Title: Are We Playing The Same Game?
Description: Scenarios and terrain
Akil - July 24, 2012 03:43 PM (GMT)
It would seem a lot of the discussions on these boards have people coming to completely different, and sometimes conflicting, conclusions. I understand that some of this can be explained by local metas, but it made me wonder if we are actually all playing the same game.
So, how does your group set up a game of WHFB? Do you go exactly by the book with terrain and scenarios? Or do you modify it in someway? And why?
I'm sure I didn't hit every possibility, which is why the "other" category is there. I'll be curious to see the results.
Akil - July 24, 2012 03:47 PM (GMT)
Just to get us started, my group uses random scenarios and random d6+4 terrain as described in the book.
I think this really makes people think about their list, because there are a lot of bases to cover. You have to units that can occupy the watchtower, standards for BnG, contingency plans in case of random deployment, etc. Not having to worry about these would allow a much more one-dimensional list.
Also, terrain is such a big part of our games. Without it, I would think the best CC army would almost always win. Varied terrain requires a lot more tactical thought, and random terrain means that one person can't lay out just the things that would help their army.
Krael - July 24, 2012 03:52 PM (GMT)
The local gaming group is quite afraid of complecated terain. they play with (mysterious) forests and other than that simply impassable blocks. The rules for obstacles are known only because bretonnian archers can buy them.
and scenario's is something they do neither. Last time I witnessed how, as a novelty, dawn attack was played and completely screwed them over, partly due to impreparedness.
With my own friend, we tend to play the scenario's, and are not affraid to proxy terrain, though we usually play d3+2 rather than d6+4.
Gym Shorts - July 24, 2012 03:55 PM (GMT)
I voted for d6+4 and random scenario because thats how I play friendly matches. However tournaments are quite different.
Tournaments are much more concerning to me. I view friendly matches as practice games.
Veritas - July 24, 2012 04:03 PM (GMT)
We play random terrain and scenarios, as normal. Our terrain pool is limited though, so don't have any of the fancy stuff.
AegisGray - July 24, 2012 04:08 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Veritas @ Jul 24 2012, 04:03 PM) |
| We play random terrain and scenarios, as normal. Our terrain pool is limited though, so don't have any of the fancy stuff. |
Chosen Terrain and Battleline.
I would love to play by the book but *shrugs* 1 vs. 3 so I get over ruled. They are slowly coming around.. I think...
lsch1401 - July 24, 2012 04:09 PM (GMT)
It depends, but we are limited by terrain, and so we choose terrain (we still use the mysterious terrain rules). Sometimes we choose scenarios and sometimes it's random.
Sleboda - July 24, 2012 04:57 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Gym Shorts @ Jul 24 2012, 10:55 AM) |
I voted for d6+4 and random scenario because thats how I play friendly matches. However tournaments are quite different.
Tournaments are much more concerning to me. I view friendly matches as practice games. |
This is me exactly.
As a note, the need/desire to play this way was one of the reasons I had a terrain-making weekend after 8th came out. We knew that the terrain was important, but didn't have stuff like a magical circle, tower of blood, altar of khaine, etc...So, we took it upon ourselves to make them!
LevDaddy - July 24, 2012 05:16 PM (GMT)
I voted for the top entry - this is how all friendly matches are played in my meta, but I also play in leagues and campaigns that often influence the terrain and scenario in any given battle.
Chandlergriz - July 24, 2012 05:21 PM (GMT)
Well... CRAP! When we play a friendly game we have been using 2D6+4 LOL!
Thanks for the post! As our games are quite filled with terrain!!
Will be using D6+4 for now on! :)
Sleboda - July 24, 2012 05:24 PM (GMT)
Ha! You've just been playing 40K without realizing it. :)
bufordbugman - July 24, 2012 06:18 PM (GMT)
I answered chosen terrain plus random scenario because lately we've had to set up terrain in advance just to save time (big games, limited playing time, so we try to do as much of the preliminary setup stuff as possible in advance). I generally put out 7 or so pieces, though -- all nicely desert-y ones for my beloved TK! -- so the space ratio is about what it would be for an average d6+4 terrain roll. Then I roll for something mystical or enchanted or whatever and identify one of the pieces as that special terrain. Then I let the other guy shuffle stuff around if he likes before we start, or give him board side choice.
But if time is no issue we do d6+4 pieces, alternating placement, as in the BRB.
We always do random scenario. Rewards balanced list-building, and is much more fun!
RejjeN - July 24, 2012 07:07 PM (GMT)
I'd love to play random terrain and random scenario (or any scenario at all) but my group is stuck in tradition. I don't have a huge problem with chosen terrain, but it generally is the same with a few differences most of the time (2-3 forests, 1-2 towers/houses, a hill or two and maybe a rock or something to spice it up.)
Lordy - July 24, 2012 07:33 PM (GMT)
Battle line with chosen terrain.
Don't play with kids terrain rules either.
Keep it as competitive as possible :)
Nabu-Ptah - July 24, 2012 07:53 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Lordy @ Jul 24 2012, 07:33 PM) |
Battle line with chosen terrain.
Don't play with kids terrain rules either.
Keep it as competitive as possible :) |
First.
Option.
I find Lordy's avatar both distracting and disturbing on multiple levels.
ianu-hotep - July 24, 2012 08:23 PM (GMT)
as i voted other i should probably explain why.
the group i play with set an overseer to mediate disputes (we have a few house rules) and that person sets the table. both terrain and battle lines, plus any scenario's or magic terrain.
