We Have To Talk About Terrain in the Old World | Warhammer The Old World | Square Based Show
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2024
- Our Patreon gets you exclusive access to Discord: / squarebased
After a long two weeks off the fellas are BACK. Rob and Val catch-up and go over some of Val's exploits on www.warhall.eu playing Warhammer the Old World on the virtual tabletop. See below for a special promo code and link to a beginner tournament taking place in March! The main topic this week is all about terrain, with a run down of all the rules followed by an excellent discussion about the depth and impact terrain has on the game.
0:00:00 Introduction
0:03:32 Val's experiences on www.warhall.eu.
0:23:33 Rob's Terrain Event Pack
0:31:14 Line of Sight Rules
0:39:09 Terrain Rules Overview.
1:20:00 Wrap up and discussion.
Sign up here for the beginners 1500 point tournament starting in March!
www.warhall.eu/tournament
www.warhall.eu promo code SBS2024 for 25% off!
Links to the podcast only version on all platforms:
squarebasedpodcast.podbean.com/
#warhammer #warhammertheoldworld #warhammerfantasy #warhammercommunity #squarebassed #theoldworld #warhammerpodcast #thehonestwargamer - Hry
Sign up here for the beginners 1500 point Warhall.eu tournament starting in March!
www.warhall.eu/tournament
www.warhall.eu promo code SBS2024 for 25% off!
Full transparency: We do not receive any kickbacks for signups for Warhall through the promo code. Though it was offered, we're just super excited that the tool exists and would love to see the platform succeed. Please give it a look and let us know what you think!
So great to have y'all back! After getting episodes nearly every day, the two week break felt like an eternity!
It feels like the people that are loudly decrying mechanics in the game don't seem to be actually playing games. Everyone I'm playing games with is having a blast, and are actually figuring out how to counterplay things on the table, instead of railing against rules and how they're imagining them working in a theoretical vacuum.
The game design is phenomenal, and have not heard anyone say otherwise about OW. Unless when you say "People" you're referring to those that shouldn't be allowed on the internet to voice their daily temper tantrums about toy soldiers for adults. I.e. Discourse miniatures.
Bingo.
I've actively played Warhammer since 3rd/4th ed up through 8th. I played at a tournament level and didn't win through deathstars or six dicing spells, but real tactics. I am really wanting Old World to succeed. I haven't been able to get a game of 9th in yet, but the issues of linehammer and dragonhammer seem very real. Step up and steadfast use to allow infantry to hold out against things that used to wipe them out. While the 2d6 charge allowed for a game of chicken on who would charge first. Now it seems we are back to infantry being ran circles around, heroes on monsters smashing them and unit's reforming into lines being optimal for unit's falling back. How do we counter this stuff now?
@@NateJones10line hammer easy, you’ll win in combat res. Flying units rear or flank. The deployment per the scenarios most of them balance it out.
Dragon hammer, avoid the dragon or bring your own beast, make a hero just to kill monsters. It’s not hard.
@@MrGunnar177it’s fantasy - balance is irrelevant
Val, stubborn only works once. It triggers as a choice the first time the unit is required to make a break-test.
Yes? Perhaps I misspoke? I was trying to describe a friend not realizing that you can still FBIGO using stubborn even if you're more than doubled out on unit strength
@@valheffelfinger6521yea that’s only for the first test
I'm from Latin America and I'm both offended and surprised by your knowledge of our love for bootleg 4th edition monopose sculpts xD
HAHAHA
The 6th Ed MRB has great random terrains based on where the army is from in the Old World.
MRB?
Welcome back Val. Listening to this whilst painting my 4th edition monopose wood elf archers. Spooooooooky.
Show pics
@@SquareBasedOldWorld Send dudes
@SquareBasedOldWorld I tried. CZcams keeps deleting my link! #justiceformymonoposebrothers.
I love the terrain maps. I would love them even more if each piece scattered D3 before set up just to give that touch of sanity but asymmetry.
The fear is you could close caps and units couldn't move
Welcome back! Still the best and most entertaining hobby show. You two are hilarious together 😂
Thanks so much!!
The boys are coming at my hills again. Justice for hills!!!
