|
Post by hyv3mynd on Jul 15, 2012 7:12:25 GMT -5
This was discussed a couple weeks ago and implemented at the July event. Smitty tried to take a vote at the end but it was hard to judge one way or another.
Vote for which way you think is more practical/fair/fun or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Jul 15, 2012 7:17:10 GMT -5
Here's something I noticed in all 3 of my games.
We set out 25% coverage worth of pieces on each table before the event, including on the table that I built. Based on 6d3 pieces generated per the new terrain density rule, this was not enough in any of my games. Each table ran out of available pieces before all terrain density rolls were filled.
Sticking to this method would require stores/GT's to provide more pieces than before and/or a wider variety of sizes and types.
|
|
|
Post by grubnards on Jul 15, 2012 10:37:51 GMT -5
I agree that the one issue about using GWs rule is that no one could plan for the random use of terrain amount each game. For example, when i played Horst last week we divided the table up per 6 sections and i rolled a 6,6,4 - meaning 8 pieces just on my half(which was all the terrain we had available) so we just took it in turns to place the terrain anywhere in the board. We did this format for all three games yesterday and it did not take more than 3-5 minutes to set up terrain/fortifications and it worked well.
Whether or not the local scene wants to use that as an altenative method or not. My personal opinion is that i do like being able to set up terrain but i realize that no tourney can plan for using GWs d3 format. Not because of time issues but because of terrain amount.
|
|
|
Post by Horst on Jul 15, 2012 11:11:39 GMT -5
I liked the player set terrain, just note that the terrain density limit is just that, a limit. It doesn't mean you HAVE to put 3 pieces of terrain in an area you roll a 6 for...
I still think player set terrain is mandatory, because of fortifications in the game being unplayable if its not.
Just don't expect to actually fill the terrain to the max allowable by rules.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Jul 15, 2012 11:23:26 GMT -5
I liked the player set terrain, just note that the terrain density limit is just that, a limit. It doesn't mean you HAVE to put 3 pieces of terrain in an area you roll a 6 for... I still think player set terrain is mandatory, because of fortifications in the game being unplayable if its not. Just don't expect to actually fill the terrain to the max allowable by rules. I don't think that's acceptable tho. If you're going to allow a marine player to bring a fortress of redemption, you better provide enough terrain for a tyranid player to place as many pieces as they roll for. I think a table with 18 pieces of terrain would be really fun to play on if we rolled all 3's.
|
|
robm
Marine
Posts: 63
|
Post by robm on Jul 15, 2012 12:01:08 GMT -5
Just keep it set for the whole tourny, it keeps it fair and you don't have to worry about one person getting screwed over by bad terrain roles with limited terrain available on the table. The real bad part is that you've already chosen table sides. It's going to get to a point where the table set up will look the same for which army you're playing, as to maximize your armies strengths; ie the first peice of terrain I'll grab for my guard is something to keep my indirect fire out of LoS, then I'll work on fire lanes will placing area terrain far from others to keep you from hopping into cover saves.
If the terrain is already set then it's something I have to adapt to and brings more strategy into play. I may want to take a side that is so so for me, but hinders my opponent more, and so on and so forth.
As far as forts go, you can just move some of the terrain out of the way to make room for it, not a big deal (although I still don't like the idea of forts, but that's another topic).
They do give both ways of setting up the terrain in the rules, so for me it comes down to "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
|
|
|
Post by netter on Jul 15, 2012 13:47:40 GMT -5
I'm not submitting a vote considering my lack of tournament experience in the new edition.
I would prefer to have TO set terrain. This eliminates all sorts of potential issues and speeds up the event. As for fortresses, perhaps a swap out of similar terrain in the respective deployment zone could work. Whatever.
When I show up at an event I really just want a table that is ready to go. I am there to play, and I don't consider terrain placement to be 'play.'
Just my two cents, netter
|
|
|
Post by lordnurgle on Jul 15, 2012 13:52:17 GMT -5
In my 1st 2 games, we mostly just set the terrain around the table edge. I did see the fortress of redemption get blocked pretty bad in game #3.
