Jump to content

Just can’t understand Terrain placement?


Keith

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

Why? If they're going to fix it for free I don't see the issue. Obviously the book was being written before Skaven so there is a discrepancy in the rules, they're not leaving it to fester for months - they're fixing it. 

Their fix will be some flippant remark followed by "ignore these rules" , we have your money.

It's not good enough , and happens repeatedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dreadmund said:

I dunno, to summon a piece of scenery now you need about an 18" clearing with no other terrain, objectives, board edges or enemy models. Even with careful placement thats pretty limiting. It's going to be tricky, and very easy for an opponent to deny with unit placement. Even if you can place one, it's probably not going to be where you want it ideally. Any way I look at it, it's a nerf-by-proxy to armies that rely on scenery for one reason or another.

It depends what army you play. The rules are pretty clear that that 6” - 6” -3” rule (as written) only applies to terrain summoned onto the board via an “allegiance ability”. The only two armies that currently summon terrain to table during the game are Sylvaneth and Maggotkin, and only one of those (maggotkin) actually summon terrain to the board  via their allegiance ability. 

Sylvaneth have thier own restrictions based on summoning Wyldwoods to the board depending on the mechanic used. The allegiance summon already has the 6”-6”-3” rules built in, but all the other woods summoned onto the board (spell/warscroll ability/item)  use a 1” 1” 1” rule. So it’s not really and issue for them.

I will say, if T.O.’s scrap the terrain placement rules they should scrap the faction terrain portion of the rules as well. It doesn’t make sense to scrap half the rules an apply the other half, especially since the trouble with Maggotkin summoning trees virtually disappear since they can sub out 6 terrain pieces for their own trees. 
 

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Interesting.  Was there a commentary that stated that the points cost of units also included how powerful they were with their faction terrain?  I hear people talk all the time about how summoning armies are balanced because summoning armies have their points cost added into their totals but I've never heard that sylvaneth and nurgle had their points costs inflated to account for their free terrain.


Indirectly: yes.

In ones of the designers commentary, they answered a question asking if the Realmscape rules and Endless spells rules were considered part of the core game or optional.  The answer they gave was something along the lines that points values for every unit across the game were written with every available rule to an army in mind, and if you don't play with them, the points value wont really reflect what the army can do. 

If that’s the case, then Maggotkin and Sylvaneth also have all the rules available to them written into their posts cost as well.  Dryads are garbage outside of the woods, but great inside them. It doesn’t make sense that a unit like that should have single point costs and not factor in the disparity as a core mechanic of the army. The same goes for Maggotkin, they are very hard to kill but slow as ****. Trees are a part of both army’s core mechanics, it doesn’t make sense that GW would write the rules that way and not account for their terrain .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Keith said:

Their fix will be some flippant remark followed by "ignore these rules" , we have your money.

It's not good enough , and happens repeatedly.

You must be a holdover from the Kirby days. GW ended it’s streak as “the Evil Empire” a while ago now. 

Seriously though. Pour yourself a drink a wait till the FAQ drops before your torch burns out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the normal terrain rules, apart from the fact that certain battle plans with lots of objectives like the new Scorched Earth or Focal Points might leave very little space for terrain.

I also don't mind some of the faction terrain restrictions because I believe you shouldn't be able to drop your big buff piece (that can't be stopped/removed/killed) right on top of the major central objective. So I think keeping those 6" away from objectives is fine. 

The new/leaked Sylvaneth forest placement rules make sense to me even if they are a bit restrictive. The first free one you get is harder to place and will often end up in your territory, any new ones you summon will be a bit easier to place but can be countered by enemy model placement. Which is good. It offers strategic counter-play similar to units blocking summoning and teleportation. 

My big problem is how huge and annoying to play on most faction terrain is. The new sylvaneth woods are a bit better now that you can easily place models within the perimeter..... but they are still a big footprint. I feel like that could have worked better if it worked similar to the nurgle trees. Single model, smaller footprint with a buff radius. 

Skaven gnawholes are a fun idea.... except they are HUGE. Skaven are also supposed to be able to move over them without penalty. Except that the rocks around the edge are too jagged to place models on, but also too large/wide that they would break coherency if part of the unit was inside and the other part outside. 
Like if these were a bit lower, with some flatter rocks so models could be placed anywhere on the terrain piece, then the size is probably OK. Or they could have been a little bit smaller (maybe the size of just the inside swirly magic bit) and impassible. 
Lucky these have to be placed around the outside of the battlefield because it would WAY too easy to block off whole sections of the board otherwise. 

The khorne shrine is fine except that there's a large unusable staircase that can't have models placed on it due to the angle, and thus risks breaking coherency of a unit that tries to move through/around/over the terrain. 

The shipwreck and loonshrine are a bit better but also massive. 

The fyreslayers one is probably OK but I haven't seen that in person.
The FEC one is maybe a bit tall and has a staircase but the footprint is smaller so it won't affect unit movement and coherency much. 
The nurgle, slaanesh, BoC ones are fine

I just wish they put a bit more thought into the usability of these terrain pieces. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

It depends what army you play. The rules are pretty clear that that 6” - 6” -3” rule (as written) only applies to terrain summoned onto the board via an “allegiance ability”. The only two armies that currently summon terrain to table during the game are Sylvaneth and Maggotkin, and only one of those (maggotkin) actually summon terrain to the board  via their allegiance ability. 