I hear you. #justiceforhills
I like the part where we print out a picture of a hill or trees from top down view onto a piece of printer paper! 🖨
The heat coming off of you guys in this intro gonna make me run a lap around the neighborhood at midnight
Hahahaha
Feel like it's been a year since we got one of these! I'm an addict!
I'm.glad you are happy
Like the all low linear obstacles idea. Like building a low height maze, or aggressively defending divots.
Yeah that could be rad
Glad you're back and in fighting shape bud
Im so glad you're back. Glad you're better Val.
The Tournament Organiser bit gets me everytime 😂 glad to see the podcasts back and you're both alright, always a good sight seeing it come up in the notifications
Glad you enjoy it!
Not bored here. Appreciate your time and impact. Keep it coming please :)
When i ean my club end times 8th ed campaign, i created my own set of terrain rules. It was a random table, but each player rolled off before the game to decide who was the 'home' player. On the table there was an option being 'special terrain' were this was based on who the home player was.
Made rules for squigg caves, flaming barrier, high elf shrine, did one for each faction that was playing.
It was fun, hav8ng the chance that squiggs would run out from the cave and attack all units close (lower chance of attacking greenskins) made for fun games.
Great show gentlemen! Rob, I was just wondering which trees you were printing out and if you had any recommendations. Same for hills if you print those too!
Making the hills from foam and printing some trees from printable scenery although right now they are failing
Great to have you back - you’ve been missed!
More to come!
Missed you guys so glad to see you back, and glad Val is not as sick anymore
Me too -Rob
We’ve always played and still do totally randomly , 6 to 10 pieces of terrain (8x4 board) , rolling on a terrain chart for type and then random placement on the table (using a d24 🤓). The games are rarely balanced but often creates good narratives on the fly.
I think the important thing about the terrain rules is that the way obscuring works along with the less prevalent shooting will encourage more varied terrain than the pit of symmetrical L-shaped ruins now plaguing 40k.
The best terrain setup imo is the one where you go to the table, shake your opponent's hand and start playing. All other stuff, whether it is choosing layouts, taking turns placing stuff in a terrain minigame, finding out where the center of the table is and checking the distances between every piece and every edge, etc. is a waste of everyone's time. Nobody needs to crack a terrain meta on top of the game meta, and if you built a list that's so skewed towards one type of terrain that it doesn't work on others that's your problem.
Best reply. Deeply agree
Awesome deep dive into terrain. When I play with my buddy, I'm all about using terrain as a narrative function. There's so many amazing pieces out there, and I want to showcase them. Terrain is also part of the hobby!
Looking forward to the Planet-X event this weekend! Cheers!
football pitches also vary in size
Glad yall are back!
Thanks x
38:36 did you catch that belittling hills 😮 #justiceforhills. 😂Rob just can’t help himself 😂
im a plains guy
47:29 Rob really loves hills😂 #justiceforhills
Not sure why you're being weird about the usage of the term 'normal'. That's a decent word to use, given that 48" by 72"/4' by 6' has been standard for GW tables and most games by fans since the 2000s, maybe even the 1990s. Either way, at least 20 years -- and it's clear that their play-testing is centred around this size, as well. They could have used the term 'standard' but 'normal' works.
Note: A forum on The Miniatures Page indicates that this was an old UK standard dating back to at least the 1970s, where the American standard was either 4x8 plywood or 5x9 ping-pong. Many dining tables have been used, and they are often much smaller than 4x6, of course. I don't know when GW ran with 4x6, but that seems to be the most popular user of this size, and since it's so popular in its own right, many other games are also played on 4x6, or even designed for it if inspired by GW.
Further, some noted that gaming mats were 4x6 and GW jumped on this trend. It could also have been GW's way of having their own set size for their own games. Either way, the logic is that it's as big as you can go before it becomes difficult to reach across/fit into a room; hence, large tables are difficult and smaller ones are rarely used (as it limits both army size and terrain options). In reality, small GW games are played on about 4x4 or 3x3, and many people run 4x5 instead of 4x6, as well. The highest norm seems to be 4-5x8, which isn't much different from 4x6. A number of people did mention that 4x8 was standard for railroading and various wargaming, as that was the default for plywood. This left some space at the edge for drinks, books, etc. That made the actual playing area about 4x6 for many people. This seems like the most logical reason behind GW's 4x6.
