What do you think of the "mysterious terrain" rules?

[T10]

..., if you are like me and refuse to accept guess distance accuracy as a skill that has anything to do with wargaming.

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

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

[Urgat]

Yes, forests negate steadfast and rivers negate ranks which are nice, but there's just too little disincentive to stop you going in them

Ram a unit of those "useless in 8th ed" cavalry in a steadfast unit while it has its feet wet or it's under trees, then state that again. I can't believe someone can say that negating steadfast or crippling its Ld value is no problem when one of the most commonly complained things about 8th ed is that steadfast is too hard to remove. Losing steadfast is huge for large units, catching them when they're at their weakest is what tactics is about, my blocks of gobs avoid forests and rivers like a plague, they're not just mere annoying decorations.

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

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

[BigbyWolf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jind_Singh]

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

[Lord Inquisitor]

Ram a unit of those "useless in 8th ed" cavalry in a steadfast unit while it has its feet wet or it's under trees, then state that again. I can't believe someone can say that negating steadfast or crippling its Ld value is no problem when one of the most commonly complained things about 8th ed is that steadfast is too hard to remove. Losing steadfast is huge for large units, catching them when they're at their weakest is what tactics is about, my blocks of gobs avoid forests and rivers like a plague, they're not just mere annoying decorations.

This is true, I just don't find it enough, particularly when any proper combat unit is likely to be Stubborn, if all else fails because of the ubiquitous Crown of Command. Likewise Skirmishers gaining Stubborn can be important too, but rarely enough.

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

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

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

[Urgat]

This is true, I just don't find it enough, particularly when any proper combat unit is likely to be Stubborn, if all else fails because of the ubiquitous Crown of Command. Likewise Skirmishers gaining Stubborn can be important too, but rarely enough.

Well, with mysterious terrain, it's much more brutal. It'd been me, the results would have been more... dunno, natural, though. Like for forests, you'd get thorn bushes (-1M), irregular footing (no marching) etc, and keep a couple of the more extreme ideas for rolls of 1 and 2.
That being said, negating steadfast is plenty annoying for my own army already. Can't have the crown in every unit xD

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

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

[Ultimate Life Form]

But... this is what GW has always wanted, for as far as I remember; it's not a new direction. Every edition they say that Warhammer is not meant for competitive play, every single edition. It's not because people ignore it that it changes anything.

Yeah, apparently. However, both groups could have fun. The 'new direction' I was referring to was more GW letting down the shutters and putting a big NO VETS sign in the window. That's quite a radical step if you ask me. The notion that Warhammer is some kind of top-class sport may have been an urban legend to begin with but it certainly didn't hurt the game (and sales), either.

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

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

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

[DaemonReign]

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

[Tupinamba]

Your poll might not give you the answers you are looking for.

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

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

2x

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

[bonertron]

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

[pointyteeth]

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

[Asensur]

Well, considering that the only mysterious terrains are forest and rivers I'm fine with it.

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

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


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

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

[Urgat]

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

[Sh4d0w]

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

[Scythe]

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

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

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

Well played sir.

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

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

[Asensur]

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

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

[Yowzo]

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

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

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

[T10]

Well played sir.

Thank you! Got it in one.

[Snake1311]

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

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

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

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

[BigbyWolf]

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

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

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

Poll shows only 43.42% reject it.

There's still time though...