Having to deal with the terrain on the table is part a tourney. I remember we went to a local tourny 10+ years ago and they let people set up terrain till one person said it was enough. It was won by a guard player that wiped the table clean and said "thats enough"
As for Fortifications (and allies for that matter), i'm at the same place I was about 5 years ago when internet lists started to really pop up. Do I keep getting my behind handed to me with a list that would actually happen in the real world. Or do i give into the dark side and make a list that should win more often, but makes no sense. I mean come on, do you think the grey knights would let any inquisitor (even coteaz) take 3-6 of their dreadnoughts unaccompanied (no other GK in the list). and thats without allies. wait and see what people bring to Daboyz this year with no comp. it's gonna be brutal
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Jul 15, 2012 20:27:29 GMT -5
As a past organizer for major tournamnets I can tell you that it is easier for the the TO to have the terrain already set. I used to make themed tabels and already knew pretty much how they should laid out.
I think it just makes the event easier for store, TO, and players.
|
|
sinistermind
Sergeant
Dice, the perfect example of a love/hate relationship
Posts: 315
|
Post by sinistermind on Jul 15, 2012 23:27:56 GMT -5
i voted for TO set but thats as long as theres a work-around for forts. i do like player set terrain but not the d3-area method, just alternate placing a peice not within 3" of each other and like kevin said it didnt take us more than 3-5 minutes, plus allowed forts to be set up first.
i see no issue though with TO set terrain and allowing to "shimmy" a terrain peice to allow for smaller forts and maybe replace a peice in your DZ for the landing pad or fortress
|
|
|
Post by sonofsanguinius on Jul 15, 2012 23:31:26 GMT -5
I didn't mind the terrain set up in all the games I played no one openly abused it which was nice to see. But I did notice a few problems.
There simply wasn't enough terrain to cover some of the density rolls. That puts a lot pressure on TOs because melee build armies will want to use every bit of terrain they are allowed and if there isn't enough it's not fair to them. Especially as said earlier people can just drop a fortress.
My first two games we just rotated setting up all the terrain provided because there wasn't enough for the density rolls.
The other thing was it did take time. It wasn't a terrible amount maybe 5-10 minutes for some people. But even at 2.5 hour rounds and only 1500 points some people were still pressed for time. Adding extra time for something so minor seems silly when sometimes every minute counts.
And the final point, pre-set terrain not only makes it easier for TOs but in my opinion adds more strategic value and need for on the fly tactics to adjust to what is presented.
I don't really mind either way, but it just seems easier, more efficient and balanced to use TO set terrain.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jul 15, 2012 23:35:14 GMT -5
Well I would have won that bet!!!
So please explain to me why playing by the rules as written in the main rule book is so difficult and why we are conducting a poll to ignore rules that some people don't like?
You know this evening when I was arriving home from dinner I was stopped by a well known store owner who inquired about my absence from his saturday event. I told him that I had woken up early that morning, created 3 diverse and fun list using 3 different armies so that I could try out and learn the rules (only 4 oblits in the CSM list, sorry to disappoint!). I packed al my stuff up and had it in the hallway waiting to go. I logged on and checked this site just before taking a shower so that I had my arrival time correct. Unfortunately I started rereading all the debate that has centered around simple things like setting terrain and following the rules. I also saw that there was a hard 2 hour time limit per game at an event where I knew I would have several rules questions and things I had to look up since I am still learning. I got sucked into some discussion on what units are great and seem to exploit the new rules the best and before I knew it I skipped my shower and went back to bed.
I don't think you are getting what I have been trying to say. 5th edition 40K sucked near the end because it had been distorted and gamed to death. The game written in the main rule book was rarely played, dropped in favor of "superior" style missions and rules interpretations by the grand tournament players who chose to dictate the way the game should be played for all the masses.