A final comment: somebody had the theory that this was likely a creation from pushing two tables together in the GW offices when play-testing, etc. That's what drove the standard and custom tables some time later. Grant's Programmed Scenarios book was published in 1983, and somebody said that he talked about 4x6 tables. But, since it seems GW already had the standard of 4x6 in place by this time, it's unlikely that this inspired Warhammer's table size, which came out that same year. Both likely reflected a solid trend that already existed at the time, at least in the UK. But, maybe his earlier books also talked about this, which did inspire Warhammer Fantasy directly. I have no idea. But some comments did imply that GW already had this standard back in the late-1970s (one assumes, when it was already playing various games and selling D&D minis, etc.). Maybe this was simply the size of two generic tables pushed together in their stores? Who knows, since somebody else said the standard from Grant was actually 5x7, so maybe GW just changed that to 4x6. It's worth noting that this person with the differing view also strongly implied that 4x6 is, in fact, too small for 28mm scale, such as Warhammer. But, I guess, it really depends on just how much focus you place on terrain/movement (i.e. table space).
P.S. If possible, it's likely best to stick to the 4x8 sheet of plywood, and leave about 2' for non-gaming usage down one side, leaving you with the GW standard of 4x6 for actual gameplay. This is best for cost, reach-ability (assuming that's a word), extras (e.g. books, drinks, models), and actual gameplay at 28mm or below. Large tables are only ideal for serious wargamers, since they cost too much space, money, and time to play -- and make it difficult to reach across. That's why you rarely see huge tables for Warhammer games. Smaller tables have clear disadvantages unless you're playing with a tiny army, or 6-12mm scale in a very small in-universe area. In reality, GW tables should be a bit bigger, but that's unworkable, and will make the movement phase too long -- not to mention, distances will have to be re-worked. You'll also have to buy even more terrain pieces, or else play on a very open field. As it is, most Warhammer players have small armies and not much space and/or money to throw at it, so they use 3x3 or 3x5, etc. Clearly, 'normal' means, 'we built this ruleset for 4x6'. If the rules are made for x size, then x size is not only 'normal' but 'ideal'. The game was literally built for it.
Of course, it depends on the size of the army -- but the game was also built around the 'normal' amount of points, which is the number tied to size table size (in this case, 2,000 to 3,000 points). Although people often use 1,250-1,500 points or so, which means 4x6 is perfect, offering a bit more space than typically seen. On the other hand, they could go down to 4x5 or so. It won't break the game, either way. It just changes it slightly, and may not line up to the primary play-testing the team did (which was likely 2,000-ish points on 4x6, since that's what they are aiming for and what many people will go with). The full range is more like 800 to 4,000, with the actual normative range being 1,250-2,500. The Tomb Kings set is 1,250 (93 models), for example. If you buy some other fellows on top of that, then that's about 2,000 points and 105-ish models. Sounds about right, and in line with what you often saw with 3rd through 7th edition Fantasy and many Lord of the Rings games. GW clearly don't intend for you to go below 1,000 or over 3,000. I think most players will stick with about 1,250-2,500 points and 100-200 models, which is a main set and some extras (or else two main sets). By its very nature, not many people are merely running a few blocks. At the same time, very few people are buying three sets for the 3,000 or 4,000-point mark, or many single boxes. That's like 300 models and roughly $1,000. If you ever see really high points, it's likely from a handful of high-point models, as opposed to a massive army. Small 800-point battles with about 70 models will be far more common than massive games, is my guess. (Some hardcore Fantasy players might bring 3,000 points with their vintage models, but nobody is going to actually buy the Old World models to 3,000 points. Of course, many hardcore Fantasy players already have 4x6 tables or even larger, so that's a non-issue.)
Holy shit. Can I just turn this into a youtube video?
@@SquareBasedOldWorld Sure, haha.
Another great show and really liking the veto method, similar to the MESBG mission veto system which is liked by that community.
Attending my first event this weekend. Super hyped to get playing and run my dwarfs out for the first time, even managed to get the beards all painted.
Glad to have the show back
After listening to "what's fair" at an event, my response would be terrain MAY be used to encourage people to change up their army list from event to event and play different strategies depending on the terrain.
