|
|
Post by gamma016 on May 25, 2014 12:59:44 GMT -5
Hello everyone, I was recently in a small tournament and was having some difficulties mostly due to terrain. One of my opponents, a tyranid player, told me that large LOS blocking pieces of terrain are what GW's rules want you to have on the board, but I find that three or four large LOS blocking pieces of terrain, along with other smaller pieces of terrain, render my long range weapons useless as I cannot draw LOS any more that 24"-36" away. I don't know if this is his way of stacking the table against me to make sure his models can get up and in my face and trump my gun lines, or if this is just standard. What are your experiences of a standard battlefield terrain setup?
|
|
|
|
Post by hendrik on May 25, 2014 15:29:27 GMT -5
this is why building a narrative is important for your games. are those nids still making it across the wide plains, vunerable to your long range weapons, or have they managed to close the gap, reaching the outer rim of the hives? some LOS blocking terrain is usefull, but if it only hinders your army it's terribly 1 sided.
We usually vary our terrain setup, depending on the scenario we play
|
|
|
|
Post by emptyhat on May 25, 2014 16:25:36 GMT -5
Good advice but not so useful for tournament types. Of course I mostly play friendlies with people I know (and know I'll play again), in those cases people normally set the terrain for balance, symmetry or something we agreed to.
|
|
|
|
Post by hendrik on May 26, 2014 1:31:47 GMT -5
it's like with fortifications, which are placed before your deploy terrain. casual players will spread out the terrain, while WAAC players will put a big LOS blocking piece in front of your bastion/aegis defence line
|
|
|
|
Post by Woz on May 27, 2014 18:08:50 GMT -5
............. One of my opponents, a tyranid player, told me that large LOS blocking pieces of terrain are what GW's rules none IG players want you to have on the board, ................. Fixed it for you. Lets face it, firepower is the IG's biggest strength so anyone playing against IG wants as much terrain as possible to give their forces cover and to cut down your LOS. IG want large open spaces so they can make most of their firepower. CC armies (like 'Nids) want as much terrain as possible so their troops can get into CC without getting shot too pieces. Next time tell them that one piece is enough, then after a bit of arguing settle on two. |
|
|
|
Post by emptyhat on May 27, 2014 19:03:02 GMT -5
Especially if they are keen on LOS blocking terrain that doesn't bring difficult terrain tests.
|
|
|
|
Post by gamma016 on May 27, 2014 19:42:30 GMT -5
I'm thinking a big part of it might be our terrain selection as well. We have a fair number of large LOS blocking pieces, and some smaller pieces nice for hiding infantry squads in or just area terrain, bit no medium sized pieces that hinder LOS but not really block it. I'm thinking building some more terrain is needed!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jun 4, 2014 5:55:54 GMT -5
Punch them in the mouth for being an unsporting girl thingy.
|
|
|
|
Post by treadiculous on Jun 4, 2014 14:10:53 GMT -5
A good compromise is to set all the terrain down the side of the board, this makes one flank very full of obstacles and LOS blocking objects and leaves the other flank very open.
If you are setting the terrain in this way you will want to do away with the roll which randomly determines the deployment.
I have enjoyed many games with this table lay out as it gives close combat armies the ground to advance while under cover and also gives the shooty armies the range to send munitions downrange.
|
|
