Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on Mar 30, 2017 17:13:00 GMT
I was listening to the most recent Chain Attack episode while traveling for Spring Break. Trevor mentioned something about using obstacles that were a particular height (for the Intermountain Cup, maybe?) that required everyone to remember the model volume rules. That reminded me of a game store I played at a few times where they ruled that all hills were 2" tall. They were still rolling hills, but they effectively blocked LOS to small based models (which are only 1.75" tall). Basically, you could see medium and large based models over the hills, but not infantry. It made for some interesting game play and certainly gave a little more survivability to infantry, who could "hide" behind hills, but still charge jacks on the other side of hills. What would you guys think of rules like that? Has anyone else experimented with terrain rules that take advantage of the volume rules? I wonder if it might be something to bring up in the Steamroller CID?
|
|
|
|
Post by copperflame on Mar 30, 2017 17:55:49 GMT
You know - I always forget about this. I think it would be a great idea to put more emphasis on this little hidden gem. The only counter I could see to that is that so often I find people using '2D' terrain (for the ease of transport and model placement)... it would be easy to forget that hill X is high enough to obscure small based models.
|
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on Mar 30, 2017 18:03:14 GMT
We used to play that you had to pay the linear distance to climb hills, about an inch or more up, and an inch or more down. If you didn't pay the distance, you couldn't move onto and didn't get the benefit of the hill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Mar 30, 2017 18:03:54 GMT
Those rules already exist, but in most metas are considered optional.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasmagorium on Mar 30, 2017 19:26:38 GMT
Those rules already exist, but in most metas are considered optional. Not for hills. Those are terraced obstructions. Most metas probably don't have any ziggurats around that call for using those rules  . |
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690 
|
Post by zich on Mar 30, 2017 20:17:38 GMT
I've ssen these rules used in the game twice and both of those were on the Chain Attack stream. In both cases at least one player didn't know it was played that way and was surprised by it ingame.
The rest of the world just plays obstructions as infinitely high and forgets about the horrible volume rules like the mistake they are. It's not against the rules to do so and in fact it's the only way to reasonably play 2D terrain obstructions.
In short, just pretend these two pages of wasted space in the rule book don't exist and be happier for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by svirfneblin on Mar 31, 2017 11:50:07 GMT
Hills come in two types; normal hills and tall hills which can block LOS. I'm not sure how frequently the latter hills are used but they add an interesting element without creating a whole new terrain type.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Mar 31, 2017 12:29:08 GMT
To add to that: I'd really like it if obstacles/hills just blocked line of sight to models based on their base size. A large hill could for example block LoS to small and medium bases (as if it had a medium base iteself). But drawing a theoretically infinite number of lines (in plain air!) between two volumes (which only exist in theory!!!) is just not practical.
|
|
Shado
Baby's First Wargame
We will rise....
Posts: 2
|
Post by Shado on Mar 31, 2017 18:21:36 GMT
In my opinion, 2D Terrain has no place in any serious game. It ignores a vast part of the terrain rules and options.
Sure, use 2D if you have no other option. But that's it.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Mar 31, 2017 22:16:07 GMT
Gotta admit, when i started playing WM/H it boggled my mind that Hills didn't block LoS, I just learned to accept it
|
|
|
|
Post by CodFather on Apr 1, 2017 4:34:20 GMT
In my opinion, 2D Terrain has no place in any serious game. It ignores a vast part of the terrain rules and options. Sure, use 2D if you have no other option. But that's it. Ever try to balance 10 guys in shield wall on top on a nicely modeled 3d hill? Doesn't work, you end up putting models where they wont fall over instead of where you need them to be. This is a game of millimeters (in high levels of play), 3d terrain is not precise and and to use you hyperbole: "has no place in a serious game" 2d terrain doesnt inherently ignore the "a vast part of the terrain rules", there is nothing to stop players at the beginning of the game to point to an obstruction and agree on his height, point to another, agree on its height etc... Obstructions don't all have to be infinitely high. Players should always discuss terrain with their opponents at the beginning of the game so as to avoid any misunderstandings, this is when terrain and be qualified. |
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 1, 2017 8:12:02 GMT
That is of course the most important point: The best terrain is that which both players agree upon.
|
|
Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on Apr 1, 2017 16:03:43 GMT
That is of course the most important point: The best terrain is that which both players agree upon. Absolutely! So, let's all agree that all hills (even when using the 2D terrain) have 2" of elevation, hence blocking LOS to small-based models!   In all seriousness though, I agree that it's convenient to use 2D hills so models don't fall off them. I prefer to use 3D buildings on my tables for the aesthetic appeal whenever possible, and I like to put a tree or two on top of my 2D forests for the same reason. That said, I have been rulling that my 2D hills have 2" of elevation for recent games, just to try it out. It makes for some different and interesting games. Hills now present a completely different challenge. Whereas forests block LOS for everything, suddenly hills help to block LOS for some things, but not others. I can "hide" my small-based caster behind a hill to avoid getting her shot up by the high powered jack guns on the other side. She can still see those jacks and cast spells that them, however. I recently found that I could use hills to screen my Ghost Fleet Revenant Pirates on the approach, and even once most of them crested the hill I could leave the leader behind the hills so that he couldn't be targeted by the shots from the other side. This may have been a little sneaky (my opponent wasn't expecting this at first), but it sure helped ensure the survivability of the unit in a world where ranged armies and incidental infantry removal are so prevalent. My bane warriors all suddently threaten to ambush jacks from behind hills too, since they now have the screening from the hill, but they can still see their preferred target (jacks) on the other side for the charge. So, I've been enjoying playing with this little change. I'm not certain how it would affect competitive play in a Steamroller environment, but I do think it would continue the move toward making terrain more relevant in games. |
|
.
In all seriousness though, I agree that it's convenient to use 2D hills so models don't fall off them. I prefer to use 3D buildings on my tables for the aesthetic appeal whenever possible, and I like to put a tree or two on top of my 2D forests for the same reason. That said, I have been rulling that my 2D hills have 2" of elevation for recent games, just to try it out. It makes for some different and interesting games. Hills now present a completely different challenge. Whereas forests block LOS for everything, suddenly hills help to block LOS for some things, but not others. I can "hide" my small-based caster behind a hill to avoid getting her shot up by the high powered jack guns on the other side. She can still see those jacks and cast spells that them, however.