Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on May 12, 2017 14:27:01 GMT
So now that we've had some time to work with it, how is everyone dealing with the mandatory central LOS blocker? I realize Amon and Sevvy 2 gunlines won't care too much, and it can help us in some matches, but overall, good or bad?
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on May 12, 2017 14:43:43 GMT
The only problem with it is that almost everyone will put down a forest and we're always hurting for pathfinder
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 12, 2017 15:47:09 GMT
I think that as long as TO's make it divers its ok. Burning earth is kind of obnoxious and obstructions can be a pain but honestly I like the new terrain rules. Tables feel pretty dynamic and the terrain feels active and involved. Forests can be obnoxious but we can always use sevy 2 and amon if things get dire. (testament can ignore all terrain on feat turn) Only issue is with sentry stones and IME. They can pretty much become untouchable if they macth up against a faction that cant get around or through the Central terrain and then things just get silly form there.
|
|
|
Post by Andrivan on May 13, 2017 23:05:52 GMT
The only problem with it is that almost everyone will put down a forest and we're always hurting for pathfinder This is hyperbole at it's finest. There are several types of LoS blocking terrain. If "almost everyone" is putting down forests then perhaps you should introduce some variation to "almost everyone's" terrain selection
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 14, 2017 0:21:10 GMT
This is hyperbole at it's finest. There are several types of LoS blocking terrain. If "almost everyone" is putting down forests then perhaps you should introduce some variation to "almost everyone's" terrain selection I tend to find the people that set up terrain to be shockingly lazy and uncreative most of the time. PP has had to nearly force them to add more terrain kicking and SCREAMING into more varied terrain. If given the opportunity for a neat destroyed building or a forest template....They will always take the forest template.
|
|
|
Post by Andrivan on May 14, 2017 1:36:45 GMT
This is hyperbole at it's finest. There are several types of LoS blocking terrain. If "almost everyone" is putting down forests then perhaps you should introduce some variation to "almost everyone's" terrain selection I tend to find the people that set up terrain to be shockingly lazy and uncreative most of the time. PP has had to nearly force them to add more terrain kicking and SCREAMING into more varied terrain. If given the opportunity for a neat destroyed building or a forest template....They will always take the forest template. This is patently false. I was just at the SOO that used the SR 2017 as a guideline to set up terrain and only half of the tables for the masters (if that) had a forest in the middle (58 tables). Most had an obstruction. It sounds to me like you are experiencing the use of 40K style terrain for Warmahordes. While not completely incompatible there are a lot of problem areas.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 14, 2017 1:46:38 GMT
This is patently false. I was just at the SOO that used the SR 2017 as a guideline to set up terrain and only half of the tables for the masters (if that) had a forest in the middle (58 tables). Most had an obstruction. It sounds to me like you are experiencing the use of 40K style terrain for Warmahordes. While not completely incompatible there are a lot of problem areas. Maybe its a meta thing. In my Meta all the Terrain for 40K is their cool prebuilt terrain setup in cool battle scenes whilst the Warmahordes terrain is a bush and a couple of bumps.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 14, 2017 2:15:39 GMT
This is patently false. I was just at the SOO that used the SR 2017 as a guideline to set up terrain and only half of the tables for the masters (if that) had a forest in the middle (58 tables). Most had an obstruction. It sounds to me like you are experiencing the use of 40K style terrain for Warmahordes. While not completely incompatible there are a lot of problem areas. Maybe its a meta thing. In my Meta all the Terrain for 40K is their cool prebuilt terrain setup in cool battle scenes whilst the Warmahordes terrain is a bush and a couple of bumps. It's not just you. Warmahordes terrain is pretty bland but it's the nature of the game. Model positioning and precision measurements are pretty important and 3D terrain causes serious issues with that. Honestly with 3D terrain the entire game really changes.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 14, 2017 2:35:15 GMT
It's not just you. Warmahordes terrain is pretty bland but it's the nature of the game. Model positioning and precision measurements are pretty important and 3D terrain causes serious issues with that. Honestly with 3D terrain the entire game really changes. Then you might as well trash all of the models, throw them in the garbage, smash and burn them, and take out 30-50 MM sized plastic disks and use them instead. This game is 60% hobby work and looking pretty. In fact if this game did just use plastic disks it would look allot more organic on a tabletop and would attract allot more players. There is nothing more hollow than gameplay incongruity. I'm not saying I don't enjoy the games complexity and attempts at better balance (I really do), but without a great table to really make it shine together you got a real hollow and nasty longterm experience in my mind. Why should I even prime my minis, if the tables not going to meet me halfway? I feel insulted by a bad table. I don't even paint all that good. Im pretty bad with the details. But I put so much effort into it, and so many hours, and it looks awful on a table battle because it looks like so many complex miniatures on a lifeless table. Im not complaining about budgets. I get not everybody can afford the expensive stuff. But the effort involved you know?
|
|
Lanz
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Lanz on May 14, 2017 5:24:40 GMT
I love the new terrain rules!