Let people know before hand that one of the three maps will include fields with low linear walls. Provide a picture. This is particularly tough on chariots and good for archers. Yes, some armies will "benefit more than others," but then on the next map, it has impassible terrain with poor sight lines.
I'm as extreme as terrain should fundamentally make the player adjust their strategy slightly to somewhat based on where terrain and AS LONG AS:
1) It's not too extreme.
2) Players know in advance.
3) Variety of types and amount of terrain from map to map...it's about a diverse experience.
It's great.
I think all of this is incredibly reasonable. I know people have fun in all sorts of ways but its kind of baffling to me if you come to a war game with many factions and freedom of list building that include dragons and elves and magic but balk at terrain impacting things? Like... hills exist guys. Its an asymmetrical WAR game, a huge part of the fun is all of the variety.
Your comments at the end summed it well. I was board
I’m very happy to know that you both are in fact alive 🎉
I have an Idea on making alternate "forests" which is still dangerous terrain, (while also being fast to make in bulk) is Jagged rock formations, so sharp flint / obsidian crags and boulders (or even bones so like an elephant's or dragons graveyard) that still have the shape and footprint of a forest (and maybe even a few tall "pillars" to keep the height for LOS reasons) that way you can have both Jagged ground and trees so that the rocks are dangerous and the trees are difficult, on the same battlefield and be easy distinguishable... have them follow the rules for trees but not count as trees to wood elves maybe a mitigate giving them so much advantages from lotsa woods.
Yeaaaaaah! New content! Was missing you guys, welcome back let’s get #squarebassed
Can't wait to see the TPS reports!
thehonestwargamer.com/the-old-world-terrain-guidelines/
About hills or forests being boring, I have to beg to differ.
You can, for example, make a large mushroom as a hill, and many smaller mushrooms as forests for a forest goblin lair. For a Khorne corrupted area, how about a literal mound of skulls for a hill, and either those age of sigmar trees, or just hanging bodies for forests. Also, Rivers of blood are a must. For a vampire themed area, you can have dank, dark quagmires and swamps instead of forests, and your hills can all be barrow mounds.
There are lots of way to make very thematic, and unique terrain.
I never made any terrain when I first got into Fantasy back in 7th, so currently I am just enjoying the "simplicity" that is making standard empire terrain. After that, I will probably make some more interesting stuff to go along with it.
One wrinkle in the terrain rules is that failings a Dangerous Terrain (or a Peril Test) only loses 1 wound. Multi-wound models essentially care much less than single wound models.
Even Chariots that risk losing D3 wounds from Dangerous Terrain (not Peril Tests) are losing a lower portion of their wounds than a unit of infantry.
Multi-wound models are already very strong without this little detail of course.
I’m about to start playing in a league at my local game store. I’m not sure how they’re going to do terrain but I find the idea more interesting then scary. I’m looking forward to playing more and get a feel for how important it is.
29:51 interesting thoughts about making hills. Made quite a few recently of different materials and sizes. Great for recycling packaging. Also great for getting beginners to make. #justiceforhills perhaps that is why they were always in photos and battle reports. Nigel Stillman wrote awesome book about making your own terrain from trash.
Another cracking show, glad to see you back.
thanks Stu! Can't believe under a month til we throw down at WHW.
@@SquareBasedOldWorld I know mad. The amount I had to paint to be ready is scary, and I need the Foot Knight kit that only goes on pre-order Saturday for two units 😬😅
I believe in Stu@@MiniatureRealms
Low linear obstacles in 8th were actually three individual 6"-ish sections counting as one terrain feature, I think that approach is the right one for TOW as well.
There has been a bit of a discussion in my group re. the placement of scenography within 12'' of the center. Most people agree that the rules apply to pick-up games (as per the wording of the section) and that TOs can place the terrain as they see fit. Also, soccer (football) fields do vary in size, narrow fields help defensive teams. The home field dimensions actually influence the playstyle of the team.
It's arguable that open terrain is not a terrain type. Some descriptions may say 'when in terrain' that would be everywhere. At least that was a thing in 8th.
