Some strange terrainrules

[Heliums]

13 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Hmm that would be interesting. A bit gamy of abused but it does free up some space if done right. On the 10x10 or 10 diameter I will check as soon as I get my book  

Oh, I agree it feels gamey and a abuseable. But I mean, who knows if setting up either infinitely small pieces of terrain or really long mausoleums is actually an advantageous strategy in actual play. 

[Kramer]

1 minute ago, Heliums said:

Oh, I agree it feels gamey and a abuseable. But I mean, who knows if setting up either infinitely small pieces of terrain or really long mausoleums is actually an advantageous strategy in actual play. 

I can’t imagine it’s not helpful vs things like sylvaneth to block out terrain placement. But you’re right, time will tell 🤷‍♂️

[Ahn-ket]

3 minutes ago, Heliums said:

That raises a good point. What happens if all 10 pieces the players pick can't be placed? I didn't catch any ruling on that except for faction terrain. Do the other pieces just not get placed? Two mausoleums set up like that will probably mean no other terrain can fit. It's gamey and abusive but seems legal, so you can bet people will probably do it if they think they can use it to their advantage. But maybe setting terrain up like this isn't to anyone advantage and no one will bother. 

 

The ruling said you must take 3 big and 2 small ones per player and Set it on table thats the point of the 10x10 or 6x6 rule and my thinking that it applies to all terrains

[firebat]

The mausoleum can be garrisoned so it's not like you can't game it for advantage already like that to try and use it to teleport troops across the battlefield or have your spells or shooting cover everywhere. I can also deploy a Bloodthirster as a pile of bits on it's base but at some point you just have to decide what kind of game you're playing.

[Jackroks981]

18 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

I am looking forward to the changes tbh. I play an army (ghosts) that has no terrain (and is unlikely to get one any time soon). 

The amount of games against trees that I've straight up lost due to wyldwoods covering the entire board so that there isn't any 'non wyldwood' areas at all.

The current free faction terrain offers great additional bonuses to armies but as not everyone has it how can you say it creates a fair playing field when lots of armies don't have them. Knowing that your opponent is able to stomp you turn 1 or 2 due to additional benefits given by a terrain feature that they've not had to spend points on is not a good play experience. 

The new generic terrain 'penumbral engine' costs points and maybe it's being used as a test for all terrain pieces going forward, who knows 🤷‍♂️, but maybe that could help with addressing the gap between those that have and those that have not. 

And I know that currently the sky is falling down due to rats apparently not being able to use their gnawholes in the new rules but it's worth remembering that without the gnawholes rats are going straight to the bottom of the tier rankings because it's just the gnawholes that are making them be super gross at the moment isn't it? 

We have 3 weeks to wait for the GHB19 FAQ before we know exactly what's going on but I like that GW are trying to set a format to how games should be played (especially in a competitive sense) and the terrain rules just fall under these new guidelines, because I'm sure all of us have played at a tournament where the scenery has been an absolute joke and I'd much rather be playing on decent scenery covered tables than on a 6'x4' which has a slight hill in one corner and a single ruined building near the middle. 

So then what for factions like Beasts of Chaos? Their whole allegiance ability is built around the herdstone, its not an added bonus, if you cannot get it down then you're essentially fighting with no allegiance abilities.

[Tropical Ghost General]

@Jackroks981 there is obviously no easy solution to this that will work for all factions otherwise this thread would have ended with 1 response 😂.

My main faction I play (ghosts) has no terrain piece and is unlikely to get one, so I obviously sit very firmly on the side of the fence that a free of cost terrain piece is a nice bonus to have but it also instantly gives an advantage over an army that doesn't have access to one.

One of my other factions that I play (FEC) has a terrain piece that literally gives such a gross advantage of free summoning that it feels really unfair when using it against armies that lack decent terrain pieces, but it's part of the army so obviously you use it and abuse it because that's the rules and the game. 

I am not trying to be offering any solutions to the issues with terrain but I'm looking forward to there being more structure to terrain, such asnot being able to be placed on or within 6" if objectives, because trying to remove a treelord sat in a wyldwood when it has mystic shield is just a very boring exercise in how to roll dice that have no effect on anything 😂. 

[Chikout]

OK. How about this as a fix.

Drop the 6 from table edge restriction for faction terrain. Additionally, if the faction terrain is wholly within 6 of the table edge it only needs to be 3 inches from other terrain. All other rules still apply. 

This allows faction terrain in the game,  but by forcing it to the table edge in many cases it gives it a slight nerf.

