SgtBrowncoat

Terrain in perspective: Making the most of your Wargames terrain. WFB edition

Rate this Entry
1 Comment
by
SgtBrowncoat
, 04-11-2012 at 12:33 PM (507 Views)
As it would seem Warhammer Fantasy is once again waxing in the eyes of local interest, I thought this would be a good opportunity to cover a few thoughts on terrain as it relates to games of this type.

While I am an advocate for more (and more varied) terrain on any game table, I often wonder about regimented games such as Warhammer, many historical games, or Wargods of Aegyptus. The reality of blocks of infantry is that they have a harder time getting around a table that is loaded down with terrain. This is in terms of the physical properties of the models as well as maneuvers in the game. (Balance for example)

These kinds of games must strike an unusual balance of terrain versus clear areas. Too much terrain slows the game and hurts some armies, not enough and it can get stale, and really hurt other army types.

As I recall, WFB used to call for 25% or less of the table to have terrain. It was recommended that you use a couple of hills and some woods, maybe a building. This allowed for a lot of freedom to maneuver and try to flank your enemy, but could be considered dull at times. Additionally, faster or larger units could take advantage of less terrain as well.

Eighth edition has become vague in terms of terrain, suggesting D6+4 pieces on a given table. There is nothing wrong with this statement, but for the fact that the recommended size of each piece is not readily obvious. Five to ten pieces of terrain are not really a problem if they are fairly small, but can be crushing to the game when they get too big. I worry that too much terrain may have unconsciously turned some people off to the game. A hill is okay, but a mountain is probably too much, Likewise, a river is fun, but maybe not the Mississippi.

Another issue that can arise is the magical terrain types introduced in 8th edition. Rolling on the table provided can result in a very unique table with a number of new factors to consider. This is very interesting and can create unique strategic situations, but the question of size returns. That effigy of Gork you rolled sounds like fun, but the only piece of terrain available that resembles such an idol might be mounted on a hill or forest that is an inappropriate size for the table. (Being an effigy of Gork it might be inappropriate for a variety of other reasons, too, but that falls outside the focus of this discussion.)

In conclusion, I would caution anyone playing this type game to go easy on terrain, and try to keep it close to 25% of the table covered, unless you want a different terrain experience, which I would not fault anyone for. In terms of the magical terrain found in WFB, I would suggest that players roll for one or two pieces at most to include with whatever agreed upon amount of terrain you would be using. It is easier to keep track of all the special circumstances this terrain has to offer that way, and makes each peice that much more valuable to the armies fighting over it. I would also really like to encourage players to pick a few favorite pieces of special terrain to build and pack along with your army, to ensure that a variety of these pieces are represented in a decent scale for the game.
(Just don’t get carried away on that effigy of Gork…)

Thanks for reading, and please remember, your comments and responses are the 3+ cover save to my inspiration for writing these articles, so be generous with your thoughts.
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Patimuss's Avatar
    First off, I really love these posts Ed. Second off I can't agree with you more about some of the drawbacks with the new terrain system. While it does have its drawbacks, however, I must say I do prefer it to the old system or the way 40k is currently done. Before getting into that though I will go back to the negatives, and more importantly how I've been dealing with them.

    The first problem I see, and that you point out, is the randomness. I feel like a full d6 variance is just too much. One thing I have been messing around with in my head is a way to include this randomness but in a more statistically consistent way. Right now my favorite method (and this may seem odd) is to do 2d3+3 rather than a single d6. This maintains the minimum number of 5 pieces while dropping the max to 9 pieces. Another thing it does is put a heavier probability on a number like 7 over lets say 9. This is compared to the current system where you have just as likely a chance to get 10 pieces as you do 5 or 8. I find this to be a nice solution because it still allows for the absurdly terrain heavy games that challenge the way you think, but they don't come along as often.

    The second big problem is the lack of definition in terrain size. I have seen forests that block LOS to a third of the table and I have seen forests that look something like one of gork or mork's toenail clippings (when they are felt forests of course). I wish there was an easy way to solve this, but honestly I see this as more of a good thing in the end. If I roll 9 or 10 pieces of terrain I am naturally going to pick smaller pieces of terrain (a mausoleum for the haunted mansion), but if I roll a 5 I take it as a good excuse to pull out slightly more grand looking terrain (A converted building for the haunted mansion). These two problems seem to have a way of balancing each other out. What really does bug me however is how some stuff is defined and some isn't. There are no guidelines about how large a forest should be, but obstacles are always 3 6" segments (which they fail to explain if they need to be placed touching each other or not).

    The last problem that I have with it is the sheer insanity of the random system at times. You seem to allude to this briefly but don't really confront it when you mention the sheer number of special rules to keep track of. What really gets me is that you could technically have a game where there is a settlement of order right next to a settlement of chaos and in between them of course you have a blood forest and a river of light. Not to mention the elven waystone, charnel pit, dwarven pub, shrine to sigmar, haunted mansion, and wizard's tower. in theory not only is this possible, but it is also completely acceptable in the current rules. My problem is it makes no g-d sense. Another example of this, pulled from a real game, is a game in which we rolled up 10 pieces of terrain. Of those 10 pieces there were 2 rivers and 4 sets of obstacles. This not only makes getting across the table at any reasonable speed a challenge, but it also completely shuts down certain units like knights while giving a huge advantage to anything that flies or ignores terrain. I understand that this is part of working around terrain, but when it gets to that level of excessiveness it just gets discouraging. So for this reason I not only condone, but encourage, people to reroll dice results that seem excessive or nonsensical. The point of terrain is to facilitate a fun unique battle not to shut down certain armies or make you scratch your head and wonder why the hell there is a blessed bulwark surrounding a charnel pit.

    Now onto the good things. The first and foremost thing I have to say about the new system is that I have never had two games that felt similar terrain wise. This keeps the experience fresh and new while also keeping me on my toes as a general. Not only are we away from the boring two forests a hill and a building set up, but we are now experiencing battlefields unique to the game system. To fight over a sigmarite shrine or to garrison a dwarven brew pub brings a whole new level of excitement and adventure to the game.

    Building off of this, not only is there now a greater variety of terrain, but with the in game effects it makes terrain more interesting. This has been a great boon to my drive to create good looking proper terrain. I want to have a terrain set that can handle nearly every battlefield. An example of this is that I bought the Garden of Moor set specifically because there is now such a thing as a ghost fence rather than there being only simple obstacles.

    Anyway I've been going on for way to long so I'll wrap it up. Thanks for the thoughtful insight Ed, and I look forward to seeing if anyone else has any thoughts.