It seems like every army has its own tactica but to my mind one of the most important aspects of the board is often overlooked in the discussions, instead (and I am as guilty as any) it's a host of mathshammer and list building discussions.
Would anyone like to talk about terrain specific tactics they like to use? I'm still somewhat ignorant on the changes from 7th....
Peace.
As a wood elf player I like my forests put my dryads in one and use tree singer to surf them forward
I guess my first thought is to simply demand on using the rulebook requirement of 1d6+4 pieces of terrain for every battle.
Yes. The game is built on two assumptions:
1) that you'd use the random terrain guidelines.
2) that you use the random scenarios.
Doing the above two things lessens the abuse because you have to build a list that can deal with all of the above.
That being said, two things to remember about terrain that help against the uber death star builds of today:
1) rivers negate steadfast and you can't march through them. As such if you are facing off against a death star coming your way, sidle up next to a river. The opponent when charging MUST maximize his models against you and that will often mean when dealing with mega horde death star units that at least one unit is going to end up in the river, negating the steadfast.
2) forests do similar except over half the unit must be in it. If you are using normal pieces of terrain that is fine. If you are using midget pieces of terrain, forests tend to become a non issue.
NOTE: my use of the word "powergamer" is not meant as a derrogatory or inflammatory word used in a negative context. It is used to describe a type of player that uses power builds
If you are playing against a army with hordes, place terrain in the middle, especially impassible, buildings and the like.
I like playing with mysterious/magic terrain if there is not too much of it (or you uses 2"x4" cards to mark it); it can change the game around a lot.
Yes I've usually played with guys who like the huge open area in the middle of the board. It bugs me. If that's all you want then why bother putting up terrain at all. Not to mention it gimps them in tournaments since they usually have a good spread of terrain. I play Lizard so I love forests and ANY water features. How many other players/armies place water features if not using the book? ZERO! Some might enjoy a tiny river going across the corner of their side to hide war machines behind but that's about it. So I've started showing up early for games, using the book to set up, then allowing my opponent to make "minor' changes and then they get to choose a side.
Also don't let your opponents fudge on LoS. Many of the ones with cannons and stone throwers tend to just fire it off. Not that they are trying to cheat but that sometimes you just don't get down and dirty and check LoS. Make sure they do and if they are firing a stone thrower behind a wood or something make sure they do the extra scatter.
While the horde formation is very nice in most respects this edition, it can seriously cause a problem for someone like an Empire player who fields 50 Halberds and 40 Flaggies and then totally has to readjust to move around the board through smaller areas. Even 6 wide can be an issue and it should be if you're playing the terrain randomly/correctly. When i set up i don't mess around with 4" wide forests. Any terrain feature on a 4x8 or 4x6 field should be @ 12"x12" with probably 12" between them if possible. But I also like to make it realistic and put a forest right up against a lake or river.
basically what i'm saying is to force yourself to play with the terrain rules by using the book. Though using the mysterious terrain rules is fully optional in my opinion. Sometimes they just slow down the game for no good reason.
Me and my mates don't often use the special terrain rules. We do the generation and all that but everything is just normal. Houses are houses, they do what houses do. Forests are forests and they do what forests do. There are no blood forests, boiling rivers, haunted mansions or random altars to khaine.
Why? It clutters and slows down the game, and 70% of the time we forget about the effects of said terrain anyway.
We also don't allow players to place terrain, because we all think its dumb and stupid and makes no sense that the general of my Skaven army may choose the location of a forest that is much older than him...
Before deployment we roll a scatter die for each piece and place it... I think it was 5D6 inches from the centre... I don't remember, whatever that it can be just about anywhere on the board.
Now that that's out of the way, terrain can be a huge advantage in some situations. Buildings and long stretches of wall can keep a unit safe, forests in the middle of a table can cripple the plans of armies like mine that need to have steadfast.
But it's all very situational stuff that you can't really have tactics on because it will be different every game. In most of my games, terrain has little to no effect beyond deploying scouts.
In one game the effect of terrain was that my gutter runners hid behind a wall meaning they were able to kill a much larger skink unit and survived to later kill a stegadon because of the hard cover. That's probably the largest affect that terrain has ever had for me personally.
Originally Posted by nagash66
And what purpose would that serve?
The Germans are exceedingly fond of Rhine wines; they are put up in tall, slender bottles, and are considered a pleasant beverage. One tells them from vinegar by the label.
www.tablepott.de - Wir sind das Ruhrgebiet!
Now they won't be steadfast when they destroy you in combat res...duh! Wait...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote