New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Mogger351]

16 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

So how did everyone set up terrain before? We just used to throw some terrain down to get something fun with a vague notion that too much terrain favoured assault and too little favoured shooting.

 

And you know what? That is still a perfectly valid way to play. These layouts just show what GW consider the optimum terrain for a perfectly balanced game. 

 

But outside tournament play, I can't remember the last time it was an issue. Player skill and army composition has a much bigger effect on outcomes. I usually try to play in a way that is fun for both me and my opponent. Yes I like to win but not at the expense of having fun.

 

I don't see the terrain maps as overly prescriptive ir controlling. They are simply guides where none existed previously. 

Yeah sure, I won't dragged it up again, it's just very possible the further you stray from the prescribed the less well the game works and some abilities/points/rules will not work as intended.

 

Brief example, if your objective is now a building rather than a ruin and as a result, vehicles can't contest them as they can't drive onto a ceiling. Wasn't a problem before, is now, source of the problem: not using the advised layout/terrain.

 

It's worth remembering the terrain maps are also now the objective layouts for the missions, so depending how far you deviate from the terrain maps it gets odd.

 

If you're with like minded people who will basically play house rule 40k great, if not be ready to play on the same "advised" layouts with the same "advised" terrain pieces every game.

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

So how did everyone set up terrain before? We just used to throw some terrain down to get something fun with a vague notion that too much terrain favoured assault and too little favoured shooting.

We did each player alternates putting terrain down, no doubling up or more in one quarter until all four quarters have a piece of terrain. Then roll scatter die and d6 for each terrain piece. Then roll to pick a deployment zone.

[phandaal]

3 hours ago, Karhedron said:

So how did everyone set up terrain before? We just used to throw some terrain down to get something fun with a vague notion that too much terrain favoured assault and too little favoured shooting.

 

Pretty much. Mainly, it should look cool when fully set up. 

[Lexington]

6 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Brief example, if your objective is now a building rather than a ruin and as a result, vehicles can't contest them as they can't drive onto a ceiling. Wasn't a problem before, is now, source of the problem: not using the advised layout/terrain.

 

It's worth remembering the terrain maps are also now the objective layouts for the missions, so depending how far you deviate from the terrain maps it gets odd.

 

I mean, yeah, if you're not familiar with the game you're playing before setting up your table, it's probably not going to work out like you want, but this seems like less of a recommendation for pre-made terrain layouts than it does for...reading the rulebook?

[Karhedron]

6 hours ago, jaxom said:

We did each player alternates putting terrain down, no doubling up or more in one quarter until all four quarters have a piece of terrain. Then roll scatter die and d6 for each terrain piece. Then roll to pick a deployment zone.

 

That's cool. I hadn't heard that method before but I am tempted to try it. 

[Karhedron]

7 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Yeah sure, I won't dragged it up again, it's just very possible the further you stray from the prescribed the less well the game works and some abilities/points/rules will not work as intended.

 

I agree but that was always the case. The problem before was that we didn't know what the correct/intended level of terrain was. Now at least we know what level of terrain GW balances units around. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Karhedron

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

I agree but that was always the case. The problem before was that we didn't know what the correct/intended level of terrain was. Now at least we know what level of terrain GW balances units around. 

 

They've often said "roughly 25%" in previous editions and they've had event terrain layouts for 9th/10th. 8th was the wild west a bit, but there's been a loose guideline for a while. That said GWs main objective was narrative/fun for most of it.

 

2 hours ago, Lexington said:

 

I mean, yeah, if you're not familiar with the game you're playing before setting up your table, it's probably not going to work out like you want, but this seems like less of a recommendation for pre-made terrain layouts than it does for...reading the rulebook?

 

I don't think the rulebook says "don't use the fronteris terrain we sell", or is that not what you mean?

[conscriptboris]

Im not sure why, but this will be the1st edition I dont buy since 2nd edition.

 

Ive always been a lore based player (thematic campaigns, converted armies, themed missions and terrain). This could just be a continuation of my disdain for Primaris and the Lazy advancing Lore arc. Which deletes 35 plus years of established lore on the tabletop.

 

But, the boxset looks good.