Good point
I played a lot of warhammer events pre-8th, local - national and event international level. The terrain rules were always roughly the same and is part of the strategic level game, what you take, where you place and how you use it. While I'm not saying I don't like your way of doing it, I do find it sterile and would still actually benefit some armies and hamper other. Also "Players can place terrain features anywhere on the battlefield, but not within 12" of a terrain feature placed by their opponent, and not within 12" of the centre of the battlefield." I don't think that creates a channel of 12", more it refers to the actual centre "spot".
I am here for the hills. #justiceforhills. Time to get flocking.
Fuckin love Val, missed you guys and glad you're feeling better
Just listened (podcast) to this ep, enjoyed the touching on terrain.
Although, I'd need to agree with Val (Is Val the Canadian?) in regards to terrain and how its an important part of the narrative. Like whenever I set up for events, I generally try to make boards a 'trade off' in regards to one side will have Benefit A and the other Benefit B as to me if both sides are the same, whats the point in the roll off. Not only that, I feel if we start heading down the ITC logic of even deployment zones, to me it starts lowering the bar of peoples ability to plan on the fly. Like I'll take 2 cannons and an engineer if I know I get a hill everytime etc etc.
I always liked at events rocking up to a table and figuring out how I can make both sides work for me on the fly, isntead of just knowing every table is going to be one of 3, with a Hill, House and Forest in every deployment zone..
TL:DR I think having 'equal' battle maps not only shits on narrative play but to me also lowers the 'skill ceiling' for those wanting to play competitively. Uneven deployment zones make each game its only little narrative "Oh there is a town toward my side of the board, well I'm going to move up and defend that" boom bit of narrative. Also for the competitive play, having to work on the fly "Looks like I'm going into Marching Column to slip through that gap so now i can start rolling that flank" is much for fun than what you start to see at 40k events of Turn 1 move up to objective A, fire at B, Use Stragem C" crap.
TL:DR to the TL:DR Even Maps IMHO kills not only narrative fun, but makes tournament play a little less skill dependant.
hurray!
On the topic of "one terrain feature per 12" of long side" I have to wonder if the writers are mixing definitions of terrain features. For instance, if you made a terrain piece consisting of a 3" by 4" farmhouse (impassible) next to a field(open ground) surrounded by fences and irrigation ditches(Low linear obstacles) I would consider that one piece of terrain, not two or three. On the extreme end you could have an 86" river (dangerous terrain) bisecting the board diagonally with one bridge(open ground) and two fords (difficult terrain) and I'd consider it 1 piece.
oh look, if it isnt my favourite podcast. Stil bummed out you guys didnt go with my angela lansbury logo I sent a while back. Love you tho, glad to hear you are well Val
Ummm..... yeah..... We need to talk about your TPS Reports Rob.
maybe on a 6x4 table the tournament standard will become 4-5 pieces of terrain instead of 6? Woodelves get another piece to place and maybe 5 pieces with the right placement and size would work. Great video ! lots to think on!
39:46 lovely hill
A question for Val, in response to the rules interpretation about dangerous terrain tests 'On a roll of 1, the model has suffered a terrible mishap and loses a single Wound.' . Would it follow as you interpret the rules that for Arcane Backlash (which is a special rules from the Arcane Journal for Bretonnia and Elise Duchaart) that you would not get any regular saves against that effect?
' any of her Dispel rolls. In addition, should she roll any natural double when making a Dispel roll (not including rolls of a natural double 1), the spell is unbound and the casting Wizard immediately loses a single Wound.'
I’m sure I’ve mentioned…but once I’m more familiar with the game, I’m cracking out the old siege rules & see how it translates. It worked well with 8th so it will be interesting
Thanks for the great show. I learned a bunch!
Where can I get those map packs? They look great. You mention a website, but I'm unclear which one you mean.
thehonestwargamer.com/the-old-world-terrain-guidelines/
4th edition regiment box sets ruled!
Here for Rob’s anti-hill rant… his hill-racism is contagious… and he might have gotten ill because of it!
😅
#justiceforhills.
This talk about Sir Cumference Of A Tree really made me consider Bretonnians... again.
