|
wasn't there a pretty sizeable/vocal "bring back 4e area terrain rules" crew because this brought back one of the bigger ones.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
More like trepain in the rear end amirite
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 03:10
|
|
|
Captain Magic posted:More like trepain in the rear end amirite Trepanation in the rear end is highly inadvisable. Remove the head from the rear end first, then you will have more room to drill into the skull.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:Jesus Christ Bear in mind that just putting down area terrain made of construction paper or felt or neoprene or whatever does 80% of the job. All you need after that is whatever kind of LOS blocker makes you happy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 03:30
|
|
|
Terrain is cool
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 05:22
|
|
|
Shrinking the battlefield and filling it with buildings is certainly “a choice” by GW. I get that it enables the melee armies, but every battle seems like it’s taking place inside a hive. Maybe the real reason the Imperium took over the galaxy is that they’re the only ones who can operate outside of a bunker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 05:28
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Shrinking the battlefield and filling it with buildings is certainly “a choice” by GW. I get that it enables the melee armies, but every battle seems like it’s taking place inside a hive. Maybe the real reason the Imperium took over the galaxy is that they’re the only ones who can operate outside of a bunker. One of the complaints I hear about 40k lately is you are just taking potshots across the map instead of getting into combat, so if there's tons of buildings around then that helps to solve that issue
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 05:32
|
|
|
Turning everything into an arena for mid to close range combat is fine, if they'd also make all of the armies work in that range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 05:36
|
|
|
They're running into an issue where the larger vehicles can't drive out of deployment zones, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 05:37
|
|
|
Then I see stuff like https://cadianshock.com/cadians-vs-imperial-knights-1750-points-10th-edition/  And just assume a lot of people playing warhammer just want big numbers and don't care about table size or terrain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 05:38
|
|
|
Maybe its just because of the scale of the vehicles being used but that looks like a loving knife-fight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 05:41
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:Then I see stuff like idk the name of that big tank thing but it doesn't look like it will be able to leave where it's sitting
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 05:43
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:Then I see stuff like That just looks weird, having a super heavy tank and knights on that size of table. Really doesn’t sell the scale of the game and makes it look cramped. Units like that should be fighting on a 12x8 footer
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 05:44
|
|
|
Endman posted:That just looks weird, having a super heavy tank and knights on that size of table. Really doesn’t sell the scale of the game and makes it look cramped. Superheavies and fliers have never fit with 40k’s scale. Unfortunately by this point we’re stuck with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 05:53
|
|
|
It's fun to play killing fields 40k with your own rules. You're still allowed to make your own fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 07:13
|
|
|
Der Waffle Mous posted:wasn't there a pretty sizeable/vocal "bring back 4e area terrain rules" crew because this brought back one of the bigger ones. I mean I dunno sizeable or vocal but hell yeah
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 08:08
|
|
|
I wish GW were more explicit about the way boards should be laid out with terrain, or at least provide some concrete guidelines about it. The core rules have some really vague example tables, with pretty vague descriptions about why one layout is good for matched play as opposed to narrative, which is not nothing but there's nothing about how many terrain pieces to use, what types they should ideally be, and so on. Then you look at GT tables and it's oops all ruins! For all the many flaws of Privateer Press, at least they had really clear rules about ways to set up a table. I'm not saying I want anything that detailed, and certainly with a much bigger table and many more mission parameters it would be really loving difficult to do, but some commentary or insight would be really helpful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 13:53
|
|
|
rantmo posted:I wish GW were more explicit about the way boards should be laid out with terrain, or at least provide some concrete guidelines about it. There's a guide to setting up terrain (among other things) in the Leviathan mission deck. It's annoying how the rules are fragmented all over the place like that but there is a GW-standard terrain setup, with commentary on the specifics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
rantmo posted:Then you look at GT tables and it's oops all ruins! Cease to Hope posted:There's a guide to setting up terrain (among other things) in the Leviathan mission deck. Which is, in fact, "oops, all ruins!" Maybe if other terrain was a little more impactful than 'provides cover'. Like RAW Ruins are the only ones with the Plunging Fire benefit (1 AP if on a floor >6" above ground to target on ground).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
That guide is sort of helpful for the 4" between terrain piece edges but even then there's nothing about how many pieces of terrain make for a good board or what makes those example layouts particularly good. Looking at the examples, I guess peak performance is a dozen ruins arranged in two mirrored halves, which is not what I would have guessed but at least it's a place to start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
40K just isn't that deep! There are games where terrain is granular, creating lots of interesting challenges and situations, but 40K is too deadly and short ranged for that. The main concern is preventing the T1 alpha strike, with lots of LOS-blocking terrain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
The reason GT tables are "oops all ruins!" is that ruins are by far the easiest, cheapest, and most storage friendly way to furnish dozens of 40k tables.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
There is nothing stopping you from sculpting gentle rolling hills out of foam and supporting your local hobby train store by buying out a bunch of plastic trees and logs nor just using coke bottles, tissue boxes, toilet paper rolls and cardboard for terrain
