Ruins and Visibility Rules Clarification

[MagnusTheThicc]

Personally, I really liked the Jordan and Kevin tables. I found the cat and mouse game of tactics involved with so much LoS blocking cover really engaging whether a shooting or melee focused army. Really encouraging the use of effective screen units and proper positioning while trying to bait out the opposition for the right time to counter expose your big shooters and take advantage of firing lanes, instead of just blasting away from your deployment zone free of charge.

That being said, I could see how at the lighter tournaments like crusade or santa's with the emphasis on a bit more of the cheeky flavor lists/missions could see a compromise to the more accustomed thematic table design.

[Jack Shrapnel]

I don't believe any tables were "planet bowling ball" with no LOS blocking terrain, ruins etc. Since having the more terrain at Nexus (thanks again Cory) we haven't had that issue in a very long time.

I understand that there are a few people who prefer GW layout, or the WTC layout and as I've said before, that seems to be the people who (from who has commented on this thread) generally end up in the top five of most tournaments.

I know that perhaps the way I design tournaments at Nexus, including how terrain is done (more narratively) runs counter to the "competitive experience" that some people prefer. There was a time that tournaments were run solely that way in the past before I took over the T.O. role at Nexus (more competitive minded). For those with long memories, that way of doing things unfortunately led to a situation that resulted in a decimation of the 40k community locally whereas we couldn't even have enough people to run a tourney.

For those with shorter memories you may remember a couple other game systems which had a decent following at Nexus, went very competitive, and completely gutted their communities. (I'm sure Mike who was saddled with a LOT of stock no one then wanted remembers this well).

I'm not saying that any one decision surrounding terrain, missions, tourney structure, prizing etc. led to that situation with 40k. From what I've gathered it was a combination of several of those things together. This is not to disparage those who ran the tournies before, I played in them and I enjoyed them and it really taught me how to play, better my painting etc. and I have respect and thankfulness towards them.

I put things in a different direction intentionally based on a successful tournament I attended that ran in several cities in Canada. They took a very different approach to prizes, terrain, missions and overall style of tournaments that spoke to me.

You see, when I was part of the "competitive" mindset, I played competitively, and frankly didn't much enjoy the player I was turning into. Where winning was the most important thing. It's one of the things I still have to watch I don't fall into again.

So I took this approach from those tournaments, put it in place here (we were starting from pretty much nothing, so there was nothing to lose trying something different) and it worked well. Aside from the Covid kick every community got, we were going pretty strong ever since.

I am NOT saying that the way I run things is the best way, or the only way. It's just the way that tends to make the most people locally happy, from what I've observed. It's based on the majority of attendees having the most fun, getting the chances at the best prizes same as everyone else and everyone being at least able to have a tourney experience they enjoy.

So what is this all leading to? TL/DR as it were?

My hesitation to go that more "competitive" route with tourney structure, terrain, missions, prizes, chess clocks, etc. is based around wanting to have my tournaments be an inclusive experience that caters to the majority, not just those who podium. I am again NOT saying that how I do things is the best way, and I'm sure there's lots of room for improvement, and I'm certainly not advocating for any tables with not enough terrain on them. Just wanted to throw out my perspective so you don't think I'm just resistant to an idea without putting thought into it first.

[Typhus]

Sept 12, 2024 19:45:05 GMT -5 Jack Shrapnel said:

My hesitation to go that more "competitive" route with tourney structure, terrain, missions, prizes, chess clocks, etc. is based around wanting to have my tournaments be an inclusive experience that caters to the majority, not just those who podium. I am again NOT saying that how I do things is the best way, and I'm sure there's lots of room for improvement, and I'm certainly not advocating for any tables with not enough terrain on them. Just wanted to throw out my perspective so you don't think I'm just resistant to an idea without putting thought into it first.

I don't claim to be a monolith for the community, or even for the more competitive subset of the community, but I think we'd all agree you're doing a great job.