6 x 4 for the win 💪
Im sure I have just been playing too much AoS with terrain maps, but I hate big open nothing in the middle of an Old World map. It just makes shooting too strong, which is exactly what terrain maps in AoS fixed. Despite the core rules, I still use terrain board wide, as long as no two are closer than 12"
I'm with you but rocking the boat that much this early is just something I didn't wanna do
That Marshall Mather’s joke has me looking like a mad man, giggling in small Tesco 😆
Recommended table height should be part of the pack
I've now played 10+ games at my local club, absolutely loving the game. I've played mesbg tournaments and had a blast. But i have zero interest in playing an old world tournament and listening to this has put me of even more. Hearing about not being able to do thematic stuff with terrain becasue it makes it "unfair" sounds so dull.
For example: dwarfs have compulsory hills. Elves have Forrest's. Humans have forests. Admittedly determining attacker/defender is not based in historical civilisations aggression and generals capability that is not a factor in Warhammer as everyone is already aggressive...
You say that talking about terrain being boring but you are talking about the segment of wargames here in CZcams that literally watch paint dry
Needed this today. Literally a mental health balm to hear your positive voices
That is a kind thing to say. Glad we could brighten your day a bit
I really like terrain theory and was looking forward to this episode. I guess that means for some masochistic reason I want to be a TO (sad TO music plays).
I’ve missed this…there’s been a squarebased hole in my life lately, and now it’s been filled by a squarebased peg!
As someone who has 5 dwarf games and 4 beastmen games under my belt and have played vs some shooty armies like wood / high elves it really feels like artillery is near useless without a hill in deployment zone. My artillery makes their points back less than half the time and I habe never had one pop off and do 2x or more their points in damage. It feels really bad as dwarves to not have access to real wizards and get outshot by a single level 4 high elf wizard when i brought like 700 points of shooting in my list. Non conventional shooting like breath weapons and magic just feel strictly superior this edition especially when theyre largely unefected by terrain blasting my guys sitting in a forest like its not even there when something like my thunderers would struggle to do a single wound vs something in a forest.
1:11:11 hill talk #justiceforhills
We got pdfs yet for the layouts with approximate dimensions for terrain thats placed?
I believe they're on the honest wargamer site
Why no hills for Dwarves? 24:44. #justiceforhills
The only issue with terrain we see, as it is, would be the conditions applied to the size of a terrain 'feature' as per the RAW. One terrain 'feature' is no more than 8" at its widest point. Anything more than that is counted as two or three terrain features. Please see pg268 of the rule book. 8" isnt really a lot. Player could have just three linear walls no bigger than 8" in length and that would be it. Very sparse looking after all terrain is done. Seeing game videos, it appears that most are ignoring this rule as the terrain features on the board are individually much larger than 8" at their widest point. Our apporach is to redefine the size of a terrain 'feature' so both players are able to place three each on the board.
Regarding forests, making them dangerous terrain could in effect create a pseudo impassable terrain feature as most units would not fare well in there meaning that most players would ignore them. As they are in the rules is pretty good enough and provides strategic options. Maybe if a player that is placing the feature down wants it to be dangerous terrain can roll a die, on a 4+ its dangerous terrain as well.
Although i personally prefer terrrain layouts that tell a story, even if it puts me at a significant disadvantage, i totally understand that from a tournament organiser's (wuh-wuh wu-wuuuurrrhhh) POV symmetry and standardised terrain removes an awful lot of headaches and grumbles from running an event.
I really get the feeling that the culture of Warhammer events has significantly evolved from the more ad hoc, use whatever we have available, approach that was prevelant when i last attemded WFB events over a decade ago.
As such, I really appreciate the clarity you are aiming for in your packssgould I find myself able to grab tickets to one before they sell out.
Coming from historical ancients wargames like DBX and Le Art de la Gurre, the terrain rules is something I wish GW would adopt. For TOW, having default terrain types for each race, determining attacker and defender dictating what terrain is used and random allocation of terrain based in the terrain type means terrain is another factor you have to concider
Random terrain will invariably create a bonus for an opponent
I might have missed it, but: what terrain obscures los and what does not? really hard to get my head around this. thankls for any answers : ^)
All models and terrain can "obscure" But if you're behind a hill or a forest, line of sight is fully blocked.
Essentially if up to half of a single unit or up to half of all the models in a unit is hidden behind terrain, it is obscured rather than totally out of sight.