[Mirage8112]

Here are the exact words as I’ve heard them read in the video:  “Sometimes the allegiance abilities will allow you to include 1 or more terrain features, these are set up in addition to the pitched battle terrain features.  In a pitched battle, faction terrain must be set up more than 6” from a table edge, more than 6” from any other terrain feature and more than 3” from any objectives. In addition to any other restrictions that apply. Sometimes this makes it impossible for a faction terrain pieces to be placed in this way, if this is case it is not [placed].” 

Terrain is chosen from a predefined list of terrain features. With players choosing 3 each of: Azyrite ruins [1 piece?], citadel woods, magewraith throne, ophidian archways, dragonfate dias, numinous oculus, arcane ruins or sigmarite mausoleum. and then 2 secondary pieces: and walls/fences. An different scenery peices can be substituted for any of the 6 primary peices as long as it is not more than 10” wide in nay direction or taller than 4” at any point. 

A death player in theory could choose 3 Mausoleums, in the “line deployment” as picture from a previous post. I fairly sure that’s not the way it’s “intended” to be set up, but RAW it’s perfectly legal. I expect something like that might be addressed in the FAQ.

It seems terain features placed after initial set-up follow whatever rules are on the warscroll (this only really affects Wyldwoods) since they are not placed through an “allegiance ability”; they are placed via a warscroll ability, spell, or item. WW summoned in game only have about 10.5” footprint and can be 1” away from other terrain features and objectives so they’re going to be hard to zone out completely. The footprints of the selected terrain features are fairly small, most only being about 4” x 4” with some exceptions (mausoleum and ophidian archway for example). And even if a death player were to drop 3 mausoleums like that, It would still be fairly difficult to zone the board out completely, since the other player could just choose a very very small terrain piece (like a 2” x 2” rock), and opt to use the mysterious terrain rules instead.    


 

[Sleboda]

On 6/16/2019 at 8:41 AM, AverageBoss said:

Warscrolls only override rules when there is some sort of contradiction, they don't ignore rules. So unless there is direct contradiction, you have to follow all the rules.

This has been a difficult thing for Warhammer players to understand for as long as there have been Warhammer players. Anyone remember the old Watchtower scenario and its interaction with Empire detachments? That's really the classic.

You can't 'force' a rule break when the option to follow them all is available.

[Kurrilino]

I don't get the panic. What happened to "Warscroll rules overwrite MAin Rules"

Don't see anything weird going on here.

[Isotop]

40 minutes ago, Kurrilino said:

I don't get the panic. What happened to "Warscroll rules overwrite MAin Rules"

Don't see anything weird going on here.

Just read this thread in its entirety. The rule you are talking about is not quite as simple as you make it in your head. I think your confusion stems from your usage of unprecise terms - what exactly is the meaning of "Main Rules"?

[Mirage8112]

2 hours ago, Kurrilino said:

I don't get the panic. What happened to "Warscroll rules overwrite MAin Rules"

Don't see anything weird going on here.

The terrain rules say “in addition to any restrictions”. It’s not a contradiction, so there is nothing to “overwrite”.

It’s a little like the rule of 3’s, the warscroll says a wizard can cast “arcane bolt” but the matched play rules add restrictions not present on the warscroll. 

[RuneBrush]

On 6/17/2019 at 8:02 AM, Sigwarus said:

I really dislike comments like "wait for the book" and "sky is falling". We now have at least two different sources saying the same about the terrain rules. One of the reading straight from it in the video. Unfortunatly its true. Hopefully GW will come to their senses and FAQ this otherwise the community will no doubt do it. Im just chocked this slipped through playtesting. 

+++ MOD HAT +++ Sorry to hear that.  However, we do need to wait for the book.  Until it's in our hands we're acting on second hand information and it's very difficult to put rules into any form of context - as we've seen in the past it's really easy to not spot something or mis-read it.  We also know that there will be a big FAQ released in July, so not long to wait until we see any oddballs resolved.

[Dreadmund]

20 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

It seems terain features placed after initial set-up follow whatever rules are on the warscroll (this only really affects Wyldwoods) since they are not placed through an “allegiance ability”; they are placed via a warscroll ability, spell, or item.

Summoning is an allegiance ability so if it affects all unique terrain that comes from allegiance abilities that would be a severe nerf to Maggotkin of Nurgle (and I presume other factions but I'm less familiar with them). Summoning is the primary way we are able to place additional Feculent Gnarlmaws and they are essential to enable us to use summoning and move across the battlefield faster than a snail's pace. The hero Horticulous Slimux would probably become a lot more important unit if that was the case, since he can summon 1 extra Gnarlmaw per game as a warscroll ability.

I think we're just going to have to wait for the FAQ to clear this up either way. Hopefully it will be prompt!