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
I mean, I just got a box of Bandua ruins for that very reason, but we have other stuff too and we are still trying to get a grip on how to set it all up. I guess we're overthinking it and all that matters is no LOS between deployment zones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
My Vostroyans are getting even more artillery. I think this gun will be a good fit. It also helps that I found this kit online for like 1/4 what GW wants for the Earthshaker Carriage Battery. I get that it is a lot of resin, but that price is just too steep, even for a purist like me. I feel like I'm going to just build this gun as is, then slap some aquilla or something else on there. I might modify it a bit, I've still got lots of leftovers from the basilisk and ordnance battery, something might work well. Converting more crew will almost certainly be an ordeal, but I'll thin them out with a couple servitors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
rantmo posted:I mean, I just got a box of Bandua ruins for that very reason, but we have other stuff too and we are still trying to get a grip on how to set it all up. I guess we're overthinking it and all that matters is no LOS between deployment zones. It's quite simple: Can most armies deploy most of their army out of LOS? Does the midfield have some cover to let people advance at least part of their army up the table in cover? If so, your table is good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Virtual Russian posted:Converting more crew will almost certainly be an ordeal, but I'll thin them out with a couple servitors. If you want to go full BIG GUN ENERGY, I suggest ogre kingdom ogryn crew with aquilla tattoos and a human supervisor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
moths posted:If you want to go full BIG GUN ENERGY, I suggest ogre kingdom ogryn crew with aquilla tattoos and a human supervisor. Absolutely a great idea, but I just don't care for abhumans in my guard. I have a 3D printed ogryn bodyguard, and I just cannot make him fight with the rest of my guys. If I can find one/make one I like it will certainly go into the crew. They would be perfect for lugging huge 1/35 shells around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
The way to make ogryns feel right with a mostly human army is to figure out what the ogryn thinks he's doing, and how an essentially cheerful but very dim brute would go about doing that. Ogryn bodyguard in a command squad? He's not a bodyguard, he's a commissar cadet, with a comically undersized saber and peaked cap, and a heavy bolter that has clearly been torn off of something. Bullgryn squad? They're combat engineers! Instead of clubs, they have a shovel, mattock, and a tripod that probably had a theodolite attached at one point. Ogryn loader for artillery? Everyone's bundled up for the cold but he's stripped to the waist and heedless of the layer of frost on his back and arms. Come on, it's not that cold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
Historicals and model trains are your friends if you want to build up a terrain collection that isn’t GW’s endless industrial gothic ruins. Fight over an agriworld, an eldar crone world, a death world! The galaxy is so diverse that really just some 40k accoutrements like aquilas or eldar glyphs or so on and they fit right in
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
Servator ogryn are another option that'll convey scale!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
I'm sold on this idea of Ogryn being a labour battalion, but also they're on the frontlines because they're Ogryn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
Player placed terrain is best imo, defender places first piece and attacker places two, then alternate. 5” between ruins, 4” from edge, forests and crates can be placed on the edge. Been working amazingly for our tournaments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
Play On Tabletops uses big rocks for mountains and it looks cool
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
a fatguy baldspot posted:Player placed terrain is best imo, defender places first piece and attacker places two, then alternate. 5” between ruins, 4” from edge, forests and crates can be placed on the edge. Been working amazingly for our tournaments. Yeah this is what I always do, but just alternating placing one piece. It goes a long way to remove hard feelings, plus placing the terrain becomes a fun little pre-game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
player-placed is fun but relies very heavily on both players knowing what they want out of the terrain. it's very easy for an inexperienced player to lose before even setting up their army, by protecting or not protecting objectives, failing to create somewhere safe to deploy, creating a safe pocket in their own DZ for homers chaff, etc. it's quite skill-reliant, which is nice, but it's a very particular skill that you'll want your best players to teach to everyone else. you might want a more level playing field.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
There should be guides on how to place terrain tactically. It is really essential in kill team and would make or break armies in 40k.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
Better to teach people about terrain and how to use it since it's already in the game, rather then just letting everyone try to figure things out on their own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:player-placed is fun but relies very heavily on both players knowing what they want out of the terrain. it's very easy for an inexperienced player to lose before even setting up their army, by protecting or not protecting objectives, failing to create somewhere safe to deploy, creating a safe pocket in their own DZ for homers chaff, etc. For sure, but I think you can lose due to terrain with almost any system for setting up. I played an intro game of a historical not long ago where the host set everything up, my assumption was it would be balanced, but I ended up needing to attack across a huge open field towards fortified objectives. Needless to say, I lost badly. I don't think the map was terribly unbalanced, but once my main objective went down and sides were determined I was beyond hosed. Had I blundered setting up terrain myself the loss would likely feel better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
a fatguy baldspot posted:Player placed terrain is best imo, defender places first piece and attacker places two, then alternate. 5” between ruins, 4” from edge, forests and crates can be placed on the edge. Been working amazingly for our tournaments. We did that in a recent game, with one addition: The home objectives were shielded behind ruins, otherwise it was placed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:51
|
|