Absolutely not an important point, but football(soccer) pitches can vary in size, you can technically have a square pitch at 91mx91m if you want. Top level professional pitches will have stricter requirements but will still vary in size a fair bit
Sorry
No I find this awesome! Thanks for the comment. I love when major sports still have a little 19th century in them- Val.
Where can I find the terrain pack? Wasn’t able to find a link
NECRO COMMENT--lol loved that shout out in the newest vid to comments on older videos. I do have a question tho that I think ya'll might have some good insights on given the amount of work it sounds like you're doing with terrain.
Specifically looking at the old warhammer fantasy Fortified Manor. I've had one in box for... like over a decade now and just never got to it but I'm thinking Old World would be a great time to bust it out. Thing is: it's pretty beefy. The base size measures about 1 foot by 1 foot. If I wanted to drop something like that on the board, where would be a good place? My knee jerk reaction would be to replace the top right terrain you have pictured at timestamp 23:14 (piece with the 8 inch gap) but thought I'd run it by you and see if your experience with different terrain builds suggest a larger fixture ought to go somewhere specific or if it might require a totally different board layout.
🎉🎉
Two VERY good looking lads! (L6s)
Let's kiss
@@SquareBasedOldWorld don't get my hopes up! (L6s)
What tree stls are you using rob?
maybe I missed this in the explanation, but how does it work if I go in a wood and want to fire out of it with missle troops? I get light cover presumably if shot at, but do I need to be certain distance from the edge to be able to see out of it? Or can I not see out of it at all?
As far as I can recall you just shoot out of it : )
What does 12" from the centre actually mean? Does it mean a corridor of 12" down the middle of the table (length ways or width ways)? or both for a cross pattern? Or does it mean a 12" circle from the dead centre point of the board? All of these could be perfectly valid interpretations of 12" from the centre of the board.
so in the rules when players alternate placing a player can put a piece of terrain within 12 inches of a piece they have already placed. Not sure if you mentioned that ? I know you pre make the maps for events but it might be something to consider so your not limited to placing all pieces 12 inches away from the center and each other.
44:22 : just take a look at the rules of SAGA to see a system that not only handles player placed terrain great, but make it part of the actual battle!
Just because GW rule writers can't make it work doesn't mean it is insane or can't work at all...
SBS 🎉😊
#SQUAREBLESSED
…to have a true illusion of choice you need an option that would inevitably lead to WW3 Sir Humphrey :)
Although I think your close *grins*
"never stop" Never do Rob and Val
You got this
Either Rob's volume was a few % too low or Papa Nurgle's volume was a few % to high this time (watched on twitch as a VoD however, where it was more noticable).
Keep it up and stay hydrated 👍
Appreciate that
Nice topic.
Terrain can take a game from being sterile to being engageing.
Just returned to the hobby via 10th ed 40K and Old World.
10th ed is a fine game. But damn. Perfectly symmetrical ruin maps, with fully functioning bit kinda boring looking home built terrain (no offense to the guy who built it) leaves a bit of the flavour abscent.
Like ... maybe have one side of the board more natured-themee (forests, rocks etc) and the other with buildings?
Same with Fantasy/ Old World.
Does it look cool. Does it pull you in?
In a tournament I get it. You might need super neutral terrain. But being a little kid amd placeing your tiny trees and graveyards etc just feels FUN.
Yeah it's important to remember that a lot of the time we're talking in the frame of reference of running events. I think I talked a bit to terrain being the main driver of narrative - so when you want some asymmetrical vibes and dramatic battles, that's totally awesome of course. But for a weekender where folks are coming in to play, you want to try and give a fair shake to everyone, and so the "maps" can leave a bit to be desired from the drama perspective : ) - Val
Lets go
Love x
Loving the Content hopefully we can Collab soon
Heck yeah! Call my agent! - Val
I absolutely think that BS based shooting and war machines were point costed as if you always had 1 hill in your deployment zone. Hills to dwarfs and empire armies are akin to woods for wood elves, like the army doesn't function without it.
However given a choice I'd rather just have cheaper missile and war machines and no "free" hills
There is zero evidence for that so we have to assume the opposite
Are the terrain rules published anywhere?
thehonestwargamer.com/the-old-world-terrain-guidelines/