I want to get back to playing 40K and enjoy the company of my friends. It used to be a great social event and I found out today that it still is. I hung out in the company of 7 great gamers including my son and we played some very enjoyable games. There wasn't a single discussion involving what new rules we needed to throw out because they don't favor our armies or our great cinematic, themes tables. We just played the game and had fun. I don't think there was one conversation that revolved around any particular rule and its application to the sacred tournament scene because I don't think that anyone playing really gave a crap. Imagine that, some people were playing 40K for fun, not as practice for the next Nerdvana gaming event! Someone check, did Hell just freeze over?
Hey maybe my outlook will change in a few months when the new CSM codex is released. I did hear a rumor that the max squad size for oblits is going to 4. So if I have a "limit" of 4 oblits per squad and a "limit" of 3 heavy choices then that means I have to take 12 right?
Oh back on topic... yeah I like player set terrain, and my reasoning behind it is quite simple, RAW. I think it makes for a more cinematic game, don't you?
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Jul 16, 2012 0:32:58 GMT -5
Yes Doug, definatly more cinematic. *snickers*
The terrain set up is apart of the game now. It was way back when and it has now come around again. You start picking and choosing what rules you want to use and play out of the 40k rule book and you're no longer playing 40k, your playing some other game that someone picked out that appeals to them. I would like to play 40k please as it is written in the rule book, not by some people that think something is unfair, or that want to rewrite missions to suit thier play style or limit what can be brought due to a biased opinion. I want to play 40k. Please do not ruin this by changing rule or being selective of what rules you use.
Horst is right, The terrain limit is just that, a limit. It prevents placing all the terain in one little 2x2 area which makes for a more diverse board and makes it more.... 'cinematic' LOL
Not only that I think placing terrain is an equalizer for those people that feel the need to bring fortification. No problem, you want to bring a fortress or walls or a tower, fine I will place a big honking hill infront of it, or a hill in the middle of it. Run the risk of something like that happening.
You start disecting the game and thats where is stops being fun again. It happened in 5th and thats why you saw lousy turn outs at your tournaments (hence the topic about low turn outs before 6th came out.) Now that GW dropped prize support for Tournaments do you think its going to be an incentive for players to want to come and get thier rears handed to them on a regualr basis becuase the game has -yet- again been tailored toward a certain playstyle? (It happened last edition)
My vote and 2 cents: Leave it as is. I had fun with the 6 games I have played thus far.
|
|
|
Post by sonofsanguinius on Jul 16, 2012 1:40:04 GMT -5
Preset terrain is in the rules too. There are two rule sets for setting up terrain. So not to come off as a jerk especially considering I am a new face in the Millennium crowd. The whole play by the rules argument becomes invalid as the RAW specifically states choose one or the other. Preset thematic or alternating. So this poll and question is entirely valid and within the rules.
And since most TOs would be hard pressed to provide enough terrain to let everyone use the random density alternating method to it's full extent. It becomes a matter of efficiency and fairness.
Telling people they can't put the full allotted terrain density down and to suck it up it's called a terrain 'limit' is just bad form and twisting of rules. The chaos oblit reference doesn't work because the rules allow you to take three full squads if you wanted to. And here people are telling someone if they rolled for high terrain density they can't actually use that limit despite what the rules clearly say.
There is a difference between choosing not to take what you are allowed, and not being able to fully utilize the options given to you. The simple fact was some people wanted to use the maximum terrain density they rolled but limited supplies did not allow them too. And that is a problem if TOs decide to use that rule option for terrain.
Tournaments are by their very nature a competitive event. Many people come to tournaments for various reasons. But the core of the tournament scene is a base competition on how ever many levels provided. Ultimately the goal is a fun and balanced competition. Which I would say at least from my experience there was a complete success.
Hard time limits need to be set in a structured event like that in order to keep things from being chaotic and so that games can keep going. Not to mention a reasonable ending time. 2.5 hours for a 1500 point game is fairly generous. And if you would need 3-4 hours to fumble through the rules that's what the open game nights are for, or at home hang out events.
Nobody is talking about changing the missions. The missions in 6th ed are pretty decently done. 5ths missions on the other hand were played to death and uninspiring. I'm sorry but making new missions with various objectives or things that stray from the rule book doesn't stop 40k from being 40k. If anything it adds some more to the games. And the book said the missions are a guideline use creativity and develop your own as well. Being scenic is all about creativity not being a close minded and following everything laid down in the book as law and unchangeable.
