to a pretty silly post I read recently. ;)




Mine is but to do or die.

La la la la...La la la la...what's that suppose to mean? We're all suppose to die? Go back and get me some more thirty cal Upham. And if you hear the sounds of struggle on your way back, don't be a numb nut and freeze on the stairs.

Eldanar
03-09-2007, 02:42
And this is precisely why we need a Codex: Tournaments. If people want to get to as close to a "true" competitive environment as they would have you believe then Codex: Tournaments is the answer. It would lay out solid guidelines for how tournaments should be organized from Terrain, Lists, Scoring, Missions, and streamlined rules. Then all TO's would know to follow Train of thought 1 and then 2 per Eldanar's options (and as an example only). It could also lay out a restiction like 1 Level 3 Area terrain piece aproximately X inches, 2 Level 2 Area terrain approximately X inches, and 3 WYSIWYG terrain of level 1 about xinches if such detail was needed. Everyone going to the Tournament would know and expect this, since they would have just as much access to Codex: Tournaments as the TOs.

This Codex would be no different then something like Apoc or CoD. A Supplement for playing 40k in a tournament, competitive environment instead of at home or in the shop.

The only problem with GW putting out a Codex:Tournaments is that of the tournaments I have been to, the non-GW sponsored/run tournaments have been better. So I'm not sure if I trust them to do a tournament compendium and get it "right."

Essentially, when they put out their GT rules every year, they do do some of this. Unfortunately, they do not go far enough lay out terrain rules, etc., ahead of time.

Bookwrak
03-09-2007, 11:38
I think the ideal board would have terrain that fell into the happy medium between dvdhwk and Alessander's examples. You have a couple big pieces of area terrain/LoS blockers. You have some smaller LoS blockers. You have a good scattering of stuff that might not come into play because everyone has a better armor save, but every now and then will eat a brightlance, or plasma bolt.