Sylvaneth have thier own restrictions based on summoning Wyldwoods to the board depending on the mechanic used. The allegiance summon already has the 6”-6”-3” rules built in, but all the other woods summoned onto the board (spell/warscroll ability/item)  use a 1” 1” 1” rule. So it’s not really and issue for them.

Let me correct you: the wyldwood and nurgle tree that are set up before the game are part of allegiance ability and therefore follow 6-6-3 restrictions, as well as all the other faction terrain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:

True Things

Yup. Giving players as reason to bring more terrain, means they (ultimately) sell more terrain, and it ensures that factions who do use terrain in a competitive environment are going to  more amplified from what it did/was before. The placement rules are quite restrictive either way, and it does make it of situational use, but it’s really pushing the game down the path it’s always been going. Big swift clashes with units where you roll lots of dice. 

I’ma actually interested in how it affects mixed order armies. KO players bringing Wyldwoods to block out the firing lanes of artillery line of sight, and making spellcasting that much more of a headache. Some terrain wont be as much use for some players (dwarves forge) but a bunch of fyreslayers as allies acting as super tanks for 1 turn.  

4 grand alliances also get access to a cheap unit factories 
Destruction: You can bring 400 allies of Gitz and use the shrine as a cheap goblin mill.
Death:  You can take a charnel throne and an arch-regent to churn out minions with summon imperial guard.  
Order: Take a branch wraith and you can take a  Wyldwoods and turn it into a summoning mill with dryads

As a trade off, all mixed chaos stuff just gets more chaotic. 

Single allegiance armies will still be a thing, because of the really unique items and some of terrain features you can’t use very well without it (Gravesites, Sylvaneth teleports, Nurgle contagion points). In short, I’d be super pumped about this because the viability of a bunch of new builds Mixed order and single allegiance that juts became a whole lot more competitive because of this.  

As to the physical use of it on the battlefield, I know it can be a pain in the ass sometimes, but to some degree that’s just an inherent awkwardness in the 28 mm heroic scale. The models have to be big enough to see the detail on, (any smaller and the sculpt matters less) but small enough that you need to fit up to 200 or so miniatures onto a table together. Plus, since they bases to stand and be dynamic, they need to be mounted on bases. Playing with round bases means tricky terrain is just unavoidable when you need to sit a round base on a bunch of visibly sculpted things. The “Charnel Pancake” just doesn’t have quite the same visual appeal. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, XReN said:

Let me correct you: the wyldwood and nurgle tree that are set up before the game are part of allegiance ability and therefore follow 6-6-3 restrictions, as well as all the other faction terrain.

Yes I know that. I meant that after that.

During the game both of them can summon more to the field that don’t have to follow the 6” - 6” -3 “ rule, They both follow  a 1” rule to objectives, models or terrain.  If terrain is no closer than 12” to any other terrain feature, then there should be a bunch of 12” holes all over the board. For Sylvaneth, the new woods are 10” wide, so 1” on either side, they should fit. Nurgle trees are tiny, but since they are summoned to the board via an allegiance ability they’ll be more restricted. The trees are tiny tho, so it’s possible. But I don't think they’ll need more than the 5 they can potentially bring anyway, they wont really benefit from more. 

Edited by Mirage8112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

Yes I know that. I meant that after that.

During the game both of them can summon more to the field that don’t have to follow the 6” - 6” -3 “ rule, They both follow  a 1” rule to objectives, models or terrain.  If terrain is no closer than 12” to any other terrain feature, then there should be a bunch of 12” holes all over the board. For Sylvaneth, the new woods are 10” wide, so 1” on either side, they should fit. Nurgle trees are tiny, but since they are summoned to the board via an allegiance ability they’ll be more restricted. The trees are tiny tho, so it’s possible. But I don't think they’ll need more than the 5 they can potentially bring anyway, they wont really benefit from more. 

Alright, can you clearify this one for me? As I thought from reading, those restrictions applied for the entire game, but English isn't my native language, if you can help me understand this correct I'd appreciate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@XReN Mirage's argument is that the GHB19 states that Faction Terrain put on the board via an Allegiance Ability is subject to the 6"-6"-3" restrictions.

However,  the Sylvaneth Wyldwoods that are placed during the game are not brought on by Allegiance Ability at all, but  instead brought on by Spells and Artefacts, so therefore do not need to observe these restrictions.

Ripe for a FAQ.

 

Edited by JP1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JP1 said:

@XReN Mirage's argument is that the GHB19 states that Faction Terrain put on the board via an Allegiance Ability is subject to the 6"-6"-3" restrictions.

However,  the Sylvaneth Wyldwoods that are placed during the game are not brought on by Allegiance Ability at all, but  instead brought on by Spells and Artefacts, so therefore do not need to observe these restrictions.

Ripe for a FAQ.