As I said before, I'll echo again - I think a mix of GW/WTC/Nexus tables is a good thing for variety. Basically, what we're doing now. I think it would be extremely hyperbolic and unfair to call any of the tables from the Teams tournament "Planet Bowling Ball" even if they were a bit sparser than official layouts.

I think Rick (Magnus) also hit the nail on the head when he said these kinds of tables would be completely out of place at Great Crusade or especially Secret Santa.

[distractedcarnifex]

Sept 12, 2024 19:45:05 GMT -5 Jack Shrapnel said:

I don't believe any tables were "planet bowling ball" with no LOS blocking terrain, ruins etc. Since having the more terrain at Nexus (thanks again Cory) we haven't had that issue in a very long time.

I understand that there are a few people who prefer GW layout, or the WTC layout and as I've said before, that seems to be the people who (from who has commented on this thread) generally end up in the top five of most tournaments.

I know that perhaps the way I design tournaments at Nexus, including how terrain is done (more narratively) runs counter to the "competitive experience" that some people prefer. There was a time that tournaments were run solely that way in the past before I took over the T.O. role at Nexus (more competitive minded). For those with long memories, that way of doing things unfortunately led to a situation that resulted in a decimation of the 40k community locally whereas we couldn't even have enough people to run a tourney.

For those with shorter memories you may remember a couple other game systems which had a decent following at Nexus, went very competitive, and completely gutted their communities. (I'm sure Mike who was saddled with a LOT of stock no one then wanted remembers this well).

I'm not saying that any one decision surrounding terrain, missions, tourney structure, prizing etc. led to that situation with 40k. From what I've gathered it was a combination of several of those things together. This is not to disparage those who ran the tournies before, I played in them and I enjoyed them and it really taught me how to play, better my painting etc. and I have respect and thankfulness towards them.

I put things in a different direction intentionally based on a successful tournament I attended that ran in several cities in Canada. They took a very different approach to prizes, terrain, missions and overall style of tournaments that spoke to me.

You see, when I was part of the "competitive" mindset, I played competitively, and frankly didn't much enjoy the player I was turning into. Where winning was the most important thing. It's one of the things I still have to watch I don't fall into again.

So I took this approach from those tournaments, put it in place here (we were starting from pretty much nothing, so there was nothing to lose trying something different) and it worked well. Aside from the Covid kick every community got, we were going pretty strong ever since.

I am NOT saying that the way I run things is the best way, or the only way. It's just the way that tends to make the most people locally happy, from what I've observed. It's based on the majority of attendees having the most fun, getting the chances at the best prizes same as everyone else and everyone being at least able to have a tourney experience they enjoy.

So what is this all leading to? TL/DR as it were?

My hesitation to go that more "competitive" route with tourney structure, terrain, missions, prizes, chess clocks, etc. is based around wanting to have my tournaments be an inclusive experience that caters to the majority, not just those who podium. I am again NOT saying that how I do things is the best way, and I'm sure there's lots of room for improvement, and I'm certainly not advocating for any tables with not enough terrain on them. Just wanted to throw out my perspective so you don't think I'm just resistant to an idea without putting thought into it first.

This is why we have a community.

[cmcd]

My only issue with terrain layout is that it seems for simplicity everything is a ruin. I like variety. I am making a table for clubs and I am painting the base in different colours to define what is what. IMO things like walls and battlefield debris shouldn’t be used as ruins. IAW the rules in 44-48 of the core rules. Even states in the Pariah Nexus tournament companion to ". Players must use the rules for terrain features detailed in the Core Rules" and "For organizers and players with a more robust terrain collection (especially elements that block true line of sight), incorporating features such as Woods, Barricades and Hills into your chosen layouts is perfectly acceptable"

I like the Tournament layouts in that when placing objectives you don't have to reposition the terrain. but i am against that both sides are symmetrical. I get it. Even play. But i feel it takes away from choosing Defender or Attacker. My Clubs terrain will be symmetrical. Just because its my preference it shouldn't make other peoples lives harder.