Amonakhom - July 24, 2012 08:48 PM (GMT)
I predominantly play tournament games where the terrain is preset by an impartial judge and scenarios are predetermined for each round.
This means I will end up playing on 6 different tables I have no control over, and get a game each of meeting engagement, watchtower, blood n glory, dawn attack, and battleline x2 (or a battle for the pass)
In my local gaming group we tend to have someone else set up the table and randomly roll a scenario
MasterNecrotect69 - July 25, 2012 12:27 AM (GMT)
in my local area's 3k league we play d6+4 or d3+4 if theres more than 5 games because we have limited terrian, but our tournaments are pre-set tables and the small tournys are book scenarios and the GT's are custom scenarios. the biggest change we see is in Blood and glory you dont auto lose if you break if you break your opponent gets between 650-1250 bonus vps.
kingwrynn - July 25, 2012 01:30 AM (GMT)
I picked other. Personally EVERY TIME i roll a d6 for terrain i roll a 5 or 6 (1 or 2 of which are always settlements of order of destruction!) and end up with way too much terrain on the board to even remember what it all does, and manoeuver around all of it. Its probably something that a better player wouldnt have a problem with but i dont like it. Instead i do the following when i can:
roll 2d6 and average the results (rounding down) +4. I find i get results that feel more "averaged" to me than rolling 1d6.
It depends on who im playing with and how much time i have too. Since everyone knows how to play battleline and plays it so much if we dont have much time we play that (and some people dont like the scenarios either). But most of the time i try to roll for scenario.
Artiee - July 25, 2012 12:49 PM (GMT)
Random 6 pcs of terrain (Hills, fences, woods, marshs, buildings, your choice)
Then Random Scenerio.
Sleboda - July 25, 2012 01:17 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (MasterNecrotect69 @ Jul 24 2012, 07:27 PM) |
| ...the biggest change we see is in Blood and glory you dont auto lose if you break if you break your opponent gets between 650-1250 bonus vps. |
I've seen this basic idea expressed in various places since 8th came out - the idea that people are playing B&G but with a tweak for no auto-lose.
Well, in my view, that's not playing B&G at all. It's some entirely new scenario.
The _entire_ point of B&G is the fear of an auto lose (on one side) and the ability to go for incredibly risky moves that sacrifice much but instantly win the game (on the other side).
This leads to some serious design and game play choices that don't come up if you remove the auto-lose.
For example, I will throw unit after unit at a bloodthirster, just to knock off a wound or two from each unit, knowing that I will give up 400+ VPs worth of stuff each time, but realizing that when that last wound is done, and I've sacrificed 1500pts of my army to do it, I will have won the game.
If the only plus I get is a few hundred extra VPs, I _cannot_ go down this path.
B&G creates wonderful and unique gaming situations. Changing it to simply be extra VPs pretty much completely removes the scenario's purpose.
EDIT: I mean heck, if I were playing a superawesomekilly army, I might even build a list I know gives up the bonus VPs right away and go for annihilation of the foe. Who cares about VPs when I've wiped out the enemy?
Yamabushi - July 25, 2012 04:28 PM (GMT)
We play as per the rulebook, random amounts of terrain with a random scenario
kirsanth - July 25, 2012 05:29 PM (GMT)
As per the book.
Unless it's for a tourney - then it's by their book.
Or a campaign - but sometimes even then.
Jimmy - July 25, 2012 09:12 PM (GMT)
It's generally by the book although we normall re-roll dawn attack because it's just crap.
Unless I really want to see how a list will go in a specific scenario like Watchtower or Blood & Glory, otherwise its just the roll.
Brother Sutek - July 26, 2012 12:19 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Sleboda @ Jul 25 2012, 01:17 PM) |
| QUOTE (MasterNecrotect69 @ Jul 24 2012, 07:27 PM) | | ...the biggest change we see is in Blood and glory you dont auto lose if you break if you break your opponent gets between 650-1250 bonus vps. |
I've seen this basic idea expressed in various places since 8th came out - the idea that people are playing B&G but with a tweak for no auto-lose.
Well, in my view, that's not playing B&G at all. It's some entirely new scenario.
The _entire_ point of B&G is the fear of an auto lose (on one side) and the ability to go for incredibly risky moves that sacrifice much but instantly win the game (on the other side).
This leads to some serious design and game play choices that don't come up if you remove the auto-lose.
For example, I will throw unit after unit at a bloodthirster, just to knock off a wound or two from each unit, knowing that I will give up 400+ VPs worth of stuff each time, but realizing that when that last wound is done, and I've sacrificed 1500pts of my army to do it, I will have won the game.
If the only plus I get is a few hundred extra VPs, I _cannot_ go down this path.
B&G creates wonderful and unique gaming situations. Changing it to simply be extra VPs pretty much completely removes the scenario's purpose.
EDIT: I mean heck, if I were playing a superawesomekilly army, I might even build a list I know gives up the bonus VPs right away and go for annihilation of the foe. Who cares about VPs when I've wiped out the enemy?
|
We've had three players lose auto because of blood and glory, did I mention they were all VC players in the last book with ghoul spam? I like that scenario even though it's tough for my WE, made the more high end players make better balanced lists. Anyway we play random terrain and scenario but not special terrain rules as, for us, they got in the way and became annoying to most of us. A few tournie players amongst us ask to practice with full rules and we do so but it's not the norm here. I just like to play don't really care either way.
Nabu-Ptah@ Yet you can't look away can you? Have you saved it as your background yet? ;)