 

Spells and artefacts are allegiance abilities, but I guess Tree Lord Ancient can stick a Wyldwood in avoiding those restrictions

This logic also means there are no easy Trees for nurgle since it's an allegiance ability as well and they are better of relying on snail riding gardener

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, XReN said:

Spells and artefacts are allegiance abilities, but I guess Tree Lord Ancient can stick a Wyldwood in avoiding those restrictions

This logic also means there are no easy Trees for nurgle since it's an allegiance ability as well and they are better of relying on snail riding gardener

I can very much see the logic behind this too, although really puts a dampener on the new Sylvaneth book release if all the tree  summoning spells and aretfacts are nerfed from 1"  placement to 6" placement before the book is even out!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its entirely probable GW knew about these issues and changes are in the FAQ already (we know Skaven were not considered in the GHB anyway).  It would have been better if the particular issues were resolved at the same time as the GHB but GW work on a slower timeframe than the internet, we know this so people shouldnt be surprised issue arise and are resolved in the FAQ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Keith said:

Their fix will be some flippant remark followed by "ignore these rules" , we have your money.

 It's not good enough , and happens repeatedly.

We'll see what it looks like in July when it comes out. My prediction is you won't be posting much afterwards because it'll be fixed in a way that makes faction specific terrain function as intended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, XReN said:

Spells and artefacts are allegiance abilities, but I guess Tree Lord Ancient can stick a Wyldwood in avoiding those restrictions

This logic also means there are no easy Trees for nurgle since it's an allegiance ability as well and they are better of relying on snail riding gardener

Again, if there are already 5 trees on the table I don't think it will be a problem for Nurgle players.  

I missed that spells and items are actually allegiance abilities and I guess I was only focusing on battle traits because batteltraits are all the Sylvaneth book has under Allegiance abilities. If I’m missing a page, and they are indeed on there, RAW they would be subject to those restrictions as well.  If they aren’t (Sylvaneth will be the newest book so it could be a format change) then they wont be considered allegiance abilities since Battletomes trump core rules. 

But even that aside, I’m fairly certain will the FAQ will say that “Battletome rules supersede core rule/GHB rules”. Thats teh way its always been and thats a easiest solution to fix skaven gnawholes and Nurgle tree drops without rewriting them. That’s pretty much been the way they’ve always handled these conflicts. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do think people are not actually reading the new rules and taking the previous edition into and trying to apply it to ghb2019 instead of just reading ghb 2019 on it's on.

 

The one area where the new rules completely fall apart is tournaments as alot of faction terrain can't be set up but that's only in with tournament rules but other than that having done a few test games gnawholes placement is fine, the moseleums are not a big deal because they are garrisonable and you can't resurrect new units from them. The biggest thing I've seen from the new rules is how crazy multiple herdstones can be, but BoC could use the boon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SaJeel said:

the moseleums are not a big deal because they are garrisonable and you can't resurrect new units from them

I’ve seen this mentioned before, but I don’t understand why. Can you explain why they can’t resurrect new units from them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be because the newly summoned unit has to be wholly within 9" of the gravesite and more than 9" away from any enemy models. When you garrison the terrain units must treat the terrain garrisoned as if it was an enemy model. . It would be impossible to be wholly within 9" and more than 9" away at the same time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ryan Taylor said:

This would be because the newly summoned unit has to be wholly within 9" of the gravesite and more than 9" away from any enemy models. When you garrison the terrain units must treat the terrain garrisoned as if it was an enemy model. . It would be impossible to be wholly within 9" and more than 9" away at the same time. 

I get that part. But I’ve heard it said that you can resurrect units from a mausoleum even if it doesn’t have a unit garrisoned insides I have no idea why because it desk to function juts like a regular gravesite under those conditions for all intents and purposes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mauseloum is ”treat as a gravesite for the Unquiet dead battletrait” per it's warscroll. The ability to resurrect a unit is the ”Endless legion" abilty a completely separate ability from the Unquiet dead battletrait

 

@Mirage8112 not what @Ryan Taylor said

I didn't mean garrisoning was related to summoning, garrisoning is just super useful and an extremely double edged sword for the player that sets up a Garrison before sides

Edited by SaJeel
Clarity and tagging
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SaJeel said:

The mauseloum is ”treat as a gravesite for the Unquiet dead battletrait” per it's warscroll. The ability to resurrect a unit is the ”Endless legion" abilty a completely separate ability from the Unquiet dead battletrait

Ahhh. That explains it. Thank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New idea. Instead of getting cool battletomes and GHBs mutliple times a year, let's just get one book each year that way the can test every aspect of it, wait for it to print and ship and be used before even creating a concept for the next book.

Or we can have the system we have now where there are multiple play test teams each testing different rules and multiple writers writing different books around same time so we can have our many books each year.  

At the end of the day we play with plastic (and some metal) toy soldiers.  Let's not lose our minds over things that can be changed or house ruled

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2019 at 11:45 PM, zilberfrid said:

I do have a question about the Magewhath Throne, where can I find current rules for them? They are not in the GHB, and the warscroll seems ancient.

I suggest using GHB 2018's warscrolls or Warhammer App, seems like those would have the freshest rules for terrain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...