The heart of 40k is not the terrain or the missions provided in the book. It's the armies, and the way they interact on the table. The use of strategy and tactics to play a mini war game and how that battle plays out. The entire meat of the rules section is 40k. A couple flavorful new missions or terrain set up doesn't change that. If anything rotating player set terrain is less cinematic not more. I don't recall ever reading about armies terraforming planets to fight battles.
In the end 40k is a game, a game with a large collection of variable rules. There will always be questions about how rules interact. Especially in a system as intricate and complex as 40k. No one is stopping you from playing your beer and pretzel games with friends, setting up terrain using one of the rule sets provided. And just having fun while throwing some dice.
The only thing is tournaments have to have structure and have standards or they are no longer tournaments and just another free open play night. This thread was a poll on which rule set for terrain people would rather use in such events. This isn't dissecting the rules, it's picking a variable rule more people prefer.
The only dissection I've seen is the 1999+1 method for tournaments and that's because two FoCs at 2k is blatantly imbalanced.
|
|
|
Post by travis on Jul 16, 2012 7:25:37 GMT -5
I think at times we might forget that this game is meant to be played casually with no time constraints and just two guys in a store or basements rolling some dice. Fortunately for some and unfortunately for others Games Workshop doesn't care about tournaments. They care about selling plastic, helping people learn how to paint that plastic and making a fun Sci-fi world to fight in. You can play this game casually or you can play this game competitively. Adjusting things in the game to make the flow of a tournament setting isn't a bad thing. Coming up with some compromise to make things work is fine. If your a casual player, then be a casual player. Not one single casual player that play's Magic cares about what cards are banned in the tournament scene. They just put there deck together with cards they like and play. When WOTC bans a card the card isn't banned the day it's released. It's banned after tournament player's use and abuse that card. It takes time for that to happen. Now this is from a company that fosters a huge tournament base and does extensive play testing. On these boards alone I can dredge up plenty of posts that say "Play the game the way you want to play it". So I would repeat that sentiment. If you don't see yourself playing in the tournament scene, don't worry about the tournament scene. When player's want to play a game competitively and the company that makes the game doesn't give you any ground rules on that, then come up with your own. I am running a league right now that has 30+ player's in it for a game that the parent company has never run a league for, ever. So there has been some trial and error, there has been some player feedback and something that just didn't work. We run some things different from week to week just to mix it up a bit. When I play certain games in a tournament setting I don't have enough time to play every scenario out. If I am going to compete in a competitive event for a game I go and grab a list or deck from the net and use it. I realize I am playing in a competitive event. I want to give myself a chance to win. Does that mean I won't play using cool model or cards I like even though they are not the best, absolutely not. But I am not going to set myself up to get my teeth kicked in either. Now in any competitive game there is some paper,rock, scissors. If your game has any diversity that is going to happen. You just can't balance out every faction. So you play that game hard and if you win it's like winning twice or you btch about it and play like nuts, making your opponent feel bad for showing up and then pray to the gods you don't get paired up against the same army next round because that always happens to you cause your the unluckiest player in the world and feel like jumping off the bridge. There is nothing wrong with being either type of player. Most casual player's don't understand a competitive player and why they act like they do and vice versa. The competitive player would never play a sub par unit. The casual player likes the paint job on a model and throws it in. There is plenty of room for both types of player's to enjoy a game. That said, if the competitive player isn't going to your kitchen table and telling you how to play the game don't go to his event and tell him how to run it either. Obviously, there can be events that are run more casually. The 1 of events do the best job of fostering this. With this game I have never once heard someone say "Holy crap I can't beat that army he has one of ...". Pardon my ignorance but is there any reason we couldn't just have two pieces of terrain in each sector and roll a d6. 1-3 nothing happens 4-6 add a piece. It would make set-up quicker and easier to figure out just how many pieces each table needs.
|
|