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on May 14, 2017 9:18:33 GMT
I like the rules, just don't use scatter. That takes forever to setup.
As for the people that are complaining about 3D terrain, I simply don't understand that. My protectorate are entirely metal models painted in enamel paints and have literally never had a break or scratch because of scenery.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on May 14, 2017 11:11:17 GMT
This is hyperbole at it's finest. There are several types of LoS blocking terrain. If "almost everyone" is putting down forests then perhaps you should introduce some variation to "almost everyone's" terrain selection I tend to find the people that set up terrain to be shockingly lazy and uncreative most of the time. PP has had to nearly force them to add more terrain kicking and SCREAMING into more varied terrain. If given the opportunity for a neat destroyed building or a forest template....They will always take the forest template. I agree that a lot of players for some reason fight tooth and nail to play pseudo-machine on open tables with no LOS-blockers. In SR 2016 a totally open table with no obstructions and no LOS-blockers in the center of the table was only one of the possible options and a pretty borderline as well. You had to really choose an extreme approach to those rules (which were open for a lot of variety) and yet this extreme approach was all over the place, both locally and on the net in reports from all over the world. Which, in turn, made people jump to extreme conclusions on what certain units are supposed to be like, because they kept playing with such extreme terrain all the time.
|
|
|
Post by dicebedamned on May 15, 2017 12:23:40 GMT
I like the new SR2017 terrain rules. Played a few games with them this sat, and to be honest it made for a more involved game.
The only way to solves the terrain issues in my opinion is to produce map packs. Each scenario could have 3 maps and terrain is set up exactly as shown. Obviously this has issues, people's terrain collections (or lack of) and it would get repetitive, but it would give everyone a very clear idea of how unit X is supposed to play, because we would be playing on the exact same tables as those who play tested unit X.
That said, I am a fan of making my own tables up. I very rarely play on a board that has a clear centre anyways, and I always insist on between 6 and 8 pieces of terrain and no more than 2 of any terrain type. Keeps the game different, and allows for some nice narratives if wanted - fighting over a Cygnar factory with out buildings for example.
|
|
|
Post by perilsensitive on May 15, 2017 17:01:14 GMT
I love/hate having so much relevant terrain. On one hand, it makes choosing sides a real part of the game. On the other, it makes life hard on a lot of lists (especially in theme where Saxon/Rhupert are not available). So far I haven't had any real issues with the LOS part of the equation, but my list building has become even more laser focused on pathfinder.
|
|
|
Post by gargs454 on May 15, 2017 18:50:16 GMT
I like the new rules personally. However, I do agree that in my meta, there tends to be a lot of forests that will occupy the LOS blocker. While I agree that additional terrain types and los blockers are certainly ideal, in a relatively small meta, its not entirely practical. The FLGS is new and under tight budget constraints, so they are not likely to go out and buy stuff, and many of the players are in similar positions to the point that if they are spending on the hobby, its on things like new models and basing materials, etc. For terrain, it just becomes easy to cut a circle out of a piece of green felt and call it a forest. Even clouds (which are better now) were not used much in our meta since they had the chance to go away and players would forget to roll for the chance, etc.
All that said, that doesn't mean that there isn't a reason to use different blockers, and we do have a couple of actual houses, etc. that can be used, but not nearly enough for say, 8 tables in a 16 player SR event.
I will say that in general, the bigger the event (like SOO) the more likely you are to see the varied terrain because there's enough money pouring in, and enough attention given to it, that the TOs are more likely to set up interesting tables. As for the tendency to use wide open tables, fortunately our meta pretty much never had much issue with that (though it did happen on occasion). My personal belief is that this is a symptom of players that are less confident in their ability. I mean, lets face it, if we shove all the forests to the corners of the board, then our lack of pathfinder in Protectorate isn't really an issue now is it?
|
|